The theme for last week, 2019 June 2-8, is building and maintaining Masculine Frame.
New Manosphere Blog: Florida Life (M. J. Davis)
J. Davis, of Doing Marriage Right fame, decided to take his Red Pill blogging ministry to younger married men on a new direction. So he has closed down his old site, and started a new blog, Florida Life. He has detailed his rationale for this decision in his first post, A New Start (2019 June 3).
Davis started things off right with a post entitled, Victim Mentality is Toxic to Your Success (2019 June 8)
“Accepting the only person you can control is the man in the mirror will go a long way in you realizing you are not a victim. You cannot control your wife, your boss, your parents, not even your kids. We all make our own decisions and are held accountable for them (at least we should be). You cannot change other people. You can guide them, suggest, lead by example, but it is up to them to decide whether or not they will follow. All you can do is make yourself the best leader you can. It may take years of work if you have been living a substandard life. Some may never follow. You cannot control that. Just understand that them not following does not make you a victim.”
Snapper’s post gets the Golden Sigma Award™ (GΣA) this week for his profound insights on the true nature of Feminism.
“In feminism women are not the chattel of a single man but the chattel of an entire network of men bent on using women as a voting bloc to garner themselves control. See, women live longer than men and there are more women than men out there. To a politician it makes perfect sense to gain control of women by “allowing” them to vote because women make up a larger percent of the population. Control the larger percentage and you can control elections. Control elections and you can control the elements of society and culture. Women also make up the majority of money SPENDERS in the West while men make up the majority of money EARNERS. So control women and you can control where money goes as well. This control is easily achieved by creating women-only benefits like VAWA, no-fault divorce, welfare and easy abortion.”
“You see, ladies, you ARE kept! You think feminism frees you but feminism is just another name for a chain of control. In return for your servitude you aren’t given anything, the government just says it will look the other way when you have done something wrong or stupid allowing you to think you are free from the consequences of your actions when, in fact, you are not!”
“You’re not baby factories anymore, you’re VOTE factories!”
“Feminism is no freedom from tyranny, it is merely trading one supposed tyranny for true tyranny! The tyranny feminists think they are being freed from are named RESPONSIBILITY and CONSEQUENCE. They do not, in fact, escape these at all, but trade their freedom to a true tyrant who simply removes RESPONSIBILITY and delays CONSEQUENCE until there is no opportunity to change one by taking the other.”
Just underlying Snapper’s argument, we find the main tenets of Jack’s Law of Feminism.
“Feminism is the assertion and justification of women’s rejection of male authority in favor of an institutionalized social ontology which is dictated by the Feminine Imperative.”
* Reblogged by Free Matt Podcast.
The author discusses how the proper Frame depends on the context. When the context is sufficiently incoherent with the Frame, in regards to the truth of a matter, it results in three outcomes.
- Cognitive Dissonance
A mastery of Frame control requires one to identify when a given Frame is incoherent with the context, and use this knowledge adroitly.
The author mentions a couple applications of Frame control relevant to argumentation and trans-Feminism.
“…sufficiently complicated arguments can confuse non-experts even when they are totally irrelevant.* Switching levels on someone is a fast and easy way to confuse them, especially if you have studied the subject more than they have.
People do this when they want a particular outcome, usually political. For example, people who want to promote trans rights will recount an array of technical, medical intersex conditions in order to claim that the biological categories of “male” and “female” don’t exist. Of course, the biological categories of “male” and “female” do exist, as do people with rare genetic disorders; the one does not disprove the other, and neither tells you what to do about anything trans-related.
I feel like there needs to be some efficient (and recognized) way of saying, “Yes, this is true, but on a different level from the one I am addressing. At the level I am addressing, this is false.”
* Related: Slate Star Codex (feat. Scott Alexander): Getting Eulered (2014 August 10)
Also, the Excentric Frame Award™ (AKA the BOOby prize) for this week goes to Evolutionist X for their imaginative thought experiment, A short argument for vending machines full of experimental drugs (2019 June 5).
“…illegal drugs are optimized for being highly addictive, yes, but also for working really well. And through trial and error, people have figured out how much they need, how best to take it, and how often for the optimal effects.
In other words, simply letting lots of people mess around with drugs results in really effective drugs.
The downside to the black-free-market refinement of drugs is that lots of people die in the process.”
I see another evolutionary biology argument burgeoning here, similar to “abortion thins out the genetic stock of those women willing to eliminate their own progeny.”
In this long, cultural reframe, BGR examines several possibilities with supportive arguments. It’s quite inspirational to read.
- Why Modern Society Disapproves of the Pubescent Marriage of Women
- Putting Maternal and Infant Mortality Rates in Perspective
- The Societal Impact of Economic and Social Independence for Women
- The Arguments Against the Marriage of Pubescent Women Are Faulty
- Why We Should Support the Practice of Pubescent Marriage
- Early Teen Women Are Very Fertile
- Early Teen Women Are More Moldable
On that last point, last year, J.T. Anderson (of Saving Eve) and I did a study of “Wife Moulding” as a sub-topic of my writing project on “Discipline in Marriage“.
We found that ideally, “wife moulding” should begin at an early age by the father, and the sooner the husband takes over, the better. However, the current culture encourages women to have a long period of independence between living at home with her father and being married. This “season of singleness” for “finding herself” is catastrophic to the stability of marriage.
Moreover, the whole topic of “wife moulding” is anathema to the philosophical foundations of feminism for several reasons.
- It presumes that men and women are not fundamentally equal.
- It presumes that women are not independent, nor should they be.
- It presumes that women do not have free moral agency, but are subject to the decisions of men (father and husband).
- It assumes that men have authority over women.
- It posits that men determine a woman’s life course and purpose for living.
In the same post, BGR also entertains some rebuttals from Susan Titkemeyer, a writer at Patheos. Titkemeyer tried to round me down once on the topic of promiscuity in the Church. I’m surprised that my writings about Marital Discipline haven’t gotten any kickback (yet) from authors like Titkemeyer. I think this is because women know, deep in their hearts, that they are happier and better off with a man at the helm. It’s no secret that women constantly fantasize about being “ruled over” by a handsome, powerful, loving man, but they’re too proud to admit it. I covered this phenomenon under several posts listed in the second link above.
Update: Since writing the above comments under the OP at BGR two days ago, Σ Frame has received 150+ referrals (and counting) from BGR. Marital Discipline and Wife Moulding were hot topics at the time I studied them last year, but this traffic indicates that the demand for this knowledge and the related skill set has continued to grow.
Runner up for the GΣA, J.M. Smith, supports the admission of anecdotal evidence, provided that the information is diligently and faithfully interpolated (to alter something by insertion or addition) into one’s world view.
“Your fundamental understanding of the world matures and develops when you interpolate new data, and much of this new data comes to you in the form of anecdotes.”
Learning is the process of doing the hard psychological work required to fit a new piece of information into the complex interpretation of reality that one presently holds.
“Every anecdote is not what my epigraph calls a “wicked anecdote,” for I may share with you some private intelligence that improves your opinion of a man, or a place, or an activity. But every true anecdote is potentially disruptive because it will add to your understanding if you are not resolved to remain a simpleton, and will take the trouble to add it to the stock of what you know. The anecdote may be a “wicked anecdote” that explodes an innocent illusion, or it may be a generous anecdote that adds color and depth to what you already know, but true anecdotes should be interpolated, and should not be brushed off as merely “anecdotal evidence”.”
Learning is difficult because whenever a contradiction arises, you have to make critical decisions about what is true, and what your false notions are, and change your beliefs and thought processes accordingly.
Second runner up for the GΣA, Illuvitus, is becoming a Master of Frame regulation. The next and final challenge is to be able to do this in situ.
“When you encounter a command in Scripture that you don’t like, you have a few options available to you. You can reject it, accept it, or take a more creative approach and impose a new meaning on it.”
“A feminist, thoroughly imbibing on Marxist toxin, doesn’t like the passages in Scripture that contradict feminism and all his pet liberal causes, so he imposes new meaning on them. At least in this instance, his motive is clearly stated:
“Unfortunately, since many of the dominant voices throughout church history, have been straight, white, males, this has meant that the church has been slow in pushing past the flimsy exegesis, and damaging assumptions of our past. […]
Instead of being the sexist, misogynist many have taken him for, I believe that Paul brings the challenge of feminism to the Church.”
It’s worth remembering that if this is true, 2000 years of Christians were women-hating, racist, homophobic, sexists who couldn’t understand Paul. It took secular anti-Christian feminist and sexual revolutions to get the church to finally see the light. Paul was, in his mind, obviously a far-left radical.
What I’d prefer, though, is for those who think all of these things to stop reinterpreting Paul and just say what they really think: Paul was wrong. Honesty is much better than manipulation.”
That would be nice, but that level of self-awareness and honesty won’t be found in someone who is denying the truth of scripture.
Ed Hurst is writing a series of posts about how to develop and maintain faith in the Lord God. I like Ed’s perspectives, because he comes at it from the ground up – the subjective “journeyman’s” experience – which is a view of the Truth you’ll never hear from any Western pulpit. This particular post spoke to my heart about what God requires of us, and what He doesn’t.
“In order to breathe life into your communion with Christ, you must start that long journey of conditioning your mind to think in a biblical frame of reference. Don’t plan on arriving at some destination; explore the territory and discover the delights of God long hidden from you by your own sin nature.”
Ed’s words resonate with something one of my college professors (who was a devout believer) used to repeat to the students he was closest to, “Life is a journey, a process, not a goal or destination.”
“Clearly that’s not just mechanical obedience. Such is not a bad place to be, if you don’t mind being treated as a slave or servant in God’s household. But real authority is vested only in the divine family. Your authority over Satan rests on a child’s delight in the Father. The Father reciprocates that delight. He is not a legalist as the Talmud alleges, but it is all very personal and full of favoritism. It takes a lot willful disobedience to irritate God enough to be turned over to Satan. That shouldn’t encourage you to push your luck, so to speak, but should make you feel safe when you inevitably miscalculate in your obedience. It’s not a question of performance, but a heart-led desire to please Him.”
A question to ponder: How does one become God’s “favorite”? Read on for some clues.
“The whole idea is that you learn to identify with God and His agenda. It sounds slavish to our Western ears, but this is how reality actually works. Satan is no legalist, either, but he does like making us think legalistically. That’s where he makes the most profit from us.”
I’ve always felt at a loss for the knowledge of how God really operates. From reading Ed’s posts, I’ve come to understand that the Western culture of my origin has formed in my mind certain methods and expectations that do not correlate with the way God actually works.
Because of the Ancient Near East culture shock, Ed writes using many parabolic illustrations, which require extensive immersion to fully appreciate. He offers further clarification of his views in a following post, Radix Fidem Curriculum: It’s Personal (2019 June 8).
“We should be eager for divine justice. Even when it means our own punishment, we are eager to see justice live on this earth. We live in a fallen existence and perfection is simply impossible, but the wrath of God is the same grace for us as the blessings. Indeed, for us it’s all the same. We are driven to see justice as its own reward and don’t fear the loss of anything we have here, least of all our lives. […]”
I believe one of the best ways to tell whether a person is a true believer or not, is whether they are afraid of God’s justice, or they welcome it.
“So we are quick to call for God to visit, to bring His wrath and His rewards. It’s all the same to us. We aren’t counting the personal costs because none of it will follow us into eternity. It’s all just a tool for His glory.
It’s personal, not mechanical. This is one of the hardest things for a Western mind to absorb: Everything is personal. Nothing is impersonal; objectivity is a myth. In God’s eyes, everything in this world belongs to some person. Someone is accountable to Him for everything. Since the only way to avoid the worst misery of God’s wrath is to keep it friendly and bold with Him, we seize our own culpability for failure. We openly confess our failures and request His power to correct our flaws. This ameliorates the Curse of the Fall for us, and the Father treats us favorably. That includes natural consequences. We submit willingly to whatever comes with that package.”
This is relatively easier to do with God, but it’s hard and risky to let other people in on the real deal — people Ed refers to as “slaves” (believers subject to a legalistic conscience), or “cattle” (unbelievers).
“But we know that the slaves in His Creation are not so fortunate. They have long striven to depersonalize everything and remove themselves from responsibility. […] We aren’t vindictive in holding people accountable to our personal sense of disappointment, but we do try to step back and let God’s justice work in their lives. And if it doesn’t come out like we expect, we accept what God does and move on with the mission. We don’t pretend to know all the private counsel of the Father in dealing with the cattle in His herds.”
God knows what He’s doing, whether you do or not, and whether you like it or not.
“We certainly can and should know His will for us individually. We know that we must keep an awareness of personal responsibility over everything God puts in our hands. We can and should know when a tool has outlived its usefulness in our mission, and let it go. […]”
A question to ponder: How well acquainted are you with God’s will for your life?
Zlotybaby offers a lot of insight as to why some relationships start off with a bang, and suddenly end with being ghosted.
“As a rule, a person looking for a full-time, all-involving romance is looking for a distraction because they’re not happy with where they’re at. That means that if a guy sees you for the first time on Monday and wants to see you on Tuesday and Wednesday too it’s not because you’re so amazing. Sure he must like you but he’s mainly trying to fill the void. Similarly, if a girl is always available to meet you, I’m smelling trouble.
There can be two main reasons why a person could be so available. Option 1 is that they literally have no life. Maybe they have a job but as a Billy No Mates have no friends, maybe they have no interests, maybe they don’t even work. In any case, a LOT of free time is a red flag.
Option 2 is that they don’t have a lot of free time but they’re ditching everything for you. While everyone will understand occasional flaking on a friend when you’ve started seeing a really cool person, a drastic change of plans for someone you’ve just met is a bad sign. It may be an indicator of low self-esteem or simply a lack of relationship maturity of someone who thinks that it’s healthy to let a partner be literally their everything.”
“[…] If they want you around all the time instantly, it’s not about you being amazing, it’s about them trying to ground themselves by entering a relationship ASAP.”
“[…] if you’re worried that saying “no” to them may mean the end of it you may be right. Isn’t it proof though that it’s ultimately not about you, or even the connection between the two of you but about them desperately looking for something? […]”
Having this insight can help a person keep things in perspective when considering a potential relationship that starts up “hot and bothered” (British), or “hot and heavy” (American; entendre intended).
Sharkly has only been blogging for a month, and married women have started contacting him for “spiritual consultation”. Sharkly smartly responds by quoting 1st Corinthians 14:35, “If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home.” He explains,
“In my mind it would be insulting and create distance to ask a husband for guidance, and then do something else, after he gave his plan. And going to other men for spiritual headship, is just two-timing a woman’s own head. I wouldn’t advise it, unless her husband has clearly and repeatedly refused to give her any guidance on the matter after she has asked him for it clearly and she has conveyed to him sincerely that she intends to follow his advice, so long as he does not guide her into a greater sin than her failure to submit.”
Women often worry that their husbands might ask them to do something “sinful”, never realizing that their true sin lies in their doubts and suspicions of their husbands’ motivations, and the pride that prevents them from listening and submitting to him as his wife. Ultimately, by refusing to trust their husbands, they are refusing to trust God to work through their husbands’ leadership.
“Some husbands may have become hesitant to give their wives spiritual direction, knowing she’ll just openly defy them, thereby putting them to shame, or worse, submit herself to some other man’s spiritual direction.”
Most women are too proud, vain, egotistical, distrustful, or foolish to talk to their husbands openly and get to know their minds. So they definitely won’t ask their husbands for what they want/need/expect. In fact, women will talk to everyone (and their handsome brother) EXCEPT that one person who can change their circumstances.
“[These] women are squandering a chance to have more unity in their homes, by finding out what their husbands’ spiritual desires are, and then indulging them; a chance to motivate their husbands to exercise more spiritual leadership; and a chance to build closer spiritual intimacy with their husbands.”
I think it’s acceptable to answer some of their questions in a post (using pseudonyms of course), but in general, Sharkly’s approach is right on! We should keep the private communications to a minimum, out of respect to God’s power working through their husbands. Sharkly added,
“They’ve got an opportunity to build together, but they’d rather get some other man’s opinion on where the bricks her husband has just laid, should really go, and then they take their husband’s brickwork back apart based upon some second opinion from somebody who has no clue what the husband is even building. I don’t doubt some of these ladies would ‘shit a brick’ if their husbands were alerted to what they were up to, behind their backs.”
Secrecy can also be an idol, you know.
“I can only imagine that church leaders must get this all the time also. I doubt too many of them respond by trying to reinforce the husband’s headship over his wife. I bet they use the opportunity to AMOG, and join in the second guessing, without ever redirecting the wife back to the husband.”
Been there, experienced that… Pastors and Christian counselors tearing down the authority of the husband over his home and marriage, and daftly believing they’re contributing something good to the Kingdom… It’s absolutely inane.
“I believe among the ancient idolaters the husband would always function as the family’s priest. Sadly, even the idolaters of eons ago, could teach our Feminist churches wisdom about family roles and values.”
Finally, a most satisfying read from J. P. Wilkinson about the present State of the Union.
“The Duke of Wellington had a telling quote after his civilization-altering victory over Napoleon at Waterloo. “The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.” What he meant by that was something far beyond a condign and fitting tribute to the positive socialization that occurs through school athletics. A hard upbringing led to hard men. Wellington’s hard men sliced and diced the French under Bonaparte. Wellington was telling us that men are not born capable of defending hearth and home. They are honed and steeled to be capable of such a task.
Wellington also said of his army the following: The scum of the earth… but what fine soldiers we have made them. […]”
“… when you allow your men to atrophy; your civilization is a joke that nobody continues to find funny. You then die.
So look at the civilization around you. Do you see enough toxic masculinity to have a prayer of a successful D-Day Invasion? If not, take an interest in your male children and do something about this. If you do not have a prayer of being able to execute D-Day, you may not have too much of a prayer. This is what your boys may one day have to be capable of.”
As the saying goes… Soft times breed soft men. Soft men bring hard times. Hard times create hard men. Hard men enjoy soft times. We’re approaching the third season.
Freeze Frame transmission concluded.