Phineas has responded to my response. It seems that we are mostly in agreement in the whole:

Ordinarily, in any other case outside of gender relations, I’d agree with Free Northerner’s post more wholeheartedly. But the original text was about the relationship between men and women and must be dealt with in that light. With the warped and twisted way life is right now, the only proper thing is that any discussion regarding men is out-of-hand if it doesn’t exclusively involve rights. Conversely, any discussion involving women is out-of-hand if it doesn’t exclusively involve responsibilities. As long as the rights/responsibilities pendulum is being held to the side and not allowed to rest at equilibrium, this must be the case.

Nowadays, men are given responsibility without the right to the fruits of their efforts, while women are given rights to the fruits of men’s efforts, without the responsibility of working for it. I agree, and I also think it is deplorable. So maybe, some imbalance in the discussion to the reverse may be necessary.

But I still stand by my original assertion, but I’ll expand based upon his criticisms. Nobody, neither men nor women, have natural rights, and nobody, neither men nor women, has a natural obligation to most other people.

By natural obligations, I mean that people owe the provision of something to other people. People do have God-ordained obligations to God (which take the form of being rendered to other people), to specific people (ie: parents), and obligations to not commit certain actions against others.

In this case, I am using natural rights as an abstract theological/philosophical concept. Not as a practical concept. People do have ‘rights’ as a practical matter, but these are social and political creations, no more, no less. It is necessary for a society to develop a list of rights and freedoms (and corresponding responsibilities), as inviolable freedoms lead to the healthiest societies.

But these rights are not granted to you by God, these rights are not something inherent in being born, these rights are social creations.

Despite our general agreement, I’ll talk to a few other points:

Rights are exhibited in the form of laws, and God has His own laws. “Right to life” – “thou shalt not kill”. “Right to private property” – “thou shalt not steal” and the like.

The duty to not kill does not necessarily imply a right to not be killed. The duty to not take others property does not necessarily imply a right to private ownership. I agree fully that every society should have both a right to life and a right to property, but neither of those are inviolable gifts from God. Given that God has seen fit to let almost one in three people die as infants throughout the majority of history and often personally commanded mass genocide and executions, it is hard to see where a right to life is guaranteed.

Those that go around claiming “rights don’t exist” will at the same time cry about their rights or the rights of others when the government comes to take their guns, or someone robs their home, or even claim a “right to life” when it comes to the issue of abortion.

One can discount natural rights, yet still believe in societal rights, or simply desire to be left alone. An American can say they have a right to a gun, because the right to a gun is societally accepted in their constitution, and non-Americans can desire a societal right to own a gun. Neither implies a natural right. There is no fundamental contradiction.

This leads into responsibilities undertaken willingly, which addresses Col 3:22 and Matt 16:24-27. People can willfully trade responsibility for responsibility. This is not a proof that rights don’t exist, but that people have the right to negotiate an exchange of goods and services. It, however, is a proof that responsibilities come from rights and not the other way around. Undertaking all things have a cost, and even Jesus warned of counting costs in such things. The misapplication of these Scriptures involve the fact that a choice was made to undertake a vow. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. If you say you’re going to do something, do it. This is not a proof that rights don’t exist.

I highly doubt most slaves had a choice in the matter and willfully traded their freedom for the care of their master.

Christ does not bid anyone come by force. This is obligation. The nature of men is to turn something that should be out of love into a forced obligation and something that should be given out of grace into an entitlement.

Absolutely agree.

This brings us back to the silly and absurd statement that “rights don’t exist”. When this is said in the context of the manosphere, it usually meant to mean “Rights Don’t Exist for Men.” In traditional practice, this is a true statement. This is readily seen by the practice of chivalry, which takes all rights away from men and all responsibilities away from women. This is akin to the statement that “Responsibilities Don’t Exist For Women”.

When I say it, I mean it for both sexes. I have written a number of times on the double-standard of rights, including chivalry. What society enforces and what is natural are not one and the same.

****

Also, this got linked on Reddit, where I was accused of subverting the red pill for Christianity. I will simply say the same conclusion must be reached by atheists. What natural rights do accidently evolved bags of water that happen to have certain electrical and chemical interactions occur within them have? Where do these natural rights come from?

The answer is they have none and they cannot come from anywhere. Any atheist proclaiming the existence of natural rights has simply failed to review his presuppositions. I thought this was obvious enough to those in the alt-right to not need mentioning.

Dark Enlightenment Reading List

While creating the Free Man’s Reading List, some recommended I add some books on what is sometimes referred to as the Dark Enlightenment. The Dark Enlightenment is something I’ve been reading for years and my blog here sometimes edges near the periphery of that territory, moreso as time goes on. Neoreaction is something I desire to learn more about.

So, I’ve been trying to create a reading list over the last few monehts for those wanting to learn about the Dark Enlightenment and I’m going to try to read through it while reading through the Free Man’s list (because one massive, multi-year reading list just isn’t enough).

Before that, I’ll briefly explain the Dark Enlightenment. It is essentially the realization that men are not equal. It is a reactionary movement against the progressivist ideology that dominates the Cathedral (ie. the elites) and is based on the untrue assumption of the equality of man.

Beyond that, there is a diverse array of ideologies among those that would be considered part of the Dark Enlightenment. Among those in the Dark Enlightenment are reactionaries, paleo-conservatives, paleo-libertarians, Christian traditionalists, formalists, fascists (in the non-pejorative sense), monarchists, tribalists, ethno-nationalists, nihilists, hedonists, and many others. The uniting link between these disparate ideologies is opposition to the current progressivist order and her sister ideologies of democracy, egalitarianism, socialism, feminism, multiculturalism, modernity, etc.

This list is meant to introduce someone to the Dark Enlightenment and its ideas. There is little discussion of the various little tribes of the movement; these are more focused on the broad-brush issues.

Not all (or even most) of the writers here would consider themselves part of the Dark Enlightenment, but these are books and writings I think would be useful in introducing the ideas that are fundamental to the DE.

Introduction

First we start with a few introductory web readings on what the Dark Enlightenment is:

The Dark Enlightenment Defined
The Dark Enlightenment Explained
The Path to the Dark Enlightenment
The Essence of the Dark Enlightenment
An Introduction to Neoreaction
Neoreaction for Dummies

Here is are two longer introductions that may be helpful for some. The first is by a non-reactionary and may be useful for those now from the right:
Reactionary Philosophy in a Nutshell
The Dark Enlightenment – Nick Land

The Cathedral Explained.

Being introduced to Dark Enlightenment thought, I would suggest reading When Wish Replaces Thought by Steven Goldberg. The book itself is written by a liberal, but thoroughly debunks numerous liberal shibboleths through objective logic. It’s not reactionary in itself, but it will cause someone capable of thinking to question what they view as accepted “truths”.

Then try Three Years of Hate from In Mala Fide. The collection of essays touches on numerous neoreactionary topics and is an enjoyable, easy-to-read entry point, as long as you don’t mind the virulent nihilism and offensiveness of the book.

Now we can get down to the various categories of dark enlightenment thought. You can read these categories in whatever order you wish; each is somewhat separate, but all are inter-connected.

I probably have missed some stuff, so feel free to provide some suggestions.

****

The Decline

These books introduce outline the decline of our civilization, the reasons, and the potential consequences. These books are more ‘mainstream’and due to their natures, each highlights numerous interrelated ideas. Because of this, they should make a good introduction.

We are Doomed – John Derbyshire
America Alone – Mark Steyn
After America – Mark Steyn
Death of the West – Pat Buchanan
The Abolition of Britain – Peter Hitchens

****

Civil Society and Culture

The importance of organic community and culture are embraced by all rightests. These books outline the the disappearance of organic community due to modern society and the decline of our culture.

Coming Apart – Charles Murray
Disuniting of America – Arthur Schlesinger
The Quest for Community – Robert Nisbet
Bowling Alone – Robert Putnam
Life at the Bottom – Theodore Dalrymple
Intellectuals and society – Thomas Sowell

****

Western Civilization

These books analyze the importance of western civiliziation.

Civilization: The West and the Rest – Niall Ferguson
Culture Matters – Samuel Huntington
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization – Ricardo Duchesne

****

Moldbuggery

Mencius Moldbug is one of the more influential neoreactionaries. His blog, Unqualified Reservations, is required reading; if you have not read Moldbug, you do not understand modern politics or modern history. Start here for an overview of major concepts: Moldbuggery Condensed. Introduction to Moldbuggery has the Moldbug reading list. Start with Open Letter series, then simply go from the beginning.

****

Reactionary Thought

Start with Carlyle’s first two:

Chartism – Thomas Carlyle
Latter-Day Pamphlets – Thomas Carlyle

Then move onto the other two major works necessary to enter the Froude society:

The Bow of Ulysses – James Anthony Froude
Popular Government – Henry Summers Maine

Then finish off Carlyle:
Shooting Niagara – Carlyle
The Occasional Discourse – Carlyle
On Heroes, Hero Worship & the Heroic in History – Carlyle

Having gotten through Carlyle we can move onto Julius Evola. Here’s his three main works in recommended reading order, but first a very short summation of his work and practical application thereof.

The Handbook of Traditional Living – Raido
Men Among the Ruins – Julius Evola
Ride the Tiger – Julius Evola
Revolt Against the Modern World – Julius Evola

Here are a few other reactionaries to read gained from Moldbug, Radish, and elsewhere.

Reflections of a Russian Statesman – Konstantin Pobedonostsev
Decline of the West – Oswald Spengler
Hour of Decision – Oswald Spengler
On Power – Jouvenel
Against Democracy and Equality – Tomislav Sunic
New Culture, New Right – Michael O’Meara
Why We Fight – Guillaume Faye

****

Economics

Dark enlightenment economics tend towards either the Austrian school, techno-capitalism, or some form of economic nationalism/protectionism/mercantalism. Here’s some basic Austrian economics to destroy what modern keynesian notions you may have. This overlaps with the other reading list.

Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt
Basic Economics – Thomas Sowell
That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen – Frederic Bastiat
Man, Economy, and State – Murray Rothbard
Human Action – Ludwig von Mises

****

HBD

Human bio-diversity (HBD) studies the biological roots of human behaviour a major topic within the Dark Enlightenment as genetic differences between people and groups provide a more fundamental view of inequality than the “root causes” touted by the Cathedral.

Darwin’s Enemies on the Left and Right Part 1, Part 2

The History and Geography of Human Genes (Abridged edition) – Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza
The 10,000 Year Explosion – Gregory Cochrane
Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Rushton
Why Race Matters – Michael Levin

****

Intelligence and Mind

The science of intelligence and the mind is closely related to HBD and provides one of the more visible and controversial aspects of the Dark Enlightenment, while destroying the blank slate ideology.

The Bell Curve – Charles Murray
The Global Bell Curve – Richard Lynn
Human Intelligence – Earl Hunt
Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence – Robert Sternberg
A Conflict of Visions – Thomas Sowell
The Blank Slate – Stephen Pinker
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature – Murray Rothbard (essay)

****

Education

The control of the modern education system and its leading role in the perpetuation of the Cathedral has made the modern education system and its

Real Education – Charles Murray
Inside American Education – Thomas Sowell
Illiberal Education – Dinesh D’Sousa
God and Man at Yale – William Buckley
Weapons of Mass Instruction – John Taylor Gatto
The Higher Education Bubble – Glenn Reynolds

****

Sex

These books outline the biological realities of sex and sexual differences that are denied by the Cathedral.

The Way of Men – Jack Donovan
Sperm Wars – Robin Baker
Sex at Dawn – Christopher Ryan
Why Men Rule – Steven Goldberg
Demonic Males – Dale Peterson
The Essential Difference – Simon Baron-Cohen
The Mating Mind – Geoffrey Miller
The Red Queen – Matt Ridley

****

Government

It is essential to know how government works for any reactionary; these books will show you. Also, yes, I did include a TV show; watch Yes, Minister, there is simply no better way to actually understand the actual mechanics of government than to watch this show. I work in government, and yes, bureaucrats will say this is exactly how government works.

Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers – Tom Wolfe
Public Choice: An Introduction – Iain McLean
On Government Employment – Foseti (blog post)
Yes, Minister – TV Show

****

Fiction/Poetry

Complete Verse – Rudyard Kipling
Harrison Bergeron – Kurt Vonnegut
Camp of the Saints – Jean Raspail

****

Other Related Reading Lists

Derbyshire’s list of Dark Enlightenment blogs
The Great Books of The Aristocracy
Library of the Dark Enlightenment

Lightning Round – 2013/05/15

Three critiques of common manosphere themes worth reading:
Against alpha males.
Against ‘Enjoy the Decline’.
Against alpha.
Related: A reply and talk on ethical systems.

Will’s back and returns with prison sex.

Be the strong horse.

Jack Donovan answers a few criticisms on the Way of Men.
Forney (Ferd) has always had entertaining book reviews.

Overgaming.

Become better at the things that matter to you.
Related: Be interesting.

Do you believe this is possible? Can you do it?

The Red Pill Princess. Now that’s harsh.

Argumentum ad AMOG.
Related: How to argue with leftists.
Remember: when a leftist wants a conversation, it means them talking and you shutting up.
“But politics isn’t about common sense, logic or reason, it’s about manipulating the perceptions of the ignorant, the apathetic and the inattentive.”

“If all sex is potentially rape, only potential rapists will have sex.”
Related: The wages of feminism.
Related: Men 30-50 less likely to want to marry.

The society-wide shit-test.

Patricia’s smartphone. Rather amusing.

Whore-ible mothers.
Related: Grotesque liberal attitudes towards children.

A little Chesterton on feminism.

Purple wedding dresses for promoting chastity.

Game: The elephant in the room.

Male suicide, where’s the outcry?
Related: Could men be taking their own lives to take back their masculinity?

Science: Men like young women. Surprising.
Science: Chicks dig aloof assholes. Surprising.

Evil men get laid more.

Hamsterlations for both men and women.

The liberal germ theory.

The Dove beauty con.

Feminists hypocritical? Shocking.

The Mosou matriarchy.

On supplements.

The anti-Monsanto diet.

“Only in America can you be labeled a hero for doing the most basic human action, helping someone in need.”

The decline of entrepreneurialism.
Related: Avoid going into business with a partner.

Fun facts about the 1950’s.

Why big corporations welcome big government.

Radish with more great posters.

Gay marriage advocate: Gay marriage is about destroying marriage.

The new European revolt, the young may just move away.
Related: Will leftists turn on each other?

Universal suffrage is a terrible idea. Although, I’ve been edging more and more towards the belief that suffrage is itself is a terrible idea.

Is the Flynn effect incorrect?

A biometric database of all Americans hidden in immigration reform.

The Obama administration spies on AP.

Media and administration: blood brothers.
Related: Remember this when the media tells you what is so.
Related: The politicization of the IRS.
Related: It doesn’t matter.
Related: IRS leaked Tea Party information to the media.

Why conservatives fail.

Not sure what to say about this one. The comments are both amusing and insane.

Don’t see what’s so bad about this. $130/hr is excellent pay, especially for someone disabled.

Eating taco’s is offensive to Mexicans.

Bureaucracy strikes again. Oh well, it’s now striking the SWPL foodie-types; maybe they’ll start paying attention.

The deficit crisis may solve itself if politicians remain gridlocked.

Slut culture killed Rehtaeh Parsons.

Vox on the TED talks.

The Japanese becoming more militaristic?

The Decline and Fall of the British Empire.

(H/T: Instapundit, SDA, TC, Foseti)

Guest Post from Europia: The Importance of Fathers

Below is a guest post contributed by someone who wishes to remain anonymous. Remember, If you have something you want to say that is in line with the blog’s purpose and topics, feel free to send it to me.

3. I just thought that these figures MIGHT interest you, even though some of them might be a generation old.

3.01: I just thought that you would find the following FACTS from Social History of some interest. The 43% of U.S. children who live without their father (U.S. Bureau of the Census) account for the following:
3.02: 60% of America’s rapists came from fatherless homes. Source: “Life without Father,” copyright 1996 by David Popenoe. Reprinted by permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc.
3.03: 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census).
3.04: 70% of long-term prison inmates as opposed to youths in prison, are fatherless. Source: “Life without Father,” copyright 1996 by David Popenoe. Reprinted by permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc.
3.05: 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988).
3.06: 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, March 26, 1999).
3.07: 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
3.08: 72% of adolescent murderers grew up without a father. Source: “Life without Father,” copyright 1996 by David Popenoe. Reprinted by permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc.
3.09: 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Rainbows for All God’s Children).
3.10: 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26).
3.11: 80% of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes. US Dept. Of Health & Human Services (1988
3.12: 85% of all youths in prison as opposed to long-term prisoners come from fatherless homes (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992).
3.13: 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes (Center for Disease Control).
3.14: 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (U.S. Bureau of the Census).

4.01: Regarding “Deadbeat Dads” you may find these figures of some interest.
4.02: 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
4.03: 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
4.04: 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
4.05; 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
4.06: 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.
4.07: In 1992 the General Accounting Office (GAO) found 14% of fathers who owe back child support are dead.
Source 4.02 – 4.06 inclusive [1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series" P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and "U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]

5.01: 61% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers (Department of Health and Human Services Report on Nationwide Child Abuse).
5.02: Rates of serious abuse are lowest in intact families; six times higher in stepfamilies; 20 times higher in cohabitating biological parent families and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabitating with a boyfriend who is not the father. (UK research).
5.03: 70.8% of children killed by one parent are killed by their mothers! 206 (National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System)
5.04: 70.6% of children abused by one parent are abused by their mothers! (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Child Maltreatment reports from 2001-2006

6.01: Child Murders
6. 02: Killed by Mothers 1,100
6.03: Killed by Live-In Boyfriends 513
6.04: Killed by Stepfathers 250
6.05: Killed by Biological Fathers 137
Source of 6.02 – 6.05 inclusive, The Heritage Foundation report “The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community,” May 15, 1997.

Lightning Round – 2013/05/08

I’ve got been busy, so today’s Lightning Round is truncated, but fear not, that should only mean that next weeks is longer than usual.

Can man live traditionally?

There will be war.

The fall of the white man.

A long life.

Reflections on daygame.

A parable: the littlest feminist.

Early marriage: the environment matters.

Rebranding submission. Is giving in to rebellion really the best way?

Virginity and sluttery.

A hamster translation for y’all.

Narcissism in action.

Both Roissy and Ace have the same thought.
Related: She’s married? Wow. Also, seems Bill had the same thought.
Related: Rape hysteria and vigilantism.

Speculations on ‘one flesh’ and microbiomes.

5 minutes of alpha.
Related: The power of game.

Using the male pill to win an MRA victory.

Anime and reaction.

Why to start a journal.

The Westermarck effect.

29% of registered voters think armed revolution may be necessary.

A global food shortage?

Canada vulnerable to aboriginal insurrection.

“Comment of the year.”

(H/T: Instapundit)

 

A Respectful Response: Rights Don’t Exist

Ballista has responded to one of my more recent posts:

Related to this matter is the blog post here. While men need their gardens to tend and need them to bear fruit, the problem with Free Northerner’s premise is that it is couched in terms of responsibilities and not rights. Any responsibility undertaken without the complete freedom of choice (a right) amounts to slavery. This is the usual mistake of frame that the feminist man-hating traditionalist “Christians” make to justify their warped and twisted profane view of marriage. It is these same people who are producing the man-up rants when their man-slaves run off the plantation and deprive a woman of her rightful divorce and fabulous cash and prizes. As Antz writes (the first comment):

Ballista’s mistake here is simple, there is no discussion of rights without responsibilities.

Contrary to popular mythology, there is no such thing as a natural right. God does not grant anyone a right to freedom, a right to life, a right to happiness, or any other such silly thing. The existence of natural rights is simply the delusion of the liberal. On the other hand, the legal fiction of natural rights is a useful political tool, as it establishes a basis for a free society, the most effective form of social organization man has yet attained, but it is still extra-biblical.

True rights come from responsibilities. A right to something comes from man’s earning it. He who works not, eats not.

The delinking of the rights and responsibilities is one of the largest causes of societal dysfunction. From it flows the entitlement society.

True freedom is responsibility is simply the absolute responsibility for self. Man is only truly free when given the absolute responsibility to act for himself and bear the consequences and reap the rewards of said actions.

That being said, Ballista is right in this:

The lack of the freedom to choose (i.e. “you MUST marry, and I don’t care if it’s a land whale, slut, womyn, boy claiming to be a woman or otherwise, you WILL man-up and marry it you piece of scum”) – and yes it’s Scriptural, is the essence of the definition of slavery.

The ultimate end of the issue is that men need to be freed to undertake what is good, beneficial and right before them and before God.

Marriage is not a command, it is a gift from God. Men should be wise in choosing a wife and anyone who tries to pressure a man to marry, especially to a women in rebellion of the natural order, is to be condemned.

Also, men do need to be freed, but not because they have some natural right to it, but because only in their freedom can they find true responsibility. Only a man free to find his own way will find what he truly should be responsible for.

Ballista, if you reply to this, I’m busy and won’t be able to reply for a few days at least.

Words and Meaning

I’ve been going through the Trivium between other readings as a part of my reading list project. The book start with a discussion of grammar, in which this is asserted early on:

A word is a symbol. Its matter is the sensible sign; its form is the meaning imposed upon it by convention. (p.15)

The use of a word as a symbol is asserted throughout the grammar section, and sometimes it is referenced how the symbol may not represent the same meaning to differing people. The symbol may have ambiguous meaning due to different phantasms (mental images) that people have of the word.

Being more cold-bloodedly rational-minded, I’ve generally defaulted to a view of words where having a fixed, objective meaning, but what if words don’t have an objective meaning? What if words have subjective emotional meanings beyond the “objective” definition of the word itself the word itself?

If a word is simply a symbol of meaning rather than an objective definition, it can symbolize different things to different people.

For example, in this conversation I wrote of earlier, one of the things that set someone off was saying, “rape in marriage doesn’t exist”. By this I meant that Christian marriage is a consentual agreement in which the free giving of sex by both parties plays an integral part, so, from a Christian point of view sex had already been consented to simply by being married. Just like continuous mortgage payments have already been consented to simply by signing a mortgage contract.

What I heard back was a strong emotional outburst about violence and sexual torture within marriage. This derailed the conversation. My attempts to reason about the definitions of Christian marriage, consent, violence, and rape proved fruitless.

In retrospect, the word rape is emotionally loaded for some people. Had I used the phrase “non-consensual sex”, there probably would not have been a similar, unintended emotional meaning attached to the phrase, while still having the same objective meaning. The discussion may have proved more fruitful.

Another one that came up in the discussion thread for that post is the use of “men” and “women” instead of “males” and “females”. I never really thought there was much of a difference between the two, other than the latter being broader and including children as well as adults. But it seems to many, that the former are more “humanizing”.

I could probably improve my abilities to relating with people, especially women, by simply keeping this in mind.

The symbols that are words may have emotional meanings attached to them by beyond what I may intend for them to have.

****

Private Man has commented on something similar. He recommends referring to “traditional gender roles” as “natural gender roles” from now on.

I think it’s a good idea and plan to implement it in the future. While there is a slight difference in meaning, in most contexts I, and most reactionaries, would use the phrase “traditional gender roles”, “natural gender roles” would be equivalent.

Haley had a similar suggestion, that we rebrand submission as deference. I’d have to agree with ar10308′s and Deep Strength’s responses:

Scripture says “Submit” as a command. “Defer” implies that you have the choice to do so or not, yet still be aligned with God’s command regardless if you do not follow it or not. “Defer” still places the wife at the head of the marriage as opposed to the husband.

ar10308 has it correct. Deference, at least in colloquial term of the word, means you tend to “know better” or “don’t want to make the decision” and are just letting the other person have their preference. Sounds like feminism to me.

Although the definition of defer has submit within it, it is not a synonym of submission. Submission to leadership is different from this in the Biblical perspective.

The dictionary definition of defer is:

To submit to the opinion, wishes, or decision of another through respect or in recognition of his or her authority, knowledge, or judgment.
…
to yield (to) or comply (with) the wishes or judgments of another
…
to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion.

While submit’s is:

To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.
…
5. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another.
6. to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment.
7. to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision, etc.

This is a case where the dictionary definitions are almost the same, but the real-life connotations of the symbols are too different to be used.

If this took off, I can see it being used as a cover for sin, sort of like the media portrayals of girls who are  “virgins” because they were anally rather than vaginally penetrated.

Would it be good Christian theology for Christians to defer to Christ?

Defer yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Kind of has a different ring to it, don’t it?

Men Need Responsibility and Reward

I was reading the comments over at Vox Day, which has the best comments section of any site I’ve yet read, and came across this:

If culture says “Men, you are responsible”, many will live up to it.

You’ve all read and mocked dozens of man-up screeds despairing at how young men are enjoying themselves rather than feeding themselves into the grinder.

As one recent example, at Sarah’s Daughter RLB has had an impressive streak of MGTOW shaming, catalogued by ar10308 here. To some degree I sympathize with RLB’s position, giving up and whining is not exactly a manly Christian response. On the other hand, deti’s response is rather on the nose, it is very hard for a young Christian man to find a virtuous wife.

Why do men act like children? Why do men not grow up? Why are men so adverse to taking responsibility? Where are all the good men? All these the so-cons and over-the-hill women ask.

I’ve already discussed the reason here, incentives. Essentially, there is increasingly less reason for the young man to try and increasingly more reason for him to be irresponsible.

While incentives is the primary driver it is not the only one. The lack of responsibility given young men is another.

Men need responsibility, they thrive on responsibility, and even if they don’t know it they crave responsibility.

Men are made, not born, and they are made through responsibility. There is nothing that makes a man, a man like responsibility.

You make a man by giving him his little area of life and telling him, ‘this is yours, you take care ot if, you are in charge of it, and you will reap the natural rewards and failures of your care of it.’

The man will rise to the challenge (or fail) and will be forged in the process.

This is man’s purpose, to have dominion.

You destroy a man and prevent him from being made by denying him this opportunity. He doesn’t even get the chance to fail, let alone succeed.

Guess which route today’s world takes with our young men-in-the-making?

Our young men are sent to school and university, where they are given no responsibility beyond handing in their work on time. For many men, even that is pushed on them by their helicopeter patents. The young men enter the workforce and are almost always put in low-level jobs where all their actions are dictated by corporate policy; there is no room for responsibility or personal judgment for the young man making his career. The average young man does not start a family until his late 20s, on average, and even then are no longer heads of their household, given responsibility over their family. Nowadays, a man can easily get into his 30s having borne no real responsibility for anything in his life.

How the hell are we as a society to expect young men to man-up and become men when there is almost no opportunity for a young to take responsibility.

We will not have men if we do not forge them.

Of course, once a man reaches his late-20s, the man-up rants come out. At this point, opinion leaders and women are more than happy to start demanding that men start taking responsibility (particularly by marrying that single-mother or aging ex-carousal rider).

But their definition of responsibility is a twisted and distorted one.

Under their perverted form of responsibility the man is given something, told to care for it, and told the penalties for failure will be levied against him should he not succeed. But, he is not given any power over the situation. He is cut off at the knees and his leadership is undermined, if not wholly denied. In addition, as my incentives post pointed out, he is not receiving the traditional, natural rewards of taking good care of his area of responsibility.

Society needs responsible men and men need responsibility. The obvious solution is for society to start giving young men responsibility, full responsibility. Give him his own part of life to have dominion over; give him a domain.

Demanding they man up is pointless. Demanding they feed themselves into the grinder is both sadistic and pointless. Making them accountable without giving them power is cruel and pointless, as is punishing failure, but not rewarding success.

Give men responsibility, then demand they be responsible, and let them know they will receive the natural rewards and/or penalties for their care of their area of responsibility, and you will get the men you want.

A man needs a domain of his own, any healthy society will ensure he has many opportunities to acquire one.

Lightning Round – 20130/05/01

Congratulations to nightskyradio and allamagoosa, two commenters from the manosphere who are to be married.
May God bless you both and may your quiver be full.
SSM gets results. Maybe I should get her to try to set me up next.

Love and respect.

Vikingism.
Related: Don’t fight it.
Related: There are no rules.

How to fight the Cathedral.

Some men don’t get the message.

Thatch with some advice for Christian men.
Related: Sexual dystopia.
Related: Zhai on how to handle men like Thatch.

Some Christian dating problems/advice.
Related: Don’t trust mainstream dating advice.
Related: Seems JB is also entertained by advice columns.

Traditional marriage versus Christian marriage.
Related: In support of early marriage.
Related: Arranged marriages result in more love than “love” marriages.
Related: Be realistic about marriage.
Related: Hating love.

Responding to Tradcons: Nope.

War only requires one side; don’t collaborate.
When even feminists can see the damage they are wreaking on the culture.
What happens when women want a traditional household, but don’t want to label it traditional.

Shifting the frame: Use the words “natural gender roles.”

Losing your way.

A few new blogs added to the roll:
The Radish: These posters are amazingly awesome.
The Karazamazov Idea, here’s an multi-post epic on women in the military.
Dr. Faust, here’s a recent post on female worship. He seems to be in the angry stage of the red pill.
Unorthodoxy: A neoreactionary aggregator.

Beauty is not skin deep.
Related: Beauty is not subjective.
Related: The face is everything. Agreed.

A women’s world can be a great place to visit.

Some ignorant woman has never heard of the apex fallacy.

Roissy has some good links.

Player burnout.

Anti-racism creates racism. Who could have guessed?

Those abusive homeschoolers.

CPS kidnaps child after mother gets a second opinion.

Gun control by executive order.
Related: The gun control advocates are out for blood. Hehe.
Related: The little bitches cry. Schadenfreude is fun.
Related: Sweet, delicious tears.

Democrats love guns.
Related: Who needs “assault weapons”? Koreans.

A lot of gun freedom arguments from Smallest Minority.

Odd how liberal’s concern for privacy goes out the window as soon as it’s one of their pet projects.

A liberal-asking-stupid-questions two-fer:
Why aren’t there more female sci-fi authors? Because they don’t like science.
Why aren’t more women at Coachella? Because most music made by women is pop/crap.

Believing in evolution.

Incentives help fat people lose weight. Willpower FTW.

Drink alcohol for good health.

Voter fraud is a myth.

Governments create problems, then inadequately “fix” them.

Austerity in Europe never occurred.
Related: Is the Cathedral starting to recognize the dangers of printing money?

The official narrative might not be true? Shocking.
Related: A response from the father.

Women shouldn’t guard men’s prisons.
Related: Female prison guards rape inmates. Where’s the punishment?

The stupidity of the internet sales tax.

Any race but Caucasian. Thanks taxpayer-funded public broadcaster.

(H/T: Phineas, Instapundit, Borepatch, Observer, Althouse, Blazing Cat Fur)

Pleasures of the Flesh

I’ve been noting in my Lightning Rounds that a few experienced players have been reaching the end of their run on the hedonic treadmill and are finding the whole experience unfulfilling. Last week, I wrote of how neither hedonism nor meaningless LTR’s will leave a man fulfilled. Now it seems Frost is suffering from player burn-out as well.

Except for a few men, playerdom will never be fulfilling in the end. Shallow pleasure does not bring contentment, only momentary happiness. Meaningless sex is simply the same effect as drugs, except one step removed (or more accurately, drugs are simply artificial inducements of effects similar to that which meaningless sex will bring). As with drugs, it will not satisfy, but it will become increasingly consuming as it becomes increasingly less pleasurable.

You will have sex, feel pleasure, then have but feel slightly less pleasure, and each time you will require more sex, more kinkiness, hotter women, and yet still feel slightly less pleasure each time. Meanwhile, you never feel the contentment you seek. The hedonic treadmill continues to roll until you either die or get off.

So, why not just ride for a while and get off at the right time?

The treadmill takes its toll even after you get off. Just as a carousel rider suffers as an alpha widow, so to does the ex-player suffer from the player’s curse.

A man who limits himself to one sexual partner has, by definition, the best sexual partner of his life with whom he is having the best sex of his life. The player, not so much. Any long-term relationship he may try will always be haunted by the ghosts of better sex and more beautiful partners of time past. The more partners he had prior, the more likely and stronger the hauntings.

There is no purpose to be found in hedonism, only emptiness.

I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.

So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 2:7-11, ESV)

Other men go make a different, but no less mistaken, extreme. Rather than pursuing meaningless sex from multiple women, they pursue meaning in a single woman. They find their identity and purpose in loving and serving another fallen person. This is as almost as empty as the meaningless sex, and will leave a man almost as hollow in the end. How is her value more than your own?

A man’s purpose of life can not be found in women or a singular woman.

If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life’s good things, and he also has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. For it comes in vanity and goes in darkness, and in darkness its name is covered. Moreover, it has not seen the sun or known anything, yet it finds rest rather than he. Even though he should live a thousand years twice over, yet enjoy no good—do not all go to the one place? (Ecclesiastes 6:3-6, ESV)

So, where can purpose be in life be found?

For this, we can turn to Genesis:

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

This is the first commandment; this is for what God made man.

Man’s purpose is to be found in filling and subduing the earth. Work was what man was created and/or evolved for. Man is meant to tame the land and to build from that which he needs and desires and to fill his tamed land with his own.

Man’s purpose is in building something greater than himself and then to create future generations to enjoy it.

Yet, there is a problem:

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:17-19, ESV)

I have read this verse many times in my life, but only recently did I realize the full measure of agony contained within these words.

It is only in his work that man can find meaning, yet rather than something pleasurable, work is something difficult, bitter, and wearying.

How bitter this cup, that man’s purpose is to toil, yet his toil is naught but pain to him. To his even greater agony, when his toil is through and he surveys the work gained by through the sweat of his brow, he always knows that from dust it came and to dust it will return.

To find purpose, a man must always be working, always in bitter toil, yet know that all his work will eventually crumble in ruin.

I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me, and who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity. So I turned about and gave my heart up to despair over all the toil of my labors under the sun, because sometimes a person who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge and skill must leave everything to be enjoyed by someone who did not toil for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. What has a man from all the toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun? For all his days are full of sorrow, and his work is a vexation. Even in the night his heart does not rest. This also is vanity. (Ecclesiastes 2:18-23, ESV)

What is a man to do when all is vanity? How can man continue on, when all about his is rust and decay

Here is all for man to do:

Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.

Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head.

Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. (Ecclesiastes 9:7-10, ESV)

A man accepts that life is vanity; he accepts that life is toil, but he continues. He finds what joy he can, knowing joy is illusionary, while working to build, knowing that his works will fade and decay.

A man’s purpose is to continue to build and enjoy the fruits of his labour even when he can not find meaning in the building or its fruits.