June 11, 2005 by s.z.

Read the Whole Thing 1.  Media in Trouble has Round Two of the Krugman/Okent match (featuring "slicing, shaping, and misleading"). 2.  JABBS has a nice piece about what George Bush gave Tony Blair when Blair asked for US assistance in aiding staving Africans (hint: it wasn't help.  JABBS also reports on the Daily Show's take down of Bush's global warming report.  (Yes, at least the current administration is a boon to Comedy Central). 3.  Say you need a limerick on, oh, the Patriot Act, "Operation Lightening,"  or other current events?  Where would you go?  Previously, you would have been out of luck.  But now there's the Limerick Savant to fill the niche for topical limericks! 4.  Doghouse Riley has beauty, which is truth.   (BTW, we admired him for working in the garden in the 90 degree heat -- we admired him, but laughed, because the day he posted about it, it snowed here, so we didn't have to do any gardening.) 5.  And don't forget the Pandagonathon, going on all day today in order to raise money to help Amnesty International  fight torture.   (And despite what you may have heard from Powerline, NRO, or Rush Limbaugh, torture is BAD.) And now it's your chance to play Instapundit.  Tell everybody about your great blog, a particularly well-done post, or a super cool blog of somebody else's that is currently known only to a small, select group.  (But please try to refrain from long dicussions about digital cameras, or nanobyte technology).  Indeed. 6:13:15 AM

A Little Something for the Weaker Vessels Okay, as promised, today we will look at some articles from the The Patriach's Path section for the weaker sex, "Godly Womanhood."  I'm sure you have your favorites from this section, but here are a few of mine. First, there's "Two Hedges" by old Wo'C friend Nancy Wilson.   God has put two hedges around a Christian woman for her protection. The first and more important is a woman's trust in God. This is followed by a godly submission to husbands. Nancy goes on to explain that by leaving everything to God and being submissive to one's husband, one gains serenity -- it's the "don't worry your pretty little head about stuff" effect. Consider what this kind of trust and submission looks like. Your husband has decided the family will travel to visit an aging aunt who lives in the mountains. It's snowing. The roads are slippery. You are tempted to worry, and you think it's a bad idea to go. Now stop and think about it. Trust God. Is He the Lord of the roads? Is He Lord of the weather? If He isn't, then go back to your worrying. But because He is sovereign over all things, you can trust Him. Next, if you have given your husband your advice, and he still wants to go, submit to him. It's his call. Trust God, and submit to your husband. Rest and be beautiful. And if you and your family die in a fiery collision, well, it was God's will, probably.  Anyway, it's better that you get mangled in an auto accident than you put worry wrinkles in your forehead by considering the possibility that your husband was WRONG to drive through the mountains when it's snowing and the roads are bad. Remember, submission is your primary duty before God to your husband. Learn to submit in a trusting, beautifying manner. Not only will God be pleased, but so will your husband. Even unbelievers are impressed with such behavior.  Well, the unbelieving ambulance crew that has to use the jaws of life to pull you out of your vehicle might not be that impressed, but just rest and be beautiful, dearie. Now, let's look at part of  Feminism: The "Eve" of Destruction by Rev. Steve Schlissel (who is the father of Sadly, No!'s girlfriend, the former Sarah Faith Schlissel.) [Feminism]  starts its deconstruction with the core institution of society: marriage. Virtually every decision of the last one hundred years “for” women has been against them (yes, including the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, granting suffrage). After all, the first thing one must grapple with when acting “for” someone is an understanding of what they are “for,” i.e., their “telos,” their created purpose. Woman was created for man (1 Cor. 11:9). See, God made woman to be subordinate to man, and since voting makes women equal to men, then female suffrage goes against woman's purpose. Therefore, voting isn't "for" women just like not eating cows isn't "for" them, since cows were created to be eaten by man. Understand? Throughout history women have been the single greatest earthly power in civilizing and taming fallen man. Men control the world: women control the men.  [...] A woman, by being a woman--i.e., by being nurturing (a quality which feminists one day deny, the next affirm), by being loving, caring, encouraging, soothing, comforting, stimulating, challenging, by needing--causes man to behave deferentially. Precisely because she is not his equal, a man makes decisions with a woman’s needs in view. See, ladies, you really do have power, in that men take care of you because you're cute, loving, comforting, and weak. It's like how dogs actually control the world, because people go to work to earn money to feed and care for them. But, girls, if you try to be the equal of men, the men will get annoyed and they'll make you pull your own weight -- and you won't be able to, being inferior. So, it's in your own best interests to just be a good little doggie. Man needs woman and woman needs marriage, but not, as Dabney wisely pointed out, marriage between “equals.”  "In the correct biblical theory of marriage it is the wife who is not made full equal in the copartnership, but is made subordinate, in a limited degree, to the affectionate authority of the husband. Hence, a superficial person may think that women would gain by substituting the infidel Jacobin [egalitarian] theory of marriage for the true one. But this is a huge practical mistake.  Per Dabney, it's a huge mistake because if a woman (who is "practically the weaker vessel") doesn't accept Christian marriage (which has at its base the principle that the helpmeet is subordinate to her husband), then she goes from "the honored place of wife to that of a toy of man’s lust, and then the slave of a superior brute force." I'm not exactly sure how being a full partner in the marriage does this, but Dabney says that it's what six thousand years of history have taught us. Anyway, I wanted to know more about this "Dabney" whom Rev. Steve feels is so well-known that he didn't even have to give us his full name. It turns out that he is Dr. R. L. Dabney, a 19th century Presbyterian theologian who is known (among Sons of the Confederacy) for being a Chief-of-Staff for Stonewall Jackson, and also Jackson's official biographer. He apparently was bitterly opposed to abolitionism, never accepted the South's loss in the War Between the States, and thought that Lincoln was a big jerk. This info reminded me that Doug Wilson, Nancy Wilson's head, was the co-author (with Steve Wilkins, a founding director of the League of the South, a neo-Confederate organization labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center) of "Slavery as it Was," the booklet used at a NC Christian academy to teach kids that slavery wasn't all the bad, and that the slaves loved their white masters, who cared for them paternally. (Bartholomew has the full story on Wilkins.) It turns out that Rev. Steve went on a lecture tour with Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins -- I don't know if Rev. Steve is a member of the Southern Heritage Society too, but he does seem to hang out with that crowd. And when you think about it, it makes sense that some of the same people who are attracted to neo-confederacy (with it's vision of an ante-bellum South where the men were Christian gentlemen and patriarchs, and the women were delicate flowers who wore long, frilly gowns), would find Dominionism appealing. And hey, if you believe that if we had a perfect state, it would let you stone your disobedient children like the Bible says, then it's not much of a stretch to yearn for a state where you can own slaves, which were also mentioned in the Bible. Anyway, I think this helps to explain what happened to "Daddy's Girl" Sarah Faith Schlissel: she was sold to another master. Now, for some practical advice on clothing, here's Stacy McDonald with Dressing For Him. I know there have been times that my husband would let me know in a gentle way that he didn't care for something I was wearing, not because of immodesty, but because it just was not his preference. Sadly, there have also been times that I ignored him and wore something he didn't like anyway because it was comfortable or because I felt it was going to waste if I didn't get some use out of it. This was not honoring to my husband. Shouldn't we try to please our husbands in every way? Shouldn't we lay down our preferences for his? I was being selfish and willful in my behavior. Hey, shouldn't we try to please our husbands in every way?  Shouldn't we lay down our preferences for his, and stop wearing clothes that we like if they're not to his taste?  After all, he is our head, and we were created for him.  So, always endeavor to look the way your husband wants.   With more on how to dress yourself, here's Modesty and the Christian Woman by Mrs. M. L. Chancey God designed man to enjoy and appreciate a woman’s body -- more specifically, his wife’s body.[...] When you wear low-cut necklines, you are offering to the public what belongs to your husband alone to enjoy. Will your husband be happy to know that countless men before him have enjoyed beauties that should "ravish" him alone? She explains that "the man who looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart," so if you dress sluttily, then thousands of men could have had mental affairs with you -- and what man wants a tramp like that for a wife? So, "Cover yourself, ladies!"  But don't cover yourself in sweat shirts and baggy jeans, because dressing unfemininely is just as bad as dressing like a harlot. The woman who wears a man’s clothing is, in essence, declaring herself to be a man and able to do whatever a man does (enlist as a soldier, defend cities from attackers, and take an arrow like a man). [,,,] As women, our clothing should tell the truth of our position in God’s economy. We are the "weaker vessel," softer and gentler than the man and in submission rather than in leadership. When we dress for the day, does our clothing declare that we are feminine and precious -- people to be protected and cared for? Or does it proclaim that we can earn our own way in the world and slay our own dragons? So, always dress like you are a delicate, precious, princess. Maybe even bind your feet to get the point across that you can't even walk by yourself. And delicate princesses don't wear slacks, even when they do messy (but womanly) tasks. Wear a dress even while working in the fields -- you can cover it with an apron, as a sign of your femininity and domestic servitude. I find that putting on a lovely outfit first thing in the morning helps me set the tone for the entire day. Who says lovely outfits are to be reserved for "special" occasions? Dress as if every day is special (and it is!). And wear what is appropriate for the job at hand. A ready stock of serviceable aprons is great for kitchen tasks, and sturdy "housedresses" are super for scrubbing floors, straightening rooms and even gardening. So, ladies, remember to be submissive and deferential, dress as befits your role as a "weaker vessel," and refuse to vote: this way your husband will feel compelled to care for you, because you're so fragile and incompetent and stuff. Play your cards right and maybe he'll even buy you something pretty, like a new apron. And thus you will see that you you actually have all the power in the relationship. 3:51:24 AM