Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Why the hyperbole?

For the last eight years the majority of my life has had to do with the Army. We've lived in Army housing, have had the military's medical care, shopped at our Post's commissary and Exchange, frequented the Post's gym, and our children have taken part in many sporting activities offered by the Post's Moral Welfare and Recreation program. For all of these things, my identity is "Dependent of RLB." My identification card is required for all of these things and more. It is his social security number that grants me access. My behavior and actions for the last eight years can directly affect his employment either positively or negatively. Should I do anything illegal, he is held responsible, to include reduction in pay or rank and the loss of his security clearance. If my spending gets out of control and I harm our financial stability he can be subject to disciplinary action. I am his responsibility.

I don't object to any of this, it makes complete sense to me. But I am a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God. In that Bible are many verses that declare the same, I am his responsibility.

We see an example of this when Sarah was in her tent laughing at the thought of bearing a child. Imagine that. God's talking to your husband and you are rolling your eyes laughing at what He's saying is going to happen. SARAH!!! He was talking to GOD! Now, I've got to believe this was a bit embarrassing to Abraham when the following happened: 
And the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Shall I surely bear a child, since I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.”
But Sarah denied it, saying, “I did not laugh,” for she was afraid.
And He said, “No, but you did laugh!” - Genesis 18:13-15
Who among you Christian wives would not have gotten a pretty stern talking to later on from your husbands? It's one thing when we are being rebellious twits in the privacy of our own home, it's very ill advised to ever do so in public, but to do so when GOD is talking to our husband? That's a whole different level of disrespect.

Or is it? Tell me when God doesn't know you've laughed, tell me when He doesn't know when your eyes are rolling and you're giving your husband a derisive look. Should He be interested to, who would God ask about this behavior of yours? God was not asking Abraham something He did not know, His question to Abraham was His holding Abraham to account for his wife.

And let's not forget the disciplinary action a wife's behavior can bring upon her husband:
17Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.” -
Genesis 3:17-19
So the other day it was completely natural for me to "Amen" Ton's sentiment that he left on Sunshine Mary's blog
The more I think about these things, the more convinced I am woman are not moral agents and should be returned to the legal position of property, either their fathers, or closest male blood relative or the property of their husband. Rape would then also be a crime against the property rights of the man who owns her.
I'm not emotional about it. It's something that makes complete sense to me. I live my life this way.

I absolutely love what Stingray had to say in response to Frank when he inquired:
BTW, how many single women out there are willing to be relegated to property status for the sake of a stable marriage? - Frank
Ahhhhh . . . If women would only take a moment to think about and understand how incredibly well men care for, cherish and love their property. Diapers for sports cars, anyone? - Stingray
Turns out, if you believe as I do, live your life as I do, or defend those who do, you are not welcome on Susan Walsh's blog.

I am not making any assumptions. Here is a quote from SSM’s site which nicely displays her attitudes about women, which dovetail with the Taliban:
Ton: The more I think about these things, the more convinced I am woman are not moral agents and should be returned to the legal position of property, either their fathers, or closest male blood relative or the property of their husband. Rape would then also be a crime against the property rights of the man who owns her.
Sarah’s Daughter: Amen
Sunshine Mary: [ssm: I second that amen!]
Let’s see Escoffier defend that.
Do you defend it?
(I need to know so I can ban appropriately)
In an earlier comment she refers to women like myself and SSM as self loathing. (She actually calls us "self-loathing wives of cheaters" - it is unclear why she believes me to be a wife of a cheater, but for the record, RLB has never been unfaithful to me. It hardly matters, however, her disdain for SSM having forgiven her husband is more than a little peculiar.)

My question to Susan and other women who would make such statements is, why the hyperbole?

Why say our beliefs/way we live our lives dovetail with the Taliban? They demonstrably do not.

Why not call it as it is. We live our lives in accordance with the Bible and have no qualms about it. I do not know anything about this woman or any faith or belief in God she may have, but clearly she is not interested at all in discussion with Bible believing Christian women.

Of course she knows nothing of my life and is hardly qualified to say I am self-loathing. It actually makes me chuckle. Those who know me personally know why. I'm quite positive women like this are uninterested to actually know how our life works. The unbelievable provision I enjoy, the laughter and joy in our home, the trust my husband has in me (I've held a durable power of attorney for years - you lawyerly types know what this means, especially in today's society) etc. None of this would make a bit of difference.

But for those of you who are of the opinion that my beliefs, my obedience to God's command to submit to my husband, my living life with the Bible as my moral foundation, are archaic and indicative of me being self-loathing, just say that. No need to compare my life to the Taliban. Go ahead. Call it what it is. Say what you so badly want to say. You reject biblical teaching and deny that it is the Word of God and the Truth. It's okay, what are you afraid of?


  1. Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

    ((I'm not sure how you're getting "because she disobeyed, I am punishing you" out of this passage. In fact, I would say it is clear that this is about his disobedience, not hers.))

    1. Not sure where you're getting your quote regards to her disobeyance. Either a pretty lame straw man setup or serious issues with reading comprehension. It would seem to me that Adam was punished because he white-knighted his wife in direct disobedience to the Lord's commandment regards the tree of life/knowledge. He's being punished for listening to the counsel of his wife before that of the Lord. As Abraham was called out for approbation when his rebellious wife made her disobedience to God known by her laugh. These men, in their leadership role given by God, are to pay their penance for being derelict of their duty to the will of God by not leading their wives. Away from the temptation of her desire to be in control in Adam's wife's case (Fem Imperative in action) and away from her rebelliousness to God in Sarah's.

    2. Perhaps it isn't worded as you'd like to see it but it seems to be a matter of distinction without a difference. In both cases the behavior of the wife indicated the dereliction of the husband's duties to lead their wives (his disobedience). In no way am I saying the wives weren't disobedient, they most certainly were. And that is the point of much of what I wrote. My behavior, obedient or disobedient, will reflect on my husband. Knowing this has been fundamental in my decision to obey God's commands for me in marriage.

      The command to not eat the fruit was given to Adam before Eve was created. It does not say whether God spoke to Eve personally about it. Her knowledge of this command may have only been known by what Adam told her. Yet she was so easily deceived. This gives us a window into the inherent nature of women even prior to the fall. What women reject today is that this lack of moral agency exists within them.

      When RLB said to me "You can leave, you can divorce me, but I will always pursue you. I will never stop loving you." my eyes were opened to the depth of what he was saying. He believes it is his responsibility before God to love me (instruct/admonish/love unconditionally/sacrifice/hold to our covenant etc). It was these words of his that awakened in me the pursuit of living in obedience to God's commands. RLB made it clear that this had nothing to do with me (I disgusted him at the time), it was only his understanding of God's commands for him in marriage.

      The two reciprocate so well together that the Truth of living life this way becomes so evident that any suggestion that it is off, self-loathing, or archaic becomes utter nonsense.

      As RLB has stated in his MGTOW series, he has no fear of loss of money or hurt feelings. He knows first hand what happens as a result of obeying God. He has witnessed the change that has come over me and my obedience to God.

    3. I am not sure I could say his "always pursue" part. He is better than I in that. I suspect I would be strongly tempted to be a MGTOW, even though I agree that it is not God's goal and thus would see it as sin.

      A large number of factors influence this. I care deeply about my wife and it would hurt extremely if she split, but I am also independent enough that I would almost certainly wait for her to return rather than run after her. I am walking that out with my own adult children right now.

      This may be an issue of what it means "to pursue" though. I don't see the prodigal's father pursuing the son, even though he was actively waiting for him to return.

    4. Brad,
      When RLB said that, I didn't get the impression, at all, that he'd be running after me. In fact, I was well aware that he likely wouldn't remain without companionship for long. What it meant is that he would not relent. He was never going to see things from my perspective and respect my destructive decisions (the "it was best for both of us" nonsense that we hear from divorcees). He'd always make it clear that I was in rebellion, I was wrong, and needed to repent and make things right with God. Which, necessarily would mean returning to my husband's home and resuming the role I vowed to do for the rest of my life, be his wife (and all that is commanded of that role).

  2. This post brings to mind something that I have noticed in the church. There are women who voluntarily submit to some teachings in scripture that other women do not. I’m referring to the ones who grow out their hair, always keep the head covered and refuse to wear slacks. I realize that some would say all of these things are biblically binding, while others would say not.

    It’s curious that when I’ve come across women who practice their beliefs about these teachings that other Christian’s feel it appropriate to dispute what they are doing. It’s as if anyone holding a more conservative practice makes them uncomfortable and they feel the need to put them down.

    I think the same phenomenon is taking place in your example. The question “has women being involved in politics and decision making produced a better result than if they had not?”, is one that can be answered objectively. The problem is that they don’t like the answer, or the implications. They really do think that “feelings” and “wishing” make the world a “better place”. They can’t see how much damage they have done, because they don’t believe the destruction of western civilization is a bad thing, yet.

    Every state (except one) that gave women the franchise is more liberal and less free than it was 100 years ago. It has proven to be a horrible experiment in the US. The economy is in shatters, our policy is incomprehensible, and our “wise and benevolent” females have murdered more innocents than the Nazi’s ever dreamed of killing. One of the best things we could do is disenfranchise every female in the country and return to the morals of 100 years ago. It will never happen, but if it did, everyone including the women would be happier.


  3. Am I the only one who laughed at this comment from Susan Walsh to Escoffier?
    triggered by your continual erection

    OK, I'm lowbrow I guess. heh.

    But yeah, Susan seems to take it as a personal affront that I didn't divorce HHG when he infidelities came to light. She talks about it weirdly often, and never seems to understand that it is a very powerful story about how people change when they submit to Christ. My husband and I are totally different now. He submits to Christ; I submit to him. Mrs. Walsh imagines me to be living in desperation and fear, but she does not understand how freeing it is to be a woman in a biblical marriage.

    1. She has a hedonistic focus and is thus opposed to anything related to the Gospel, including the good news that God can restore even what seems completely broken.

      Putting God into the picture is certainly the only hope for us, especially in the long run.

  4. Funny, I got into a similar issue once again over there (HUS) with another poster who kept insisting that I say that Biblical (and Catholic) teaching was all wrong. He kept posing it in a passive aggressive way, as in "Do you agree that people who do X will suffer Y?" and I would say, that's like asking "Does the law say this or that," I would quote him what it said but he kept insisting that I must disagree or else I was a "blind dogmatist." Of course, all who follow dogma are dogmatists but to this guy merely following also makes one "blind."

    The point is, he obviously does not believe but he shrinks from an honest accounting of his own unbelief. He does not want to obey any rules that irk him or limit his freedom but he also want some recourse to or solace from ... what exactly?

    I think it simply a subconscious fear to face the consequences of atheism and nihilism. The modern libertarian/libertine does not have the courage of a Machiavelli or a Nietzsche to face the full consequences of their implicit beliefs, to follow them out to their logical conclusion. They want freedom both to do as they please and also freedom from the deepest consequences of doing what they please. That is, they would admit that they are subject to the law, so no murder, theft, etc. But anything that does not draw blood or harm property is no one's business but their own.

    If one were to bluntly say--as I avoided saying but as SD has said here--"Fine, you simply don't believe," the reaction will be a swift and harsh denial, followed by an indignant rant about how you don't get to impose your religion on them, they interpret the Word differently, etc. All theological arguments about the incoherence of their position will be waived away. Because the thought that at root guides them is modern philosophy, they see the Bible only through that lens and anyone who sees it through another lens is incomprehensible to them. They view people like you (SD, SM) the way Cortez viewed the Aztecs.

    1. Hi Escoffier,
      I appreciate your weighing in on this. Your analysis is quite accurate.

      he obviously does not believe but he shrinks from an honest accounting of his own unbelief.

      This is true for so many people I know.

      They want freedom both to do as they please and also freedom from the deepest consequences of doing what they please.

      And so often we can observe the fruit of a life separated from God - confusion, irrational thinking/behavior, a lack of peace and conviction, and void of the "fruit of the Spirit."

      They view people like you (SD, SM) the way Cortez viewed the Aztecs.

      Which is odd coming from supposed highly educated individuals. Perhaps there is a difference between university education and actual historical knowledge. Then again, if you read history through a feminist lens which assumes all women who voluntarily submit to their husbands are ignorant and just too stupid to know that they're not happy, it works. Unfortunately, when one reads such fantastic writing as these lady's, one simply cannot claim they were uneducated (in 1871 if you can believe it! - sarc)

    2. See, I think it's precisely their education that is responsible. Education today--wittingly or unwittingly--is education in the principles of modernity. One of which is the primacy of "self-actualization." So, to that mindset, submission looks like slavery--which is absolutely verboten. Though, out of obeisance to multiculturalism, the modern Westerner overlooks slavery in certain cultures. What he cannot do, however, is overlook anything as "barbaric," "backward," "medieval," etc. as submission. It's not merely that it's anti-feminist. It's that it's anti-modern.

      Another core principle of modernity is "progress," what is later is better. Bible=old, feminism=new, hence feminism="progress" and has superseded the old. Since the frontiers of knowledge are always expanding (a key tenet of the modern faith) then what comes later is always better. So, you as a throwback are offensive to that paradigm.

      Finally, yes, they would insist that you don't know what is best for you, that you are unfit to judge your own good. The fact that you think you are happy proves how deluded you are because how could anyone be happy who is in rebellion against modernity? (Some, including my intrepid interlocutor over at HUS, would also call you a hypocrite, as in, "How can you use a computer and drive a car but then also reject modern 'gender roles'? This argument is manifestly stupid enough not to require refutation but if you want, I can supply one.) The Marxist term for this is "false consciousness."

    3. Of course, all who follow dogma are dogmatists but to this guy merely following also makes one "blind."

      You can be a dogmatist because you understand some of your dogma, and it is worth following.

      You can be a nearsighted dogmatist because you believe following your dogma is important, but you feel you don't need to understand it and wish to devote your attention to some other thing.

      Or you can be a completely blind dogmatist by ignoring your dogma and pretending it doesn't exist.

      I can't think of any other options.

  5. Iowahine here -

    Have forgotten how to ID myself properly. Happily, I'm finally in Honolulu and living as my husband's wife again - finally. Only read your post, SD, not the comments, but I do want to say, AMEN. While I falter frequently, I do know the more I embrace the role of Godly wife, the better we do as a couple (but even if we didn't realize an earthly reward; it is still right. God knows I need a BIG sign). Only took 24 years to get here, so do not despair - young struggling marrieds - but be encouraged, and humbled. God knows best.

    1. Good to hear from you! I'm so happy you've made your move and jealous of your new location :)

      but even if we didn't realize an earthly reward; it is still right.


    2. Thanks, SD. It's an amazing experience, being here.


  6. Education today--wittingly or unwittingly--is education in the principles of modernity. One of which is the primacy of "self-actualization."

    When I was in college in 1993 I first learned of this "self-actualization" theory. It had a very positive affect on me. I was 17 and felt very at peace with knowing I wasn't there yet. It became my pursuit and I began an honest assessment of what I truly desired in life. Being honest with myself has never been a challenge for me, I maintain an inability to be a victim because of it.

    The personal influences I had were telling me to continue college to get a degree so I could get a job. Yet when I looked around at the women in my life with degrees and jobs, they were lacking what I (and I believe everyone) was looking for - contentment, fulfillment, joy. I was not a devout Christian at the time so I actually used Maslow's assessments of self-actualization in my observations. I continued to think back to the women I knew who showed visible signs of the traits I was looking for. One was my childhood neighbor. She and her husband tended huge gardens, raised chickens, rabbits, and three fantastically successful boys. She was always home. And it was in her home where I wanted to be when I had free time. She always had a warm smile and encouragement to offer. By the time I met RLB at age 19 I was looking for a husband. I was honest with him right from the start, I wasn't very content with college and the pursuit of a career, that I desired a home and a family. I hated that my education had to be geared toward making money. I loved learning for learning's sake but was very discontent with the idea that I had to use this knowledge in exchange for provision. The examples of women I had in my life who did that were not the same as my neighbor, the warmth, kindness, and peacefulness was missing.

    Don't get me wrong, my neighbor worked hard - at home - she brought her extra vegetables and chickens to market and always taught her boys to be industrious as well. They would go golf ball diving in the river behind our property that was on a golf course and would sell the golf balls, they would pick night crawlers and sell them to anglers.

    So what is highly amusing to me is what academics and feminists would like to lean on to assert their actualized selves is the very thing I used to pursue the exact life I live. As a Bible believing Christian, Maslow's writings are unnecessary but still quite fascinating to read (Goldstein's may be as well I haven't read much of his that I remember).

    1. Interesting. I wonder if "education" isnt simply an attempt to increase the value of a women in the only way they have been taught humans have value. Either as an income producer or sexual device. Most women can never attain air brushed perfection so go for income producing, assuming the outcome will be the same.
      They then realize the mistake they have made and it leads to great pain.
      Women used to be taught that simply exhibiting what came naturally to their gender was valuable and that an excellent wife and mother was priceless. They traded this to become debt slaves to get degrees that millions have to work for people who do not now nor ever will love them and are in a situation where each day that goes by they are over priced real estate in a rapidly declining neighborhood.
      It is truly horrifying.

  7. SD, did you get my facebook message back to you awhile back? A friend told me she thought I wasnt responding, but I was and my FB showed I sent messages but she never received them. Just checking.

  8. Oh good. I just had another that didnt. I am technology krytonite lol.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.