A commenter, “thedeti”, left a great comment at Σ Frame describing the Feminist life script for women. Responding to the following question: One question I have at this point is, why are a woman’s solipsistic dreams so much more important than submitting to a fantastic man who loves her? Not even sexual bonding is enough to get her to tune into her God ordained purpose as a woman? WTH??? And no matter how good her life might be, fantasy land will always be “better”.
Elspeth is correct that it is the parents’ fault. It’s also the ambient feminism that everyone swims in. Modern Western culture IS feminism. Everyone and everything is feminist. Even Christian women are feminists who are against abortion.
All women, and I mean ALL women, born after about 1960 are marinated in feminism and are feminists. All women in the US over the age of 25 are feminists, and I don’t care what anyone says to the contrary because it’s not true. EVERY man who has gotten married in the last 40 years married a feminist.
The last reason is the overarching dominant cultural narrative and “life script” that Novaseeker has explicated so well and better than I can. The narrative is basically this:
“Daughter, you can’t ever depend on a man and you can’t ever trust a man. Think about the D’s: Divorce, death, disability. What if he leaves you, cheats on you, dies on you, or becomes a cripple? You need a career so you can stand on your own two feet if you have to. You need college. You need job training. You need to earn your own money. You need to compete on equal footing with men. You are equal to men in every way, you can do anything a man can do. You don’t have to take any crap from a man and you sure as hell don’t have to “submit” to him. Any man you marry will be a completely 50/50 equal partner with you and you MUST insist on that.”
“In the meantime before you get married, it’s not really OK to have sex, but you’re going to anyway, so just make sure that if you do, you do it with men you love or at least like a lot. Or, if you’re a non-Christian, you can have all the sex you want with as many different men as you want and there will still be hot, attractive, resources-rich men waiting for you when you’re done with that.”
The ideal “life script” is:
Education, bachelor’s degree or extensive job training, move to a population center, get job, live alone or with roommates who are doing the same thing you’re doing. Advance in career, get competent or even proficient. Travel to fun and exotic tropical destinations. Have fun. Make some frivolous purchases like $800 Louis Vuitton handbags. Keep working. Probably get master’s degree. Change job if necessary. All your friends and every woman you know around your age is doing this.
During all of the above, you are dating both for fun and in the hopes of meeting a marriageable man. You are having sex with most of those men. Some are false starts. Some are short term, no more than 3-6 months. Some are long term. Again: All your friends and every woman you know around your age is doing this.
The above 2 paragraphs take her out to at least age 25, and many times to the late 20s. (It is alleged by some that many, most, women meet the man they will marry by age 23, and they then marry in their late 20s because the reported average age from relationship start to marriage is 4.9 years. This doesn’t take into account though that female average age at first marriage is 28 and creeping upwards.)
Phase 2: Meet man who you will marry. Get married in equal partnership marriage. Have one child, at most two. Options to stay home, work part time/flex time, or continue full time. Your husband also works and does significant chores around the house and takes the stress off you, as he’s expected to because you are his equal in every significant way. It’s not your job to do most of the housework and child rearing- you’re to do only half of it, and he’s to do the other half (that you decide he needs to do).
So that’s why a woman’s solipsistic dreams are more important than submitting to a fantastic man who loves her:
1) Her “dreams” (or, her life survival) predominate over marriage and everything else until she’s at least in her early 20s. During the time when she’s most attractive and most able to secure “a fantastic man who loves her”, she is spending that time getting educated and job trained so she can do what mom and dad and everyone else told her – Don’t ever be in a position where you have to depend on a man. Instead of looking for a man to take care of survival, she’s doing it herself and not nearly as well as a man can.
2) She’s entitled to “have fun” before she gets married. Travel, make and spend money. Date (i.e. have sex with) attractive men and maybe one will commit. Dating = sex. Everyone is doing this. Your parents, church and pastors usually know this but look the other way.
3) The way you find a husband is you find attractive men, have sex with them within 3 dates, and then find out if there’s enough compatibility there to keep dating. Then hopefully you get exclusive. Then hopefully, when everything is right, you get married. But EVERYTHING must be in place: His career, her career, sufficient money, a decent place to live, access to transportation and culture. She must also be satisfied she has acquired enough life experience that she is satisfying her YOLO needs and FOMO fears, and she must do this before she agrees to marriage.
4) Submission is almost completely omitted from the narrative. Women are not to submit to men. A woman dating a man is not to take the submissive position. A wife is not to submit to her husband, or if she does, she submits only when she wants to and only when she approves of the husband’s conduct. She has everyone’s permission and approval to approach men and marriage this way – even from her church and her pastors, and certainly from her mother, and almost always from her father (if she has one) Absolutely no one will tell her she is to submit to her husband “in all things, as unto the Lord” – not even her church, not even her pastors. Submission to a man equals dependence on him, and remember – she cannot be in a position where she has to depend on a man.
So how can this paradigm be fixed?
previously I gave some advice about keeping an unmarried woman in her father’s house. But, I really would like your help in coming up with a way to counter this godless Feminist life script. Some of the underlying assumptions made by those who accept this life script seem to be that:
- An olden day patriarchal lifestyle and marriage is unacceptable for their daughter.
- If I live a strict Bible-directed life, I will miss out on so much I would like to do.
- As long as I’m not the worst girl at church (e.g. the pastor’s daughter) I’m still going to heaven.
- I can be redeemed and a fornicator.
- God must judge me relative to the society all around me.
- Egalitarian/Complementarian marriages work better and are happier than Patriarchal marriages.
- My husband doesn’t deserve my best years, or for my life to focus on him.
- I can chase my Feminist dreams before and after marriage, and if I can, I’ll help my husband too.
- As a woman my goals and dreams are just as important as any man’s.
- My husband should do half of the domestic work, because; “Baby, I’m worth it!”
Should we do something about it?
If we only keep the brainwashed young men and women of this Feminist generation in our thoughts and prayers, things will only grow worse as the rabid Feminists charge unopposed against the last few remnants of traditional Christian patriarchy that are still left in our lives. At this moment what I can see is that we need to change our mindset and the frame of reference of those around us. Feminism and Hollywood have programmed and brainwashed us to believe that women are equal to men, if not morally superior. So consequently a wife’s priorities become equal to her husband’s, if not superior.
Many of the underlying assumptions that the Feminist life script is based upon, are rooted in the idea that husbands aren’t any more important than their wives. Churchians generally believe that now, and that male headship makes little sense, but is commanded only by reason of divine fiat. So, they try to humor God by calling the man the head, while carrying on like he is only the co-head, or preferably only the vice president of their daughter’s future extension of their own family. They don’t give their daughters away to belong to their husband’s clan anymore, on the contrary they feel that the husbands are being nabbed for their daughter’s matriarchal dominion.
Basically people lack the faith that God’s original ways are best, that their daughters should prepare for a faith-filled life depending on God and their husband. They would gladly risk their daughter fornicating and being indoctrinated and radicalized into complete worldliness just to give her a chance to get a degree at a well known school of this world. They make a deal with the devil whereby they clearly sell out their future son in law’s best interests to try to assure that their daughter tastes fleeting pleasures apart from him while securing her financial insurance against ever becoming fully bound to his circumstances or dependent on him. They are literally trading off future marital unity interdependence and intimacy for faithless independence and separation preparedness. We as individuals and as a society need to repent of this foolish faithlessness!
Exit Question: How do we best get people to deprioritize women and their fruitless independence and instead cherish men, marriage, and strong patriarchal families?
Laughing at Feminism 
Is it just me, or does something seem phony about guys who wear shirts like this one?
It seems like they are actually resigned to other men messing with their “easy” daughter, there isn’t a thing they’re going to do about it, and they’re just powerlessly lashing out with exaggerated empty threats. Like they’re a Beta-male mate-guarding within their own Electra complex. What does it really say about you when you’re reduced to wearing a shirt pleading with people to leave your daughter alone? If the protection of your daughter was legitimate, would you really need a threatening shirt for people to see that you don’t want her out getting messed with? If they actually did intend to follow through with the threat on the shirt, wouldn’t the shirt just constitute evidence of premeditation?
LikeLike
A counter for the underlying assumptions is “it is for the children”. In this case it is actually true. Go through each one, then consider how it impacts future children.
We are all for the children, are we not?
How can anybody not be for the children?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Travel to fun and exotic tropical destinations.
Who do they think they kidding when it comes to this goal? Somebody should write a post about this. Maybe I will
LikeLiked by 3 people
Exit Question: How do we best get people to deprioritize women and their fruitless independence and instead cherish men, marriage, and strong patriarchal families?
At this point I’m coming around to the view that, where “the church” and “Christianity” is concerned, it really doesn’t matter. Trying to “fix” things is wasted effort because it is obvious by their attitudes and actions that churchians (I think I need to just start using this term from now on to describe the Fake Christian majority, rather than “Christians” in scare quotes) simply reject God’s ways. Sure, they’ll babble half-hearted acknowledgements of what they know they SHOULD be doing and teaching, and they’ll play-act thunderous outrage at worldly practices that comes off as the hokey fakery that it is. But if they’re not for a second fooling you or me, how can they possibly be fooling God? They’re not, and they know it. But since God hasn’t rained fire and brimstone down upon them for their heresy and irreverence, they don’t care and are content to keep on doing what they’ve been doing. (Food for thought: while God might not be punishing them in obvious ways, He IS punishing them by what He’s NOT doing. This includes blessing them with the true Peace of the Spirit that comes from works that are grounded in true faith. By not taking their faith seriously –something that the non-believing World sees clearly, even if the churchians themselves cannot– they are robbed of the ability to sow the seeds of the faith among others through witness. It is not without reason that America’s churchian franchises are empty shells and targets of perpetual mockery and disdain by the World, to the extent that the World even pays any attention to them at all. Nor is it pure coincidence that the rates of broken families and divorce among churchians are almost identical to those of the non-believing World. Since they clearly don’t truly believe in God’s ways, why would He bless them with the benefits that come from believing in and LIVING them?).
So, with all of that said, I don’t think that there realistically is anything to be done to change the worldview that pedestalizes vagina (and thus condones its feral nature) until the majority repents and truly adopts, absorbs, and lives God’s ways (i.e., becoming genuinely BORN AGAIN). In all probability only a very tiny remnant will ever do so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exit Question: How do we best get people to deprioritize women and their fruitless independence and instead cherish men, marriage, and strong patriarchal families?
End all forms of government welfare, corporate and unbiblical family welfare.
government:
– No freebies for sluts with bastards.
– No programs that give preference to women recipients.
– No robbing the ex-husband to fund the betraying wife that threw him out of his own house, using government workers with guns and law degrees.
– And no throwing the husband out of his own house in the first place. If Barbie is unhappy, she is not a slave; she can leave. Maybe go back to her parents, so that they can pay the consequences of having raised her so badly.
corporate:
– No preferential hiring.
– No 50k / year HR jobs that are just arranging job fairs or benefits for the workers that do the primary/main work of the company. These unskilled jobs should be no more than 50% higher than working the cashier position at a corner store.
unbiblical family:
– A father has the right to give his money as gifts to whoever he chooses. But inheritance is to be only for the sons, with nothing for daughters. The only exception is when a man has daughters but no sons; and it this case, the inheritance becomes the property of the husband, upon marriage.
The above would not eliminate Strong Independent Women. But it would greatly curtail it. This reduction would result in the perception of “Independent Woman status” as rare, rather than an expected right.
And (properly trained) women would be happy. My wife has no outside job; she is not lazy, but she works at home for my family. And the only dissatisfaction or stress she has due to this, is if it looks like I might have no job.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Let us consider these assumptions.
1. An olden day patriarchal lifestyle and marriage is unacceptable for their daughter.
Why? Other than you are mouthing the current fashion. The kids would benefit from this. Probably the assessment of the following assumptions will make it clear why.
2. If I live a strict Bible-directed life, I will miss out on so much I would like to do.
Well, you might miss out on marriage and kids. If you do have kids, will you be a good mother? Will you be an alpha-widow? Will you understand that kids take sacrifice?
3. As long as I’m not the worst girl at church (e.g. the pastor’s daughter) I’m still going to heaven.
I can’t see how that kind of rationalization helps future children. Do you?
4. I can be redeemed and a fornicator.
Being an alpha widow is not a good way to go through life. The sins of the parent are …
5. God must judge me relative to the society all around me.
So being a marginally better mother than the train-wreck Karen is the way to go.
6. Egalitarian/Complementarian marriages work better and are happier than Patriarchal marriages.
Are they? One might think that happier marriages would lead to more well adjusted kids.
7. My husband doesn’t deserve my best years, or for my life to focus on him.
I can chase my Feminist dreams before and after marriage, and if I can, I’ll help my husband too.
Well, it is funny that the welfare of the children are not mentioned anywhere here
8. As a woman my goals and dreams are just as important as any man’s.
My husband should do half of the domestic work, because; “Baby, I’m worth it!”
Let’s face it, women in the end, really want to have children. That is their built-in ultimate dream. Not coming to grips with it, causes problems for them and all around them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
4. I can be redeemed and a fornicator.
What Catholics call “the Sin of Presumption.” Best summed up as “I know God will forgive me for my sins once I’m sorry and regretful enough to ask His forgiveness, so I’ll just go ahead and indulge my sinful side now and show remorse if/when it all goes wrong for me.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
JPF says: “But inheritance is to be only for the sons, with nothing for daughters.”
What is your reasoning behind that? Righteous Job gave his daughters some inheritance, although it was pointed out like it was perhaps non-standard in his ambient culture. FWIW My father gave my brother and I more than our sisters, and they are fiery angry about it. In fact I am still being sued over his estate by my sisters at this moment.(long story)
Job 42:15 And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.
That verse also leads me to my theory that when job’s good fortune returned again and he got all of his original stuff doubled and 10 new replacement kids for the 10 he lost, this blessing of doubling also included a new additional wife to love him better than the foolish one who had told him to curse God and die. It seems strange that a woman would have ten more kids after the previous ten were already grown up. It seems more likely that a new and more fertile wife or wives, would produce ten new kids. I also think daughters are the image of their mother in a respect, all the way back to Eve. I think saying that Job was three for three at having the hottest daughters in the land, is an idiomatic way of telling you that their mother, Job’s new wife, was beyond all certainty the hottest sexiest woman in all the land. Bow-Chicka-Wow-Wow!
LikeLiked by 1 person
5. God must judge me relative to the society all around me.
“So being a marginally better mother than the train-wreck Karen is the way to go.”
LOL Apparently that is what our society truly thinks. It is sort of a comparative-morality. All the horror stories on the news serve to convince people that they’re not really that bad, because there are still far worse people out there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
4. I can be redeemed and a fornicator.
What Catholics call “the Sin of Presumption.”
I don’t think you can be saved, fornicate, and still be saved. One way or another, whether they were ever really saved or not, that isn’t Biblically possible.
1 Corinthians 6:9(1599 Geneva) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.
A footnote in the AD1599 Geneva Bible regarding that passage says:
Now he [the Apostle Paul] prepareth himself to pass over to the fourth treatise of this Epistle, which concerneth matters indifferent: debating this matter first, how men may well use women or not: which question hath three branches, fornication, matrimony, and a single life. As for fornication, he utterly condemneth it. And marriage he commandeth to some, as a good and necessary remedy for them, to others he leaveth it free: And others some he dissuadeth from it, not as unlawful, but as discommodious, and that not without exception. As for singleness of life (under which also I comprehend virginity) he enjoineth it to no man: yet he persuadeth men unto it, but not for itself, but for another respect, neither all men nor without exception. And being about to speak against fornication, he beginneth with a general reprehension of those vices, wherewith that rich and riotous city [Corinth] most abounded: warning and teaching them earnestly, that repentance is unseparably joined with forgiveness of sins, and sanctification with justification.
I agree that the forgiveness of sins is inseparably joined with repentance. (Not just sorrow over past mistakes, but actually turning away from them)
If a person is not truly repentant, are their sins truly forgiven?
2 Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
So the Apostle Peter also seemed to teach that to know and accept the way of Christ, and then to turn away from it, leaves you worse off, because you cannot kill Jesus Christ afresh and be saved a second time from your new bondage to sin.
Scary stuff!
Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
However, the good news is that so few have actually been truly saved, that many who believe themselves to have been saved, can actually still be saved for the first time, resulting in a complete turning away from willfully violating God’s seven laws(of Noah) for all mankind, which were again reaffirmed, in piecemeal fashion, to the gentile churches by the Apostles in the New Testament.
LikeLike
Kind of on topic
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes we’re now saturated with feminism, and we’ve noticed its demon-child transgenderism. Furthermore we seem to be sleep walking into some sort of communist revolution: at least three Big Lies, a massive propaganda machine, and an international army of foot-soldiers are already firmly in place.
Thus it could be that the conditions for a Christian revival are being layed down automatically. What happens next will depend upon what young men do. It’s hard to predict precisely what in part because I think they would be led by the Holy Spirit rather than by an explicit foreseen strategy.
Perhaps one thing we can do about women is to honour still-married grandmothers. This will indirectly cause FOMO and YOLO among the younger women, but acting in a positive direction rather than towards promiscuity as is currently the case. Happy grandmothers already get love and attention from their larger families, but if societal praise and attention were added to the mix then this could have a powerful reinforcing effect and make the whole thing harder to ignore. Young wives might eventually realise that if they want to be at the heart of the family, they can’t be its head. The head must remain slightly aloof. Or will their fantasies continue to drown out this truth?
LikeLiked by 3 people
“But inheritance is to be only for the sons, with nothing for daughters.”
What is your reasoning behind that?
the sons are to inherit, with the first son getting a double portion – Deuteronomy 21:
15 “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,[a] 16 then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, 17 but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.
giving the inheritance to a daughter is the second choice, to be done if there are no sons. See in particular verses 8 to 11 for the preferencial inheritance rules – Numbers 27, emphasis mine:
3 “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but died for his own sin. And he had no sons. 4 Why should the name of our father be taken away from his clan because he had no son? Give to us a possession among our father’s brothers.”
5 Moses brought their case before the Lord. 6 And the Lord said to Moses, 7 “The daughters of Zelophehad are right. You shall give them possession of an inheritance among their father’s brothers and transfer the inheritance of their father to them. 8 And you shall speak to the people of Israel, saying, ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. 9 And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. 11 And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to the nearest kinsman of his clan, and he shall possess it. And it shall be for the people of Israel a statute and rule, as the Lord commanded Moses.’”
The inheritance (at least the land, likely all the father’s wealth) went to the nearest kinsman, only if none of the prior inheritors were available. And the man’s sons were the first line of inheritors; if they existed, no one else got any of the inheritance, including the man’s daughters.
Considering that women need to respect their husbands, having the men in the society owning land and the women not is perfect. The landless woman will more easily respect and appreciate her husband, whose labour and land allows her to eat and have a place to live. Bitchiness, selfishness and rebellion is available everywhere though; see the up-to-then sinless and perfect garden of Eden and the choice Eve made.
Numbers 36:
8 And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the people of Israel shall be wife to one of the clan of the tribe of her father, so that every one of the people of Israel may possess the inheritance of his fathers. 9 So no inheritance shall be transferred from one tribe to another, for each of the tribes of the people of Israel shall hold on to its own inheritance.’”
10 The daughters of Zelophehad did as the Lord commanded Moses, 11 for Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to sons of their father’s brothers. 12 They were married into the clans of the people of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of their father’s clan.
I thought that the Bible specified that the daughter’s inheritance became her husband’s, upon marriage. But the additional restriction here is just about the inheritance going outside the originating tribe. Since a husband is to rule his own house, I think it is still correct to view him as the controller, rather than the daughter. But it could be argued that it is her inheritance, not the inheritance of her husband. Once both parents die however, this temporary possiblity of the married woman owning the inheritance instead of the husband is ended. And there is nothing to suggest that she could have “willed” that inheritance to some other person after her death; I think it would go to their sons, same as in any other case.
Righteous Job gave his daughters some inheritance, although it was pointed out like it was perhaps non-standard in his ambient culture.
I think Job was prior to the Law, also. It is supposedly the oldest book in the Bible.
FWIW My father gave my brother and I more than our sisters, and they are fiery angry about it.
Yeah, but your sisters have been swimming in the filth of feminism their whole lives, assuming they are living in a progressive, Western nation.
In fact I am still being sued over his estate by my sisters at this moment.
Regrettable; but also unsurprising.
You seem to be getting hit from every side. Your wife betrays your family and steals your children; the government serves Satan by helping your betraying wife to destroy your family and your finances; Satan is no doubt also attempting to destroy you and your faith; and your sisters attack you for upholding the will of your father.
May God bless and guide you Sharkly. You need a good friend. Or three.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Your “Churchians” are moral mugwumps, having, as a wittier era described them, “their mugs on one side, their wumps on the other.” Instead of Isaiah 40:31, about “wings of eagles,” they ought to frame I Kings 18:21 over their dinner-tables as their mottoes:
And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JPF,
Thank you for sharing that, and for your encouragement. I had never really delved into Biblical inheritance procedures. I had noticed that God wanted the land to stay held by the descendants of the tribes and families that He gave it to. And it would seem that having the land owned by the males would strengthen the patriarchal system of their families. Do you suppose that the land might be treated different from the other material assets of a patriarch’s estate, that perhaps the land is quite strictly an enduring inheritance that is due to a man’s sons, whereas their other wealth might be bequeathed more liberally?
LikeLike
Welcome, J. J. Griffing,
Yes, it does seem that the Churchian’s Feminist life-script for women is rooted in a lack of faith that God’s commands and ways are the ways that are truly best for us to follow. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way. However it would seem that most of these people’s “own way” is just following the broad road that leads to destruction in lockstep conformity behind the rest of the world’s lemmings. By choosing not to decide between God the Father and the Baal of this world, they still have made a choice, to follow them both whenever possible, while deferring to Baal and apologizing to our heavenly Father, whenever it is not possible to seemingly appease them both.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Sharkly Do you suppose that the land might be treated different from the other material assets of a patriarch’s estate
I cannot recall any specific text that treats the non-land wealth differently than the land wealth. So I guess a person could both argue that the man’s livestock is separate, and that the livestock is to be treated exactly the same way. I think the first suggestion is very weak, but I should admit someone might argue it. We would need to search the Scriptures, to see if there are any hints one way or the other.
I think Abraham had no land at all, other than the burial plot and field he bought. Yet he gave the inheritance to Isaac. What was that inheritance, since there was no land? And Jacob schemed to get the inheritance of Esau; what was he scheming over, since I don’t recall Isaac having accumulated any land? Abraham and Isaac did have livestock however.
There is a law that treated land within a walled town differently than land outside (such as a field). Land within a walled town could be sold off permanently, whereas the land outside the town could not be permanently sold; it was to stay within the family, and returned in the year of Jubilee. I don’t recall any suggestion that the house/land within the town would be treated differently during inheritance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JPF,
It seems my eyes must have glossed over in the past when I read in the Bible about inheritance laws and precedent. I’m not really money driven. I never was much concerned with earthly possessions, my missionary family moved a lot, and I was always having to part with my possessions and later get new ones. Also, being the youngest, I can see why I may not have dwelt long in studying male-line primogeniture. However, it certainly does seem that money is important in the life of a Christian, and it is talked a lot about in the Bible. I believe the late Dr. Ravi Zacharias used to say that money represented “congealed life”. If that were to be true, then money should be stewarded with some of the same importance given to life. But I’ll have to ponder that, since I tend to think of mammon as filthy lucre. And a defiling lust for money has reduced many to becoming its bondservants.
However, since I’m not up to speed on this inheritance stuff, and you appear to be more knowledgeable about what the Bible says about it. And since I am not presently inclined to share much that might be learned even from my own situation, due to ongoing legal wranglings that I am currently entangled in. Furthermore, since the matter of inheritance seems integral to properly upholding and bolstering God’s holy patriarchal order for families and society, and seems to have been mostly ignored in the manosphere, I would like to implore you, JPF, the following: Could you write up a post concerning the topic? I suddenly see that it relates to our patriarchal Godhead, patriarchy here on earth, justice, and the rights of men. Might women be more apt to seek out marriage if they knew there was no earthly possession remaining for them in their father’s house, but that a future husband would be due an inheritance from his father? It reminds me of how TFM says the only solution is for men to just take all their rights back away from women. Every entitlement a woman has, is just one more thing that allows her to snub the men who secured it for her.
JPF, I would like for you to make a post about inheritance. I’d be happy to add a graphic and format it. Your comments above seem like a great start already. I’d love to host that post here, but certainly wouldn’t mind you mirroring it on your own blog. There may be other sites that would want to host it as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for reposting this. I would not change anything
LikeLike
thedeti,
Thank you for all your commenting that you do around the manosphere. You leave a lot of well thought out comments in my opinion. And I thought your comment on the Feminist life script for women, that I quoted as the basis for this post, was really a great summation of the situation.
Have you any thoughts on changing that worldly paradigm that has even overtaken our churches?
LikeLike
Start in our own homes:
1. Take up our authority as the husband and lead our homes and families. Learn to say NO and stick to it. Ask your wife for counsel, but don’t reflexively do what she recommends.
2. Go through I Corinthians 11 with your wife and daughters. Tell your wife and daughters to wear a head covering when praying and prophesying.
3. Teach our sons and daughters the red pill truths about sex and marriage. Teach our sons Love, Self Control, and Leadership. Teach our daughters Submission and Respect.
4. If possible, have more than 3 children and teach them from the Bible. 3 children is replacement, you are treading water. More than 3 can grow God’s Kingdom on earth.
5. Don’t send our daughters away to college.
6. Network with like minded families to arrange marriages for your daughter and sons.
7. Teach our daughters and sons to try and have more than 3 children.
“Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6 Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease.”
Jeremiah 29:5,6 (NIV)
LikeLiked by 2 people
the late Dr. Ravi Zacharias
This is unfortunate. I heard some of his arguments/presentations, and thought highly of them.
I would like to implore you, JPF, the following: Could you write up a post concerning the topic?
Damn, nothing like being called out. Now, do I continue to sit on the sidelines and snipe about what I don’t like, or do the research and present my own position, so I can be the one being sniped at….. 🙂
I suddenly see that it relates to our patriarchal Godhead, patriarchy here on earth, justice, and the rights of men.
That there is a large topic.
Might women be more apt to seek out marriage if they knew there was no earthly possession remaining for them in their father’s house, but that a future husband would be due an inheritance from his father?
YES, that is one of the reasons why I think fathers should refuse an inheritance for daughters. And also money for their college foolishness. And even continuing to support her, while she is in his house, if she is refusing the man that her father offered for her marriage.
I’ll start thinking about the outline for the requested post. Might be a couple of posts, as the “rights of men” is rather significant, especially the consequences for our casual violation of these literally God-given rights.
LikeLiked by 2 people
http://www.songlyrics.com/silly-wizard/queen-of-argyll-lyrics/
>So my lads I needs must leave you,
My intention’s not to grieve you
Nor indeed would I deceive you,
Oh, I’ll see you in a while
I must find some way to gain her,
To court her and to tame her
I fear my heart’s in danger
From the Queen of all Argyll
It strikes me that it may have been a cultural assumption in the less-than-recent past that prospective brides or wives needed at some point to be ‘tamed’ — something missing today. What this taming process entailed is unstated and unclear, though I’m guessing that it needn’t necessarily have been violent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rontomlinson2,
I like the instrumental intro to that song a lot. For the first 23 seconds the instrument sound is just excellent.
I certainly agree that a women’s defiling nature needs to be tamed. No doubt there were folks who realized women’s feral nature all throughout history, and likely they were more clear headed and less distracted and less manipulated by media back then.
In another time, when I was young, I had a small four track recording studio exactly like the one shown below:
I can remember recording a partial song I wrote, with that sentiment, that included the rhyme “claim you” and the next verse ending in “tame you”.(c. 1987) It sounded like Van Halen, only with heart-stopping Dubstep bass drops and EDM sound effects that would not really appear in commercial music for at least another decade and a half. Then I packed that stuff away and went off to college. There was no way for a kid to release his own music back then, like you can today. I’d like to get into digital recording. I get sick of hearing some new digital sound effect in a hit song, and trying to explain to people that I actually recorded that same effect over 30 years ago with mostly analogue equipment. I’m not really musically inclined, and like William Hung, I must assure you that my voice is not professionally trained. However I do have a knack for recording engineering. I can pick out a fraction of a second of incidental sound frequency combination that I like together, and then re-record that fraction of a second a few hundred times over until I figure out how to reproduce the part that caught my attention, and then be able to make a continuous effect out of it. Most musicians or singers just like to “jam” doing their thing, they aren’t that geeky about learning to reproduce some split second of sonic warble caused by multiple frequencies selectively “cancelling” each other.
However right now the world only seems to want to see me beaten to a pulp for wanting to be a good and godly husband and father.
I do think men are to be a civilizing “taming” influence on women. While women are unwitting defilers and therefore God tells them to just remain silent in Christian assembly.
Usually when you see a man driven to madness, there is a woman involved. Women are usually a defiling influence on men. Don’t believe the churchian nonsense that, women civilize men, they don’t, they usually just neuter them, into defeated simps who let women walk all over them.
Although I don’t know the story, I got the following “Amber Alert” on my company phone a few hours ago, since I don’t know how to shut those alerts off.
“2 girls abducted at homicide in Leavenworth”
While I may be wrong, I’m assuming that is a father taking his children back. I wouldn’t be surprised if like myself, his children were stolen through “no-fault” of his own based upon false accusations, and even after disproving them and spending years wrangling in court, his wife is unjustly rewarded for breaching her covenant with him, by being given his children, his wages, his retirement, his inheritance, while he gets nothing but slander, fines, and threats of imprisonment from those evil servants of Satan.
Maybe I’m wrong about the situation, but I’m supporting the father, if that is what is going on. Society might call him an antihero, but I’m cheering for the dude. I completely understand. I think we need more men willing to render the family courts’ injustice moot. No doubt the news media will make this man into a monster, but he is a man to me at this point, and I understand his plight. If things are like I assume they are (which they may not be) and I was on his jury, I’d let him off.
LikeLiked by 2 people
YES, that is one of the reasons why I think fathers should refuse an inheritance for daughters. And also money for their college foolishness.
College for women(and often men) is usually a complete waste of time and money. Plus it is so often literally handing over your daughter to a house full of frat bros. The days when daughters would stay virgins in college until after they got their “Mrs. degree”, are long gone in our culture that does not support morality, including even in the church. Our world is doomed to hell and the churches are so cucked they can’t even speak a single word of admonishment to a woman within their own congregation. Ask me how I know!
Oh, and thank you, JPF, for volunteering to write one or even two posts about inheritance. They will no doubt leave a legacy in the mind of the manosphere, since I believe this may be the first time the topic has been directly met head on.
LikeLike
Sharkly, I saw the photo you posted of you with your boys. It’s heart-breaking.
>I do think men are to be a civilizing “taming” influence on women.
Yes. Somebody on the manosphere (Vox Day?) mentioned that he used to assume that women were the civilisers of men, but that he’d changed his mind. Rather mothers are the nurturers of young boys but men are in fact the civilisers of women.
I’d to know more about what this taming or civilising process might entail. Perhaps something like:seeing her with spiritual eyes but withdrawing that countenance when she goes astray — or simply allowing her to feel your disappointment. A subtle version of holding frame. I don’t know.
And doubtless there were young wives in the past who required no taming at all, either because their father/family had done that work already or because they were spiritually mature enough not to need it.
Btw, some versions of that song’s lyrics have ‘To court her and attain her’ instead of ‘To court her and to tame her’. To my ear the latter is the correct version but then I haven’t trained with a recording studio!
LikeLiked by 1 person
So I saw this article off SigmaFrame site and although it is a few months old, it is very accurate and descriptive and I will recommend to others.
The core of the problem with modern society is that you, and your “loved ones” are the most important people on the universe, far more important than God. The Millennial generation is largely the offspring of another grossly selfish generation, the Baby Boomers. Everything is about “i”… iPhone, iPad, iMovies, selfies, YOLO, FOMO… all of these are focused on self. Swipe left/right reduces a person’s worth as a human being to a 5-second analysis and judgment of one’s looks. Everything is impersonal and fake. Even people who supposedly want to meet online to date are simply tools for women’s self-esteem, to see how many “matches” or “likes” she gets. It is simply dystopian.
I am a Gen X’er and feel very fortunate to be born into a small generation that loved freedom, created concepts such as The Red Pill and the ManoSphere, which eventually leads to “the God pill” (i.e. RooshV for instance). But Gen Xers are simply irrelevant in the cultural and societal battles that were waged towards evil by the Boomers and their progeny, the Millennials.
Self is the focus. Feminist lifestyle is the norm, for women AND men. Humans are the centers of their own universes, of these narcissistic self-created fake online “realities” on social media.
My point being this: your OP title is simply perfect “no patriarchy for my daughter”. That is why throngs of good, honest, Bible-believing Conservative and Orthodox Christians do things that will irritably destroy their daughters: give them SmartPhones and knowingly tolerate their social media excesses. Send them to colleges/universities away from home after high school, where they will be further indoctrinated into FemiNazi machines of hate. Never discourage their worst behaviors, like obesity, slutty clothes, tolerate scumbag “boyfriends”, and so forth.
Simply put: while young boys are raised to be docile and weak, young girls are encouraged to be “strong and independent”.
Any parent, especially today’s Beta dads, restricting ANY of his daughter’s worst behaviors will be judged and condemned as a misogynist, troglodyte, and worse. That is if dad is even around, he may have been separated from his kids by court decree or under false accusations.
I have to tell you, I no longer want to even have a kid anymore. Even if it is a boy, he will grow up as a 3rd class citizen in a country that is in sharp societal and economic decline, the United States. These are some dark days ahead for sure, not us for us, but for the world as a whole.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sharkly,the main problem is beta-dads still hav’nt gotten into the divorce-insurance business with glen stanton leading the way with his only 38% statics of christians divorce!But most don’t know that dowrys,were basicaly divorce insurance,back when families,were in the marriage business instead of their phony law&order churchians&governments!
P.S.I hope this is’nt too redpilled for some people!
LikeLike
Pingback: Usurper | Laughing at Feminism