Sigh. So Dalrock really has it out for Mary Kassian and has yet another post called, “Guarding her Equality.” I must say, the more I read of this woman, the more I find myself pleased with what she is saying. It really is a shame that whenever Christian women teach something lovely about marriage, something scriptural, they often come under attack by those I call Orcs.
So Dal-Orc appears to have now declared war on complementarians on account of the fact that it is a marriage system “too equal,” that perceives women as actual people who exist in symbiosis with men. It is hard to mistake what the man is actually saying since he has gone and doubled down on the dumb half a dozen times here.
I must say however, that Mary Kassian once again nails it. Happy, healthy marriages are those were women feel cherished, delighted in, and so women have no need to constantly compete for equality. She speaks of how good husbands guard your equality and says, “I am left with the impression that he regards my desires and interests as more important than his own, and I feel cherished.”
Hallelejuah! Amen. All in good fun here, but who wants “equality” when you can have protected, cherished, and delighted in? A marriage were two people regard the other’s desires and interests as more important than your own, kind of captures the nature and essence of sacrifical love. Like it or not, having a family requires a lot of service and sacrifice. One thing that really helps wives to feel loved is when we know we are heard, ie, our desires and interests actually matter to you. A marriage where a husband displays he has absolutely no interest in your needs, wants, and desires can be very painful for women, it is blatent evidence of contempt.
When one is perceived as an object of contempt, inferior, not worth listening too, it tends to cause depression, and if one is smart, eventual defiance and anger. Women begin to fight for “equality” becasue we have been devalued, dismissed, demeaned. No one fights for equality becasue they have been too cherished, too valued, too heard.
Dalrock’s main objection here is that he wants to blame feminism on women’s alleged rebellion, our innately sinful ways that supposedly exist completely in a vacuum, outside the context of men. There was just this mysterious void one day, all these perfect men in the world treating women ever so kindly, when suddenly female rebellion just sprung forth. Baloney. Men and women exist in symbiosis with one another. Rebellious and defiant women are not born, they are made. That rankles I’m sure, becasue it implies that the male gender bears some responsibility for what has been created in the world.
With responsibity comes authority. Those who cannot take responsibility are condemned to spend their days trying to tear down their Christian sisters who are actually doing something productive in the world. It is false to promote the idea that authority is about trying to make others feel small, so that in comparision your pathetic little self won’t feel so threatened. One does not build oneself up by trying to pluck the jewels out of someone else’s crown.
Sanne said:
The main problem with his whole theory is that there wasn’t any “female rebellion”. Modern feminism is the result of deliberate political reforms which were undertaken by men, as I have documented numerous times on my blog. But what do you expect? When there was the shooting in Orlando his commenters said that it happened because police were too busy investigating fake domestic violence calls and whiteknighting for women because Female Imperative! Or something to the point…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric said:
They have an obsession with this concept of ‘rebellion’ although they never really define what it means. In the last post about Mary Kassian, some of his commenters were infuriated at the idea that a wife should object to being locked out of her own house,
On this post, one of his brilliant commenters noted: “Marriage is a burden to men and always has been. The purpose of a wife who submits is to ease his burden so that he can concentrate on more important things…Submit or use the door.”
Another: “Eve was walking around in the Garden of Eden. Best thing for a rebellious woman is to be left out in the cold on her own. Make sure she knows that you don’t care if a rebellious woman dies a suffering death. Problem fixed.”
Let’s hope that’s Manly Alpha Leadership enough! lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
"A" dad said:
Memi, I hope we can lead a movement to drop “egalitarian and complementarian” as marital terms.
Obeidant and disobediant are the better terms for Word grounded people in all areas.
They are also appropriate, as for instance, it is not disobediant for me to have a drink,
whereas it might be disobediant for someone with a drinking problem to have a drink.
If a husband is “lording it over his wife”, he is not being obediant.
If a wife is not respecting her husband, she is not being obediant.
In any case, my view is that the Bill Clintons, and Hugh Hefners and Jon Edwards and Jim Bakers of the world are the principal cause of feminism, and the feminists and stand-up guys suffer the most for the ills of feminism.
On the plus side, thoughtful blogs help to take the “double” off the dumb, and hopefully the “dumb” off the dumb after that!
; – )
LikeLiked by 1 person
emilyy96 said:
In the Bible it is understood that love of one’s wife and submission to the husband go hand in hand, and that’s all Mary Kassian was saying – basically. Only a misogynist would have a problem with what she was saying there. Oh right, that’s Dalrock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Very true, Emily. You know what draws me to Christ over and over again? His love, His grace, His mercy. We submit when we are confronted by such love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul said:
I believe it was Jung who described a good relationship as being like a cup of tea. The partners automatically either held or filled the other, sometimes being the cup and sometimes the filling and vice versa. Without the cup, the tea would be there but not drinkable – read unable to be accessed by or to access the world – and without the tea, the cup would have huge holding potential but would not be usable, it would grow dusty on the shelf. The beauty of this image is that the partners each spend part of the time in each state. Similar to Christ’s comment : If cool water did not quench your thirst, how would you quench it? Or: If not for salt, how would you season your food (remember in those days in that part of the world salt was a very valuable commodity)? The thrust being that humans and water exist for each other as do salt and food. Cup and tea.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Ahh, lovely, Paul! That’s what we need in the world a bit more elegance.
LikeLiked by 1 person