Talking About Old Women

After I wrote “Despair,” Deti published a piece entitled “The Covenant Cross” in which he continued to promote the subservience of women to their husbands.[1] I want to reply to the claims he makes, but but first let’s look at all the related stuff that has been going on.

What’s Been Happening

Recently, Bruce G. Charlton and the Sigma Frame blog temporarily came together in a discussion on positivism (and leftism). Jack—owner of the blog—wanted to know if his blog was positivistic. This topic had come up on a few days prior when Arch Angel wrote about scientism (a near synonym for positivism or leftism). After Arch Angel came here and posted a link to it, I wrote a response “Where Do Leftists Get Their Ideas?” There I quoted Charlton’s view of the manosphere, of which the Sigma Frame blog is a part:

For example; the current (weird) ‘manosphere’ obsessions with the ‘socio-sexual hierarchies’ (alpha, beta, gamma men, and so forth); or the endless discussion of blue, red, black and white ‘pills’… indeed much of the everyday discussion in this general corner of the internet, and among ‘trad’ Christians of several denominations and churches…

 

Yet these discourses are derived from that same toxic set of attitudes and concepts that – broadly – evolved from Freudian psychoanalysis. [..] they work-against Christianity at a structural, metaphysical level.

Charlton took issue with the (weird) obsession of the manosphere on focusing on various “pill” and “socio-sexual hierarchy” abstractions within a sort-of therapy/self-help framework. In the manosphere these concepts are given an almost religious significance and primacy, putatively Christian patriarchy. He pointed out that these are inherently positivist/leftist concepts that work against Christianity. In short,

The manosphere is positivist and thus ultimately anti-Christian

If you’ve ever wondered by I distance myself from the manosphere, spending more time disagreeing with it than agreeing, that is the reason. In Charlton’s comment, he had written:

As for this group’s focus on women; speaking as an ex evolutionary psychologist / psychiatrist; I have significant disagreements with many of the quasi-biological assumptions about sexes, their differences and roles. And speaking spiritually, I cannot take seriously any religion that does not have an essential and core place for both sexes

If you have been following along with my discussion with Sharkly (regarding his views on women)—who believes that only men are created in the image of God and thus superior—you’ll know that I find the manosphere’s obsession with controlling the behavior of women to be fundamentally flawed, both practically and theologically. Charlton recently wrote an article (here) about how men pushing to re-establish Christian patriarchy spend most of their time discussing the opposite sex, a decidedly feminine thing to do.

Of course, this does not mean that it is wrong for groups of men to want to analyze women [..] Just that such behaviour is rather… effeminate! Thus paradoxically; the modern pro-masculine reaction is in this, as in other respects, un-masculine.

This is why I focus this blog on what the Bible says and more-or-less not directly concern myself with what women do (except for a few areas, like abortion being murder, and divorce). Indeed, I told Sharkly that he shouldn’t be concerning himself with other men’s wives, but to focus on his own wife. You can’t really have patriarchy if you don’t respect other men’s choices or allow them to rule their own domain. You especially can’t have patriarchy if you don’t govern your own domain but make excuses by holding other men (or women! or governments!) accountable for it.

William James Tychonievich wrote this comment which captures this:

There’s an old country song from the eighties that uses “As long as old men sit and talk about the weather / As long as old women sit and talk about old men” to mean “forever.” No one would have dreamt of reversing the genders in that last clause.

But that’s what Sigma Frame does.

Subservience

Now let’s swing back to Deti’s post.

1 Peter is a very interesting letter and it isn’t very long. I suggest you read it and see if you make the same conclusions that Deti makes. I suspect that you will not, having seen the full context of what Peter wrote.

Peter opens the first chapter by addressing the foreigner/exile Jewish Christians living in the Roman provinces of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). Peter stresses living holy lives in Christ Jesus. He also opens the main theme of the book by stressing that the difficulties of our physical reality are fleeting, but the Word of God, the gospel, is permanent and our glory is to come in the next life. In the second Chapter, Peter builds on this theme. He calls all members of the church a royal priesthood, a nation of God and again implores Christians to be holy and obedient to God.

Having set up the general theme, Peter then shifts the discussion to the specifics. 1 Peter 2:13-17 tells Christians to submit to secular rulers (in this case, Rome’s authority). 1 Peter 2:18-15 tells Christian slaves to submit to their secular masters—including cruel ones—without sinning. 1 Peter 3:1-6 tells Christian wives to submit to their husbands. Given that Peter says “in the same way”, we should understand that this is referring to wives who have married to foreign, unbelieving, or even cruel Roman husbands. 1 Peter 3:7 then tells husbands to do the same—as the servants, slaves, and wives—also. Peter tells both husbands and wives to submit likewise (the participle in 1 Peter 3:7 (“be dwelling”) refers back to the verb “submit” in 1 Peter 2:18 and 1 Peter 3:1).

Deti says:

The “likewise” in verse 1 indicates that we’re talking about another subject.  That is, wives are NOT civil authorities, masters, or bosses.

But the “same way” or “likewise” that Peter says refers to all the examples that Peter had just given. Husbands, wives, slaves, and foreigners must all submit. In each case the new Jewish Christian subject (husbands, wives, slaves, foreigners) is contrasted likewise with their foreigner counterpart (wives, husbands, masters, rulers).

By this point in Roman history, women could be masters, bosses, and authorities. For example, wealthy Roman women certainly employed Jewish men as household servants. Marriage between the Jewish diaspora and Roman citizens took place. So when Peter says “in the same way”, he is signaling that all of these things are closely related. So too in 1 Peter 5:5:

In the same way, you who are younger, submit to the elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Therefore, humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, so that he will exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety upon him, because he cares for you.

The theme that Peter set up at the beginning is carried through to the end. All the submission that Peter refers to is tied together “in the same way” or “likewise” with the implication of difficulty or suffering. The younger submit to the elder and humble themselves, setting aside thier anxiety and suffering while awaiting an exaltation in the age to come.

Peter never promises an alleviation of suffering. He wants the foreigner to submit to the Roman ruler, the Jewish servant and slave to the Roman master, the young to the old, and the Jewish husband/wife submitting to their wife/husband within the confines of the Roman Household Codes and Roman law.

St. Paul says the same thing.

Deti cites Ephesians 5, which as anyone who has read this blog knows, instructs both husbands and wives to submit to each other. This is made clear through Paul’s use of a literary inclusio and Peter’s and Paul’s use of elided verbs and the use of participles and middle voice language.

Peter stresses that all people—men and women—need to be humble and subservient even though doing so results in suffering. Both Peter and Paul use the middle voice precisely because they are not commanding that anyone be subjected. The focus is on the proper behavior of those who are subjected. Never in the Bible is a Christian wife told to submit to her husband or a Christian husband told to rule over his wife. No such imperatives exist. Deti’s Patriarchy isn’t found in the Greek Bible.

When a man in modern society is frivolously divorced and loses his children, he needs to be humble and loving, enduring his suffering—just as the slave with a cruel master had to endure it—for the sake of Christ knowing that this suffering will end after he has died and been resurrected in glory. That is the message that Peter gave to the Jewish diaspora suffering in a foreign land under Roman rule. It is the same message Jesus gave in the Sermon on the Mount.

Deti is suffering, having been injured by the woman (or women?) in his life. When he reads 1 Peter, a letter written just for men like him, rather than rejoicing in his suffering, he decides to spend his days working to make sure that women are made subservient to their husbands, possibly motivated in part by what was done to him.

There’s an old country song from the eighties that uses “As long as old men sit and talk about the weather / As long as old women sit and talk about old men” to mean “forever.” No one would have dreamt of reversing the genders in that last clause.

This is what Deti does.

A Feminine Response

If one reads the whole Bible, you’ll find that it spends very little time talking about the proper behavior for women specifically. In general, the Bible talks about what men—or men and women collectively—should do. The Bible rarely singles out “female” behavior. It simply isn’t all that concerned about correcting women’s behavior.

This is obvious even in the places where women are the supposedly commanded to subjection and subservience. In Ephesians 5, Paul spends most of his words talking about what husbands are supposed to do in their submission. Wives get much less attention.

If you, a man, find yourself reading Ephesians 5 and the first thing you are concerned about is the behavior of women, your response is decidedly unmasculine and feminine.

It is not the job of Christians to fix people. No husband can fix his wife, no wife can fix her husband. You can’t even fix yourself. Only God can transform a person.

Footnotes

[1] After deti’s request for politeness and courtesy, I updated this post from the original (see here)…

“he continued to promote the subservience of women to men”

…to this…

“he continued to promote the subservience of women to their husbands”

Contrary to the claim here (by a English-as-second-language commenter), what I had originally said was factually accurate (see here and here) and did not require an update nor an apology. I choose to edit the OP out of politeness because Deti asked nicely.

Many comments (including this one) demonstrate a distinct lack of reading comprehension. I never said that women in general should be subservient to men in general, nor did I say that all women should be subservient to all men, nor did I attribute any of those claims to anyone else. These commenters who oppose putting words into people’s mouths are responding by putting words I didn’t say into my mouth! That’s why the commenter had to add the word “in general” because what I wrote does not demand that meaning.

A simple grammatically analysis of what I said (while ignoring the obvious context which makes it explicit!) is that some unspecified women are subservient to some unspecified men. The simple observation that wives submit—are subservient—to husbands is sufficient to illustrate some women submitting—being subservient—to some men. This is why the bible itself says literally:

But how the assembly obeys the Christo therefore also the women [to] the men in everything.

Who are the women and who are the men? The context tells you! Paul’s context is husbands and wives. Paul did the same thing in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. People have a problem with me using words in the same way the Bible itself does. How absurd!

Using “man” and “woman” is a way to semantically be less precise intentionally. The way I phrased it did not presume a particular concrete explanation because that wasn’t important for what I was saying. In my discussion on subservience, the subservience itself is the focus, so making the identity of the persons ambiguous allows me to shift the emphasis where I want to place it (and why I didn’t use “wives” in my ‘correction’). This is a common rhetorical technique, as the Bible itself demonstrates. Indeed, far from putting words into anyone’s mouth, I refrained from doing so by the very way I structured the phrase.

Deti’s objection boils down to me not being specific enough for his tastes and not focusing on what he wants me to write about, which he has no right to demand of me as he isn’t my personal editor. I didn’t misrepresent him, I simply failed to be as specific as he would prefer, nor did I make it a point of emphasis to describe the fine-points of his personal theology. What I said was ambiguous and after reading it you might not know precisely what Deti believes, which is perfectly fine.

This type of objection is very old. The Byzantine Text Type inserted the word ιδιοις (own) into the text of Ephesians 5:24 before the word ἀνδράσιν (men), presumably because the editor didn’t like the ambiguity in Paul’s text. Rather than leave Paul’s words as they were, they put words into his mouth that were not there. Do you see the irony in my own alteration?

By implication, my interlocutors want you to believe that ambiguity is a lie and a misrepresentation. This is a foolish stance. As I noted in “Lying to Combat Lying,” this ridiculous standard turns Jesus into a liar.

The objections I have received to this are essentially pedantic and autistic—hyperfocus or persistence on a restricted explanation—in nature. Indeed, Deti’s own objection that I put words in his mouth is his way of forcing me to describe him using whatever language he deems. This is, ironically, him trying to put words into my mouth.

Interpreting others words according to what you think language should be—rather than trying to determine what they actually meant—is what progressive leftists do. Trying to control the language of others by demanding they only use words in a particular way is also what progressive leftists do. All of these attempts at control are forms of censorship. The so-called Christian Manosphere is essentially steeped in leftist/positivist philosophy, and this is one further conceptual example of the “men talking about old women” theme.

31 Comments

  1. professorGBFMtm

    ”Charlton took issue with the (weird) obsession of the manosphere on focusing on various “pill” and “socio-sexual hierarchy” abstractions within a sort-of therapy/self-help framework. In the manosphere these concepts are given an almost religious significance and primacy, putatively Christian patriarchy. He pointed out that these are inherently positivist/leftist concepts that work against Christianity. In short,

    The manosphere is positivist and thus ultimately anti-Christian

    If you’ve ever wondered by I distance myself from the manosphere, spending more time disagreeing with it than agreeing, that is the reason. ”

    The only issue i have with what he wrote is ”current’ ‘the obsession about alphas, betas and sigmas(the one almost everyone claims they are even in the early 2010s) was at its height with recent converts(who are usually the biggest boasters anyway in anything let alone this ‘sphere) around 2014 then died down after most younger men i.e. the ”blackpillers” left in ’14/’15 and returned big time in the last 3 years or so mainly among the Christian ‘sphere members.

    ”It is not the job of Christians to fix people. No husband can fix his wife, no wife can fix her husband. You can’t even fix yourself. Only God can transform a person.”

    This is the main reason talk of vetting, changing laws, and (especially)becoming ”red pill” is mainly bad comedy to i.
    You either make sure in the end to marry the right woman or not.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “This is the main reason talk of vetting, changing laws, and (especially)becoming ”red pill” is mainly bad comedy to i.”

      Right. Though I oppose abortion and divorce, I’m under no illusion that changing laws will change hearts. It might change behaviors, because applying force to anything can result in compliance, but I highly doubt that men are going to be satisfied with grudging compliance.

      Those insane people who want husbands to spank their wives think that humiliation is a loving act, but not even children should be humiliated, let alone wives.

  2. professorGBFMtm

    ”Those insane people who want husbands to spank their wives think that humiliation is a loving act, but not even children should be humiliated, let alone wives.”

    They think ”if anything goes wrong all I have to do is ”tighten my game” or become more ”redpill.””(which is just preparing for failure as some say today really)

    When the Christian men in the ‘sphere especially should be wise as in the parable of the 10 wise virgins in Matthew 25:1-13-whom were already prepared instead of thinking ”well later I could always buy some more oil”.

    When they should have had their ”strategy” be ”I will treat women the way I want to be treated”(which is better than Game or the ”redpill”) from the very beginning of any interaction with women or anyone else too, if that leads nowhere?

    Nowhere is better than the marital warzone that Deti has had for nearly 31 and a half years now.

  3. Lastmod

    Jesus had zero intention of trying to “overthrow” Rome. He could care less if Israel was under their occupation, it didnt matter to him. He was more concerned by the occupied hearts of”sin” and “deception” from their own supposed “righteous” and “holy leaders”

    He never once demanded an “audience” with Caesar to “let his people be free”
    He even told them to “give to Caesar what is Casar’s and to God what is Gods”

    Why? Because Jesus was actually teaching, and expecting those to follow him to not be of this world.

    Flash forward 2000 years later and we have the educated Red Pill class of men laying it all down with rules, laws, maxiums, tests, metrics, must dos and then the mass piling of other forays, taboos, and regulations……Red Pill “lore”

    It would make the book of Leviticus easy to understand, and apply at this point. Im not not kidding.

    The ‘sphere offer zero hope, only cope….and the endless “im more of a man than you” statements. How do you prove that kind of statement????

    Easy. The usual fray of “how many women, how often, how I could get more women, how many oppourtunities I passed up with women” men like this in the end will *always* drop to their sexual prowness of how women are attracted to them……….and its the only real up and card they have on the lower 80% of us now. They know it, and they know it gets the rest of our dander up.

    They just worship the sex-act…….cause we all know, if men dont get sex. They will die. They will be lesser men.

    Please tell your Lord and Savior that, Jesus. He wasnt married and “he hath NO sin” and he hardly was a lesser man.

    Anyway…….in ten years they will be just like the older clueless christian Boomers who they bemoan with their “wringing of hands” and “shaking of heads” and griping about how “young men today, if they just showered, got a job, and just made 50K a year, read my blog, listened to Dave Ramsey, moved to Bullfrog, North Dakota, married a virgin who was 18 we wouldnt be in this mess”

    Blame the men who could not help the intellect they were given, nor their physical looks.

      1. Lastmod

        I dont really see how that could be. There was no scripture quoted (or twisted, or debated about what every exact word meant in Greek and in “that time in history”) . There was no “prayer book” read. There was no supplicating to the this matyr or that saint or reading a liturgical text to a painted icon. There wasn’t a rosary, or any church authority cited. There wasnt a “statement of faith” or “doctrines” that I quoted….

        so what I said wasn’t “christian”

        It was what one man got (me) from reading the Bible, and my observations of the sphere over the past decade.

        Who am I? A nobody. What I observe has been plastered as bitter, angry, and hateful and only has personal attacks on people who are better than me.

        I must be wrong, and what I mentioned cannot be considered “christian”

        They would paint above statement as some secular humanistic readin of the bible and then per usual tell me I am lying / cuck / simp / blinded by blue pill thinking / putting women on a pedestal

        If what I said about Jesus is wrong? Okay, its wrong. However, most of the people Jesus spoke with……they didnt memorize the The Torah, or had a deep “mystical” understanding of it. He didnt give them “new books” or “letter” to take home and study.

        What he said was what he said and then mirror this with the secular with Pilate. “I have written what I have written” The world shattered by what Jesus spoke and taught then juxtaposed with what Pilate wrote and posted on the cross over his broken, bloodied body.

        A sorrowful savior on a cross, with words and truth that Pilate had placed. Astounding.

        I dont have the intellect to put it all into words proper, or make it clear as the teachings Jesus said about “His fathers kingdom” over two thousand years ago. What I do know is that this “faith” this “christianity” isnt what I read in the bible……..and before I am plastered as new age, and or radical…….lest we not forget Jesus was indeed a radical.

          1. Lastmod

            Oh….I just read it. They dont understand, nor will they ever….that a big part of the reason why I left the faith was the “man o sphere” itself.

            Their virtual space is no better than a church. I turned to the sphere for answers. Found Dalrock. Found the other places….

            And within a week, or two of commenting. I was put in my place *very* quickly and had the proverbial “cold christian shoulder” thrown up by most of the commenters, a few of of the blogger themselves.

            It doesnt matter anymore. If I cant at least “convince” them, no one can. Its only going to get worse in their spaces and churches where men with WAY more issues than I have show up. They are not ready, equipped and have no idea how to talk to men like this.

            “Before I give any man here anymore advice, you will send me your stated Mission in life, you will tell me your reps / gym schedule and and your plan and you will detail in steps how to achieve what you want in life”

            (From Christianity and Masculinty, a parapharsed reply when he was actually called out by many men on there seeking help)

            Already the replies are coming up “oh thank heavens we here in the online / christian man-o-sphere are not like that” (or something like that)

            I know…I know…their churches where THEY attend are not like this either. If I showed up at Oscars church, SF’s church, or any of them…..I would be treated the same as I was as I was at mine.

            Church has zero need for men like me, except to clean up after them and be lectured to / at 🙂

            More power to them over there. They can have it.

  4. Riuoku

    Never in the Bible is a Christian wife told to submit to her husband or a Christian husband told to rule over his wife. No such imperatives exist. Deti’s Patriarchy isn’t found in the Greek Bible.

    This is a bold claim, how do you interpret then:
    Gen 3:16, Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, Titus‬ ‭2‬:‭3-5?

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “This is a bold claim, how do you interpret then: Gen 3:16, Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, Titus‬ ‭2‬:‭3-5?”

      It’s not a particularly bold claim, but a simple observation that there are no active imperatives—commands—used in the Greek language. Greek has a specific verb form—the active voice—that is used to command something, and that form is not used of husbands and wives for ruling or submitting, even though the form is commonly used in other contexts.

      Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5, and 1 Peter 3 all use the middle voice with respect to husbands and wives submitting. But in Colossians 3:18-20, Paul uses the active voice—an imperative—to tell children to obey their parents, immediately after not doing so with wives.

      What you read in English is often simply an inference of interpretation from the translators, or else misleading due to a change in the English language itself:

      “What’s clear here is that the author is talking about “mutual deference” (I don’t use “submit” for a number of reasons — chiefly, I don’t consider it helpful to use archaic English to convey meaning)” — Mike Aubrey

      In general, what you read in English is not a literal translation. I can see why the translators made the choices that they did in their eagerness to bolster the theology, but they were perhaps too eager. Here is a more literal translation of Ephesians 5, which sounds very different from standard English translation:

      Although I was explicitly only referring to Christian spouses in the Greek Bible (the New Testament), as for the Hebrew in Genesis 3:16, that is a curse, not a command. Treating it as a command is far from certain. Not even proponents of Christian patriarchy can agree on it.

  5. RichardP

    Consider the difference in meaning between the words “help” (noun) and “helped” (noun).
    See Genesis 2:18-25.

    There is an immediate hierarchy formed by distinguishing between the “help” and the “helped” that no amount of arguing can do away with.

    To truely be a help, one must place their agenda lower than the agenda of the “helped”. (see “submit”).

    How can one truely help if the “helped” does not give the “help” any instructions on what he needs the help to do for him? (see “rule over”)

    I have long argued elsewhere exactly the point made in this thread. The Bible contains no command for a wife to submit to her husband, in any specific way. But that need “to submit” is inherent in the reason that God gave for creating Eve – to be a “help”, proper and fitting for Adam. That “help” dynamic will not work if Eve places her own agenda above Adam’s, or if Adam fails to give Eve any instructions on what he needs her to do for him.

    This discussion also benefits from a good understanding of what the old English term “husbandman” (or “to husband”, a verb) means. From Wikipedia – The origin is the verb ‘to husband’ which originally meant ‘till’ or ‘cultivate’. To till or cultivate is to cause to grow. Cannot “cause to grow” without knowing what the object of our attention needs in order to grow. She: “leave me alone so I can sit here and watch my soap operas”. He: “No! Turn off the television and read this book.” Rule over. Love. Husbandman. To husband. Patriarchy. Rulilng over your estate and all it contains. Tilling and cultivating – causing to grow.

    1. professorGBFMtm

      ” She: “leave me alone so I can sit here and watch my soap operas”. He: “No! Turn off the television and read this book.” Rule over. Love. Husbandman. To husband. Patriarchy. Rulilng over your estate and all it contains.”

      This is why ”beat you over the head” strict patriarchy isn’t necessary if you first lay out the conditions of a relationship with a woman(and she happily accepts them) at the very beginning of getting ”serious” with her and if she isn’t contentious to begin with, that is.

      The strict or should i rather say strictest patriarchists are the ones who failed to do the above to their detriment as i pity them for it(especially Deti who i have always liked even when we have disagreed).

      i’m also glad to see you here Richard, especially as seeing how fast a warzone certain ”others” that have come here can make it(as they do other places too).

      As I know you are more mellow like i’ am most of the time(until i get in a ”fighting” mood that is).

    2. Derek L. Ramsey

      RichardP,

      I echo the Professor in welcoming your views. I’ll try to give my thoughts, but I’m a little short on time so I’m going to mostly copy and paste what I wrote a number of days ago regarding the “helper” in Genesis 2:18. Let me know if this answers your comment sufficiently.

      “18. sustainer beside him. The Hebrew ‘ezer kenegdo (King James Version “help meet”) is notoriously difficult to translate. The second term means “alongside him,”, “opposite him,” “a counterpart to him.” “Help” is too weak because it suggests a merely auxiliary function, whereas ‘ezer elsewhere connotes active intervention on behalf of someone, especially in military contexts, as often in Psalms.“
      — Robert Alter, “The Hebrew Bible: The Five Books of Moses”, p. 14.

      …and…

      ““Elsewhere “helper/help” usually refers to divine assistance, but it is used in three prophetic passages of military aid (Isa 30:5; Ezek 12:14; Hos 13:9). To help someone does not imply that the helper is stronger than the helped; simply that the latter’s strength is inadequate by itself (e.g. Josh 1:14; 10:4, 6; 1 Chron 12:17, 19, 21, 22). The compound prepositional phrase “matching him,” literally, “like opposite him” is found only here. It seems to express the notion of complementarity rather than identity. As Delitzsch (1:140) observers, if identity were meant, the more natural phrase would be “like him.” The help looked for is not just assistance in his daily work or in the procreation of children, though these aspects may be included, but the mutual support companionship provides.”
      — Gordon J. Wenham. Word Biblical Commentary, “#1: Genesis 1-15”, p.68”

      …and my commentary from earlier

      “A wife was created to help her husband as an ally in war comes to one’s aid, standing beside him and fighting with him. It does not imply that the wife is stronger than the husband or the husband is stronger than the wife (see: Hosea 13:9), for the word carries no implication of relative position between the one aiding and the one being aided. Sharkly’s sense of women as “helpers” carries the specific and strong sense of a servant or slave, but the word used here implies neither equality nor inequality, but rather the companionship of two entities.”

      …and this subsequent commentary

      “Since the word for “helper” is used elsewhere in the Bible in a militaristic setting, we can infer the specific meaning from the context in which the word is used. There is a rational basis for this meaning. The word does not connote subservience.”

      You could argue that Adam was inferior because he wasn’t competent to do it himself and needed superior assistance (due to the word’s use as ‘divine assistance’ elsewhere), or you could argue that Eve was inferior because she was assigned as a subservient partner (an inference from context). But, I’m not sure how you can conclude either without presuming what the verses mean in order to use them to show what the verses mean. In my opinion, I don’t think either interpretation is justified by the text. I think the default view should be that neither subservience/inferiority nor superiority is implied by being a sustainer, that the term is neutral.

      “There is an immediate hierarchy formed by distinguishing between the “help” and the “helped” that no amount of arguing can do away with.”

      The help mentioned in 18 and 20 is paired with the word neged which means “opposite”. When this sense is attached to helper, it carries a strong sense of opposition, that is, of two people whose differences come together to make one whole. What is missing in one is found in the other. And of course this is made explicit in v24. The man and the woman are counterparts, like a lock and key, pieces of a puzzle, or husband and wife. It primarily emphasizes mutual dependence.

      Hierarchy simply doesn’t work here and flies in the face of the “one flesh” union and the male/female cleaving. Neither of these involve a hierarchy. Unity and correspondence is the theme, and I struggle to shoehorn heirarchy into this text. It is unnatural.

      Peace,
      DR

        1. Liz

          Looking forward to reading it.
          Mike’s sim partner in the captain upgrade was a fan of therationalmale.
          I guess that would indicate Rollo’s reach is far.
          But as a person, he was pretty hard to be around . And he complained about everything.

          1. Derek L. Ramsey

            “But as a person, he was pretty hard to be around . And he complained about everything.”

            I’m the opposite. In meatspace I rarely talk politics or religion. Rare is the real-life-person who is interested in the stuff I write about here.

            “Looking forward to reading it.”

            I’ve been putting a lot of emergency extra late-night hours in at work this week, which is eating into my writing time.

          2. Liz

            No rush. 🙂
            To clarify:
            By complaining about everything, I don’t even mean politics or religion, although there was that….he complained about the hotel they were staying at, which was really great. He complained about his wife, everyone around him, and so forth. Very exhausting and unpleasant person to be around, in Mike’s estimation.

          3. Lastmod

            Most of Rollo’s slavish followers are the same Liz. Everything is Game. Everything is “not good enough”, everything is “good ol days” syndrome. Everything is the fault of someone (usually a fellow “cucked” or “blue pilled man”) as to why the world is falling apart. These are the same kind of men that will snap like wolverines on speed if they dont get the window seat at Cheesecake Factory with their “hot date” (Rich Cooper comes to mind here)

            Read the comments on any of his blogs. Miserable people. But they get sex “24 hrs day / nines and tens / they just followed his simple rules ” and if you dont get that or follow him

            you are “blinded by blue pill thinking” and deserve to die as a man. Horrible people. Ruined many man’s life when they earnestly tried to study and follow what he purported. Rollo forgot to mention that in order for his “foolproof” methods to work you had to be Scott, your hubby, Jack, SF, Deti, Sharkly, or other men like them….

          4. Liz

            Think you are largely correct about the commentary/commentariants (if that’s a word) over there, lastmod.
            BTW, I can’t remember where you mentioned it (or when you are going), but that trip to Egypt sounds awesome, please post pictures if you can.

            Also…please be very careful.
            I know someone who went over there (Canadian guy who was very accustomed to traveling around the world on his own). Right away, at the airport a cab pulled over. Cabbie got out and opened the trunk for his luggage.
            He put his luggage (everything he owned, including his passport) in the back and the cab driver drove away without him.
            He spent the rest of his Egypt trip at the consulate’s office.
            That was a while ago, but I doubt the level of thievery has changed for the better.
            It will be a great life experience I’m sure.
            But wanted to give you a little heads up, just in case. 🙂

          5. Derek L. Ramsey

            When we are travelling, I don’t even let me kids hold their own passports. They never leave my person except when I hand them to the agents. This is generally true of our backpacks as well. We just carry them on our laps on the bus or car.

          6. Lastmod

            Planning a 2025 month long trip to Egypt. Cruise up the Nile, stopping at all the ruins. Tours. I want a suite. I want an excellent meal plan. I want many days on the deck, reading, smoking cigarettes, people watching and meeting people from all over the world. In the hotel, a James Bond style of a place where I wear a suit to dinner (like when I was in London in 2019).

            I want a WEEK in the Cairo museum.

            I lived in India and I know aspects of the third world, and I will have to be careful. Keep my guard up. Saving for the trip now. Like London in 2019…..I had first class accommodations, plenty of money and TIME…and it was all paid for! Will start booking for the Nile cruise / flights and hotels in 2024. Book a year in advance…you save a lot 🙂

  6. Pingback: Invisible Magic Authority | Σ Frame

  7. Pingback: Summary of the W!tchy War on Masculinity | Σ Frame

  8. thedeti

    *he continued to promote the subservience of women to men.

    That is a false statement.

    I promote the submission of wives to their own husbands. Because that’s clearly what Eph 5:22-24 states, quite unequivocally.

    “Women” are not required to submit, serve, or be anything, to “men” other than to refrain from committing crimes or torts against men. A little politeness and common courtesy would be nice, but I don’t expect it, at least not in 2024 America.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Deti,

      “That is a false statement.”

      I’m afraid that you’ve made an incorrect assumption here.

      Wives are women and husbands are men. If wives submit to their husbands, then women submit to men. This should not be controversial. Per DBD:

      “Ephesians 5:24 says word by word: ἀλλὰ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί”

      But how the assembly obeys the Christo therefore also the women the men in everything.

      The Bible says this quite literally and unequivocally, which is why it is usually translated in English as:

      “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”

      I have no more made a false statement than the Bible has made a false statement when it does the exact same thing.

      “A little politeness and common courtesy would be nice, but I don’t expect it, at least not in 2024 America.”

      Although it was clear that I was discussing husbands and wives, I have nonetheless edited the OP to make your viewpoint more explicit.

      Peace,
      DR

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *