Archive for the 'Manliness' Category

Vague accusations

A story in the news right now is that some anonymous women once accused presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexually harassing them. Herman Cain admits the existence of the past allegations and denies the allegations themselves.

My question is:  Does anyone really care? This allegation seems to me like a defective indictment that fails to allege an actual offense. It’s like, even if we assume that any of this were true, so what? So what if he did sexually harass some women? I don’t see much point in having good-looking women at your business if you can’t harass them every now and then. (But then, do we even know whether these anonymous women were attractive, and thus worth harassing?)

People keep talking about this story even though I suspect that most people do not even know what sexual harassment is. Broadly speaking, Wikipedia defines sexual harassment as “intimidation, bullying, or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors” (emphasis added). I highlight the conjunction “or” to emphasize that sexual harassment does not even necessarily include sexual solicitation. Notably, another website specifically points out that “[s]exual harassment isn’t limited to making inappropriate advances.” Rather, “harassment” can include just saying things that are “suggestive,” or making “lewd jokes,” or making “sexual gestures,” or communicating “sexual comments about appearance.” I would go out on a limb and declare that even if a person were married and did any of the aforementioned forms of harassment, it would still not actually be wrong.

As far as legality, who knows. Everything is a crime nowadays. For example, I had a bonfire at my house recently. According to Tennessee, that is illegal unless I first ask for permission from the government. Come get me, Sheriff Long!

But whatever. I guess it’s always cool when you can throw vague accusations against people without backing anything up. My whole life story.

Regarding women and work

Maybe it is just my own fault for regularly reading a blog that is obsessed with the lifestyle of womanly housewifeyness, but the supposedly “traditional” idea that women should never work has really gotten on my nerves lately. In a recent post, the blog in question cites an old movie character approvingly:

IN THE the 1931 movie “Bad Girl,” a husband reacts to his wife’s suggestion that she get a job so they can have an apartment of their own. He explodes in anger (go to minute 09:09). “My idea of a husband is a guy that looks after a wife and takes care of her… If I can’t do that, I won’t be a husband.”

This movie character’s idea is contemptible. Seriously, what idiot first thought up the idea that women should never work? “Hey guys, I have a wonderful plan to spur economic growth — Let’s keep half the population at home to loaf around all day!” A man who considers his masculinity to be dependant on his spoiling of a woman is not a natural man. Rather, he has gone the way of matriarchy. He may think that he is simply loving his wife, but he is actually worshipping a goddess.

We see the results of this goddess-worship played out today on many of these recent Housewives of ________ shows on Bravo. Women without children stay at home and gossip and leach off the productivity of others. Anyway, the Thinking Housewife does suggest one emotional reason why women should not work:

Husbands of working wives felt less adequate as family breadwinners than did husbands of housewives, and this appeared to account for their lower levels of job and life satisfaction.

Yeah, but the manly solution is to earn more yourself. The solution is not to drag your wife down to make yourself feel better. And if you do expect that specific a girl can earn more than you (and if that matters to you, which it reasonable might), then DO NOT MARRY her. Simple.

Of course, I do understand how this extreme “traditional” idea derived that women should abstain from work. Natural women will tend to have children over time. While the women are pregnant, they will become at least partly and temporarily disabled from performing strenuous work. And then once the kids are born and still young, someone will need to raise them. Having to raise the children can obviously place some limitations on women’s ability to work. But these natural limitations on women’s ability to work are no reason to prohibit women from working altogether. The correct solution is simply to discourage careerism in women, not to discourage them from making sensible efforts to stay productive. Women should focus on their family in their hearts, and value it above the idea of a career. Then the right work moves will flow from that proper attitude. Obviously, this generalization does not apply to women who plan to stay single and not have children. But most women are not like that.

But this glorification of female idleness is wrong. It is basically a joke of a position.

Proverbs 31:10-31

Who can find a capable wife?
She is far more precious than jewels.

The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will not lack anything good.

She rewards him with good, not evil,
all the days of her life.

 She selects wool and flax
and works with willing hands.

She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from far away.

She rises while it is still night
and provides food for her household
and portions for her servants.

She evaluates a field and buys it;
she plants a vineyard with her earnings.

She draws on her strength
and reveals that her arms are strong.

She sees that her profits are good,
and her lamp never goes out at night.

She extends her hands to the spinning staff,
and her hands hold the spindle.

Her hands reach out to the poor,
and she extends her hands to the needy.

She is not afraid for her household when it snows,
for all in her household are doubly clothed.

She makes her own bed coverings;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.

Her husband is known at the city gates,
where he sits among the elders of the land.

She makes and sells linen garments;
she delivers belts to the merchants.

Strength and honor are her clothing,
and she can laugh at the time to come.

She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and loving instruction is on her tongue.

She watches over the activities of her household
and is never idle.

Her sons rise up and call her blessed.
Her husband also praises her:

“Many women are capable,
but you surpass them all!”

Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting,
but a woman who fears the LORD will be praised.

Give her the reward of her labor,
and let her works praise her at the city gates.

Like I said, there are certainly some productive things that a woman can do at home. And raising children is indeed one of those productive things, which should be encouraged. And like I said, women should generally avoid careerism, because most women want to have children at some point. But I just do not like this idea that women should flatly avoid work. It is a stupid notion.

Ye are of your father the devil

I just came across this AP story about the new Alabama governor, who is a Christian and who apparently rejects the theological doctrine of universal salvation:

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley told a church crowd just moments into his new administration that those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior are not his brothers and sisters, shocking some critics who questioned Tuesday whether he can be fair to non-Christians.

“Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother,” Bentley said Monday. . . .

And no, I don’t think they’re posting this story just because it’s a slow news day. For some reason, a statement like this has actually become newsworthy in today’s society. In the modern age, the only proper belief for a person to have is that hell does not exist, that all faiths are good, that we are all brothers and God’s children, etc. You can call yourself a Christian all day long — and indeed, you probably should call yourself a Christian because it will get you more votes — but if you actually hold that Christ served a purpose by coming and sacrificing yourself, you are simply a nut.

Never mind the fact that universalism is blatant heresy.

I think it is refreshing to hear a politician preach theological truth. You may say, “Well it violates republican principles for policitians to talk about God,” but such an objection would be silly and hypocritical. Politicians talk about God all the time. For example, even Barack Obama himself quoted from the Bible during his “memorial” speech last week for the victims of the Tucson shooting. And he has made other comments, too, such as that Muslim prayer calls are beautiful, that he is part-Christian-part-Muslim-part-Hindu-etc., and that he prays to himself in his own thoughts. Even the supposedly conservative, supposedly Christian George W. Bush eventually started conceding to reporters that people of all faiths can get to heaven, and that Jesus is just one possible way to salvation. (Of course, if that were true, then what would really be the point of Jesus or Christianity?)

The Anti-Defamation League on Tuesday called Bentley’s remarks shocking. “His comments are not only offensive, but also raise serious questions as to whether non-Christians can expect to receive equal treatment during his tenure as governor,” said Bill Nigut, the ADL’s regional director.

Politicians are allowed to talk about religion all day long and no one cares. That is, they are allowed to say false things about religion all day long, and no one cares. People only get upset if politicians make true statements about God, such implications that God sends people to hell if they disbelieve in Jesus.

Personally, I like what the Alabama governor said.  And the reason I approve of his statement is not that I think politicians will be much help in evangelizing the lost. Rather, I just find it refreshing to hear someone cut through the politically-correct garbage and introduce at least a sliver of common-sense truth, saying to hell with what everyone else thinks.

Time to switch Bibles

Wow.

Wow. I just noticed that Biblegateway.com has apparently switched over to the new, “improved” New International Version of the Bible. Apparently, the main improvements all involve turning masculine pronouns into gender-neutral, p.c. language. Because, you know, the Bible just wasn’t nearly clear enough before, and this is just way better.

Revelation 3:20 Comparison

NIV (1984)
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

NIV (2011)
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

The idiots. I think some people truly deserve to burn in hell for this kind of bad grammar.

And evidently, the company is planning to discontinue all the original NIV Bibles real soon, and then replace them with this new, IMPROVED version. I mean, really, way go — destroying both God’s Word and the English language in one fell swoop! You really have to hand it to them. Congratulations on this wonderful accomplishment, NIV-2011.

A mere shell of a man

Let’s forget about politics for a moment and ask a personal question: Politics aside, who would you rather be — George W. Bush or Barack Obama?

Would you rather be the guy who does what he considers right regardless of polls, or the guy who says whatever the group he is with wants to hear? Would you rather be the guy who makes due with the political atmosphere that exists among most of the media, or the guy who repeatedly goes out of his way to whine about Fox News? Would you rather be the guy who carries around copies of religious literature that he actually believes in and that allows his beliefs to mold his choices, or the guy who when asked about his religion, describes how he is half Christian, half Muslim, half “eastern,” and half Jewish? Would you rather be the guy who inspires a mixture of hatred and fear among his enemies, or the guy who circles the world apologizing and bowing to everyone? Would you rather be the guy who makes up his own words because he’s the President and because he can, or the guy who pronounces things like “PAHK-ee-STAHN”?

Would you like to be a guy who refers to himself as a “mutt” and then later whines that other people talk about him like he is a dog? President Obama simply does not act like a man.

[T]his petulant child-man never can *be* a president, because he’s not a man, he’s not an adult. . . . Can you imagine G.W.Bush, whom the “liberals” *did* (and do) “talk about [as though he were] a dog,” acting-out like this in public? Can you imagine Ronald Reagan, whom the “liberals” hated, with that special passion to which only that can aspire, when he was alive, acting-out like this in public? Hell, can you imagine even Richard Nixon acting-out like this in public?

We have seen before us two male role models, but one is a positive role model and the other is a negative role model. Regardless of politics, I would rather be George W. Bush.

I think involvement in politics does always tend to weaken one’s masculinity somewhat, but Obama really takes it to the extreme.

Regarding Koran burnings

The Koran burning planned by the pastor of the Dove Outreach Center has grown into a big news item lately. Make no mistake based merely on the impressive-sounding name:  The “Dove Outreach Center” is actually only a small church in Florida having about fifty members. But despite the relative unimportance of this small church full of potential burners, the planned burning has thrown the entire nation into an uproar — because the Koran burning might make Muslims mad, and might incite violence and such.

Specifically, I have noticed several conservatives who have voiced their opposition the Koran burning, including Glenn Chatfield, Crude, Sean Hannity, Franklin Graham, my dad, and the Pope. According to Franklin Graham, “It’s never right to deface or destroy sacred texts or writings of other religions even if you don’t agree with them.” But is that really correct? Is it never right to engage in such defacement?

To the contrary, such defacement is at least sometimes righteous:

Acts 19:18-19

Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas.

And lest anyone argue that “sorcery” is not actually a religion, I think most of its practitioners would disagree. On the other hand, I suppose that a Christian could always argue that the churchmembers listed in Acts were in fact engaging in wrongdoing when they burned the books (as Franklin Graham seems to argue). But the text itself does not seem to hint at that idea, and neither does the rest of the Bible.

But aside from the issue of whether burning religious documents is strictly right or wrong, Glenn Chatfield instead framed the question as follows:

Are we as Christians to be intentionally insulting unbelievers?  How do we reach them with the Gospel that way?

Should we ever intentionally insult unbelievers? Well, let’s look and see…

1 Kings 18:26-27

So they took the bull given them and prepared it. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “O Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”

Granted, maybe if we assumed that 1) all unbelievers were Muslims and that 2) all these Muslims unbelievers had a tremendous respect for pushovers and wimps, then yeah I suppose under such assumptions the appeasement logic would make sense.

But instead, imagine that one unbeliever is not particularly attracted to Islam, but merely lives in fear of the religion. Because of his fear and because of the his accurate observation that no one in the West seems willing to stand up to Islam, he decides to submit to Islam even against his will. For that one unbeliever, the best way to reach him with the gospel is to demolish his fears

Judges 6:25-31

That same night the LORD said to [Gideon], “. . . . Tear down your father’s altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it. Then build a proper kind of altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second bull as a burnt offering.”

So Gideon took ten of his servants and did as the LORD told him. But because he was afraid of his family and the men of the town, he did it at night rather than in the daytime. In the morning when the men of the town got up, there was Baal’s altar, demolished, with the Asherah pole beside it cut down and the second bull sacrificed on the newly built altar! . . . . The men of the town demanded of Joash, “Bring out your son. He must die, because he has broken down Baal’s altar and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.”

But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.” So that day they called Gideon “Jerub-Baal,” saying, “Let Baal contend with him,” because he broke down Baal’s altar.

I personally cannot stand all the trembling and trepidation in this nation over Islam. In fact, I’m still mad about that last episode of South Park last season, where extended sections of the show (mentioning Muhammed’s name and showing his face) were bleeped out and blacked out to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities.  I’m still mad about the people murdered by Muslims for drawing political cartoons showing Muhammed’s (fictional) face. For that matter, I’m still mad about the Muslims who blew up two of our skyscrapers and now are planting a mosque in place of them to honor the historical conquests of Islam. I’m mad, and I imagine others are mad, too. People are tired of living in fear of these murderers. So if anyone wants to burn a damned Koran and thereby liberate the minds of the fearful, I think that person is doing a good deed. Maybe if more people would start burning Korans in public, we could cut down on the fear. Maybe the idiot terrorists could find some more important things to get upset about and would stop shooting people for showing pictures of “the Prophet.” They can’t take us all down. Let’s burn so many Korans that the only realistic response will be for the extremists to pray, “Let Allah contend with these Americans, because they all burn Korans as often as they eat bacon.”

Overall, I think the obliteration of fear is certainly a worthwhile cause. But my feeling is that both conservatives and churchmembers these days have just turned into wusses, and that this wussiness is a big part of our problem.

Hugo Chavez must die

From Business Investors Daily, H/T Wintery Knight:

The silent protest at Monday night’s Miss Universe Pageant in Las Vegas was invisible to nearly everyone — except Venezuelans. . . . . Fernandez waved her flag for the same reason Americans waved theirs after 9/11 — to convey resolution amid distress. Her flag had seven stars, significant because Chavez had arbitrarily added an eighth, making any use of a difficult-to-find seven-star banner an act of defiance.

Fernandez’s countrymen went wild with joy on bulletin boards and Facebook, showing just how worried they are about their country.

This chick Stefanía Fernandez sort of reminds me of that politically defiant woman in the new Sylvester Stallone movie The Expendables. And to think that I actually criticized the movie to my friends for having such an “unrealistic” female character… I suppose maybe I was wrong.

I like this photograph because you can see the somewhat subtle hint of anger on the girl’s face, around her mouth. Meanwhile, if there’s a faint smile there at all, it seems to be a contemptuous one — making it fairly clear that the primary intention of her gesture is to say “You can go to hell” to her country’s dictator, Hugo Chavez.

That said, I agree with her. The leftist Hugo Chavez needs to be killed. I cannot understand why those cowardly fools used to mock Pat Robertson for bringing up that possibility. We kill all kinds of Al Qaeda fanatics all the time, so let’s not pretend like there is anything wrong with destroying these wicked souls. In fact, I think all Republicans need to make the death of Hugo Chavez part of their national foreign policy platform.

1 Samuel 15:32-33

 Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.”
      Agag came to him confidently, thinking, Surely the bitterness of death is past.

 But Samuel said,
       “As your sword has made women childless,
       so will your mother be childless among women.”
      And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal.

For that matter, I don’t even particularly care whether it’s the United States government that does the killing or someone else. Why does our government always have to accomplish everything in the world? Obama seems to be practically buddies with the guy so I hardly expect Obama to order anyone to do the job. Therefore, someone else needs to knock Chavez off.

Are we not allowed to say this stuff anymore? Am I promoting crime? Hugo Chavez is the one promoting crime.

Quick, what’s the murder capital of the world: Kabul? Juarez? Try Caracas, Venezuela, a city whose dictator, Hugo Chavez, has made murder a means of extending his control. . . . .Ever since Chavez became president in 1999, Venezuelan cities have become hellholes in which murder rates have more than quadrupled. At 233 per 100,000, or one murder every 90 minutes, the rate in Caracas now tops that of every war zone in the world, according to an official National Statistics Institute study released Wednesday.

Hugo Chavez must die. If no one else gets around to it any time soon, I have always said that if I get some incurable disease, my last dying act needs to be eliminating one of these worthless foreign tyrants from the face of the earth. And statistically, it’s only a matter of time before I (or any other particular person) comes down with something incurable, right? But it would be a lot easier if the United States government would save us a lot of pain and trouble and just eradicate this creep using their professionals.


ANALYSIS
YOU WON'T
FIND ANYWHERE ELSE

Author