Is it uncomfortable to talk about gender relations? Often times it is, even for traditionally-minded Christian men and women. I remember my adolescent days when the liberal pastors I sat under would spout off feminist talking points during sermons touching on gender relations. Somehow even the very clear scriptural gender roles described in passages such as Ephesians 5:22-33 became arguments for misandry. They’d read verse 21 back into the subsequent 12 verses like it was a magic decoder ring from a box of Cracker Jacks. The mutual submission referred to in verse 21, by the way, regards the female submission Paul went on to describe — not the man’s submission to the wife within the household. If verse 21 was an instruction for husbands to submit to their wives, Paul would be uttering nonsense in verses 22-33. This is akin to abolitionist hermeneutics.
Twenty years later while sitting under “conservative” pastors, I heard that same nonsense, proving the late, great Robert Lewis Dabney right again. Socially acceptable conservatism really is just liberalism a few years later.
For traditionalists, we know that the Bible has spoken clearly on gender roles. We may dispute whether women need to wear head coverings in church or in the home, and the place of jewelry and makeup. We may debate whether or when it is appropriate for women to work outside of the home. However, we do not debate whether the husband or wife is head of their household. We do not dispute the impropriety of women competing for elected office or ordained ministry.
These divisions on the attire and income-earning role of women are secondary to the unanimity we express on the submission of women to men in the family, church, society, and nation. This unanimous view among members of the Alt Right and traditionalist Christians puts us completely at odds with polite society, aka the devil’s culture.
Recently I came across a rhetorical question posed by a blogger that intersected our Alt Right views on race with our views on gender roles. It caused me to rethink the priority I had hitherto given to male-female relations in my own life, and in my views of helping the pro-white, Alt Right movement make progress.
Essentially the question was this: if we can’t rule our own women in our households, what makes us think we’ll be able to deliver our country from hordes of non-white men?
This is an important question to ask ourselves. It is an argument from the lesser to the greater. If you or I can’t handle an individual who is ethnically and religiously identical to you, and who (if married) has wedded herself to you and owes you spiritual and legal duties, how could you possibly overcome the objections of an individual (or masses) who is nothing like you, owes you nothing, and is physically far more dangerous than that lone woman?
The degree of social risk, legal risk, and physical danger that a white man faces in simply defending himself from a non-white assailant is far greater than what he faces in nonviolently asserting his will with his wife regarding things like budgeting, child rearing, or conjugal relations. And yet not a few white men, their traditionalist views notwithstanding, would rather face the aforementioned risks of self-defense in our anti-white society as opposed to having to confront the women they live with! Is it because the legal system gives our wives leverage that many strangers don’t have? Or is it because we’re simply afraid to end up with the woman Proverbs 21:9 and 25:24 describes?
“Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.”
If you can’t even handle one woman, how will you ever get your country back?
It is akin to the argument that if you’re not willing to get in the pro-white fight now, while the First Amendment still legally protects us and the government isn’t jailing us for memes and tweets like in the U.K., what makes you think that you’ll be fighting in the streets and risking jobs and homes when legal persecution begins in earnest?
At its heart the question asked about the willingness of individual white males to see their will through to fruition. It asked about our willingness to confront unhappy, hostile people and overcome their objections instead of reaching a compromise solution or avoiding the confrontation in the first place.
We can neither demand things of our women and ignore their feelings, nor abdicate our responsibility to command them in favor of a wishy-washy “niceness.” The truth is that God made women less capable when it comes to the traits that make good leaders. If we don’t do our job, everybody suffers, including our women. They can be wrong sometimes, and they need us to show them the way when their female blinders prevent them from seeing it. It’s not in fallen Eve’s nature to submit to male leadership, though, which is why Paul had to explicitly instruct the women of the early church to do so. Similarly, it’s not in fallen Adam’s nature to be tactful or attentive to his female subjects, which is why Paul had to explicitly instruct the men of the early church to do so. They’re women, not infantrymen, and have to be commanded and cared for accordingly.
For the purposes of this article, the important thing is that if we don’t assertively lead our women, we won’t develop the nerve and skill needed to fight bigger and far less pretty foes. If we can’t lead our women with the steely, absolute, back-against-the-wall confidence of Aragorn fighting before the Black Gate of Mordor, there’s no way we will be able to change the world.
On the other hand, if you can handle your wife, what’s to stop you from handling more difficult problems? That is a very encouraging thought.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
