Those who forget the past
Since Jewish and heathen sources agree in their characterization of him, their portrayal is evidently correct. Antiochus combined in himself the worst faults of the Greeks and the Romans, and but very few of their good qualities. He was vainglorious and fond of display to the verge of eccentricity, liberal to extravagance; his sojourn in Rome had taught him how to captivate the common people with an appearance of geniality, but in his heart he had all a cruel tyrant’s contempt for his fellow men. The attempt of modern phil-Hellenes to explain Antiochus’ attitude toward the Jews as an endeavor “to reform a stiff-necked people” receives no confirmation from the fact that a Tacitus first formulated it. Antiochus had no wish to Hellenize his conquered subjects, but to denationalize them entirely; his Aramean subjects were far from becoming Hellenes simply because they had surrendered their name and some of their Semitic gods.
Are doomed to repeat it.
At this point, it should be clear why religious groups have worked hard to pass an expanded version of RFRA. The Colorado Commission made the grotesque and inexcusable comparison of the refusal to do business in a highly competitive market with the mass extermination of helpless individuals in government gas chambers. Commissioner Rice’s insistence that Cakemasters has used its religion to “hurt others” means that anyone who turns a person down for business “hurts” that person. Her formulation shows no appreciation whatsoever for the relative harms involved in these low-level commercial interactions. Craig has dozens of alternative outlets clamoring for his business. Phillips and Elane Photography don’t have that luxury; they are now put to the impossible choice of closing down or violating their religious beliefs.
It is all too easy to denounce, as does the New York Times, Indiana’s RFRA law as being driven by “bigotry against gays and lesbians.” But that is malicious libel against individuals at businesses like Cakemasters and Elane’s Photography who have thought long and hard about their unwillingness to participate in marriage rites that are contrary to their religion. They also have no interest in turning away gay and lesbian customers in any other commercial activity. Unfortunately, the relentless pressure of state civil rights commissions makes these small religious businesses a “discrete and insular” minority, as the Supreme Court said in 1938 about state coercion against disenfranchised racial minorities. It is easy to tolerate people with whom you agree. It is necessary in a free society to tolerate those with whom you disagree. It is this loss of tolerance, this self-righteous indignation, this vilification of a vulnerable religious minority that makes this recent chorus of incivility so disgraceful.
… and auditioning for the role of Antiochus
[H]omosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.
That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.
But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing. […]
So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity. […]
Religion is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia. It will give license to discrimination. It will cause gay and lesbian teenagers in fundamentalist households to agonize needlessly: Am I broken? Am I damned? […]
[Matthew] Vines said that the New Testament, like the Old Testament, outlines bad and good behaviors that almost everyone deems archaic and irrelevant today. Why deem the descriptions of homosexual behavior any differently?
Creech and Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to L.G.B.T. people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry.”
Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”
His commandment is worthy — and warranted.
You will be made to care.
Or else.
My reply to the “we will make you care” crowd, and this is not a threat but a simple assessment of human nature, is that making people care is not necessarily in your best interest. Act wisely.
Exactly, Rich. “Caring” is like “change.” It is value-neutral.
I choose what and whom I care about in a good way. Those who compel me to care get the other kind.
I suppose I could repeat my comment about forcing pastors to officiate at gay weddings, but I won’t. Instead, I shall merely point out that people like Creech and Gold are welcome to start their own religions and eliminate the concept of “sin” entirely within whatever theology they construct. No one is stopping them.
Of course, that’s not the point. It’s not about personal belief. It is about destruction of anything which smacks of Western Civilization.
No one want to start their own institutions anymore. Too lazy or too stupid or both.
Building your own isn’t as much fun as conquering and subjugating someone else’s — especially if someone else’s has 2,000 years worth of history and tradition behind it.
[…] American Power Blog: Obama is an asshat and Truth Revolt link Instapundit: Sabrina Rubin Erdely is a deeply dishonest reporter AoSHQ: Blistering take on Erdely and Rolling Stone TOM: Why facts matter Protein Wisdom: Hellenizing the Christians […]
It is easy to tolerate people with whom you agree.
Point of order: If you already agree, tolerance doesn’t apply.
Tolerance by definition means that you gracefully endure the existence of those whom you cannot stand.
But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice.
I frequently make the case against gay marriage without referring to — or implying — sin at all.
No Leviticus. No Sodom and Gomorrah. No epistles from Paul. No “ick” nor “ew” nor “your twisted predilections” nor “you have to be celibate or else.”
But that doesn’t matter, does it? I can write 1000 essays on the subject without the slightest note of disdain or disapproval of who’s turned on by whom but my arguments will always be characterized as a smokescreen for my deep-seated, filthy bigotry.
Why?
Because that’s how the Left argues: their rhetoric is only ever a smokescreen for their will to power. (Whatever they accuse you of doing, that’s exactly what they are doing.) Being practiced deceivers themselves, they’ve lost the ability to distinguish between an honest argument and a wordy pretext for something awful.
I couldn’t possibly be serious, see, because nobody opposes them for good reason.
QED
It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing. […]
What have we learned about human sexuality since the first century, genius? What has science demonstrated about same-sex attraction that wasn’t evident way back then? Kinsey the Fraud doesn’t count.
People like that confuse shoving the Overton window with Progress!, as if what any society tolerates shifts and changes and waxes and wanes.
Transplant someone from 300 or 3000 years ago into our society and they’d be horrified at some of the things we find benign — things that our descendants might later find horrific, too, just as we’d be horrified by what they accept and forbid.
Chronocentrism, is what. They believe that the passage of time must necessarily spell Human Advancement, oblivious to the endless cycles of rising and falling and discovery and conquest and forgetfulness and loss that describes human history.
Don’t confuse Moore’s law with morality, ya knucklehead. Your hubris will bring about our downfall.
[H]omosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.
yes yes christianity has reformed itself many numerous times
they’re not quick like the bunny
or the fox
or the jaguar
but they get there eventually
hmmm just the first line i meaned to be italicky
Yes, griefer, because not keeping kosher is the exact same thing as fornication, adultery and homosexual behavior.
And, yeah, that “man/woman one flesh” thing … as old fashioned as refusing to put blue cheese on beef tenderloin …
Our ideas are so good, they’re mandatory, Comrade.
/nyt social justice warriors
By the way, I see our modern-day “Antiochuses” make no mention of Islam and homosexuality (and homosexuals being hanged or thrown off rooftops merely for being homosexual). The Mohammadans’ top ranking in the Progressives’ “victimology scale” makes them above criticism, I suppose.
Once you have agreed that a given behavior (or perhaps more accurately, the refusal to perform a given behavior) is double-plus-ungood, what exactly does that refusal allow the State to do to you as punishment?
And since when is an opinion considered worthy of criminal sanctions?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” So much for the Law of the Land…
>[H]omosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.<
darwin fail science pikachu.
[H]omosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.
Every Christian on the planet knows the Being Out Of Step with the rest of society — especially a degenerating one — is in the effing job description.
In the best of times we’re thought boring, prudish, or odd. When society veers way off the rails (as every society inevitably does), we’re seen as Backwards then eventually Dangerous.
The Romans didn’t toss Christians to the lions purely for fun: they were marked for destruction by that age’s Cultural Elite, because they refused to bend the knee to that era’s gods.
So yeah. We’re totes looking to the secular world — which hates everything we stand for — to get guidance on how to Get With The Program.
Being thought weird and then dangerous comes with the territory.
So go ahead and set up your self-righteous lynch mobs: history NEVER validates those who try to exterminate “dangerous people” for their beliefs.
Also, the Left seems to think that when gays are tossed off buildings in Riyadh they land in Indiana.
Was that Steyn I got that from? Can’t remember.
Speaking of Steyn: here he’s on Hannity, saying #BlackLivesMatterEvenWhenTheyreChristian
On. Fire.
homophobia
This word annoys the crap out of me. I don’t have an unreasoning fear of gays, as a matter of fact I don’t have any fear of them at all. I have family members that are gay, when they’re around I don’t lie curled up in the corner sobbing. Am I ok with homosexuality? Not particularly, but I’m willing to accept that my cousin is happy and has been in a committed relationship for 25 years.
They don’t want to end oppression.
They just want a monopoly on it.
Oh yeah. Here they go again.
this is a healthy conversation it’s inspiring to see you guys adjusting to new ideas, learning navigate a startlingly new cultural landscape
*hugs on you head*
learning *to* navigate i mean
it’s like in interstellar when everyone is choking on the dust and all of a sudden more dust blows in and matt mcaanaughame says clearly the logical thing to do is to jump into the black hole
Have to navigate to know where to set the demolition charges.
Celebrating failshit America now, ‘feets? Tickled your bunghole, did it?
The Mohammadans’ top ranking in the Progressives’ “victimology scale” makes them above criticism, I suppose.
Proggs love to play the part of the victim, but only when it’s part of their big play-acting production. To be an actual victim, forced to live in misery or have their own wealth confiscated or be maimed or killed? That’s just out of the question.
The Islamists don’t get a pass because they are so high on the victim scale; they get a pass because Proggs can’t stand the thought of becoming actual victims.
Greetings:
When I came upon this writing yesterday, I’ll admit I was a bit overwhelmed and as a former infantryperson, a quick withdrawal was my preferred response. Subsequently though, the telepathic connection I have with a Mr.Charlie Rose of the Progressive (née Public) Broadcasting System and other fames kickstarted and my education was continued.
Mr. Rose’s last evening’s program included one Jeffrey Lieberman, M.D. who recently wrote some of a book entitled “Shrinks: The Untold Story of Psychiatry” and is otherwise employed as Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at New York City’s Columbia University so he obviously knows a lot of somethings or someones.
A couple of things he said tickled what’s left of my intellectual fancy. The more pertinent dealt with the aforementioned “homosexuality” which he decried as mistakenly having been classified as a disorder by Psychiatry Olympus (gratuitous Hellenic reference) which was an error of magnificent magnitude. That was pretty much his argument, no why or wherefore or why not or wherenotfore. Just a direct statement, which Mr. Rose graciously, at least according to my telepathy, accepted without questioning.
Now, part of the last ’70s were my psychology studying daze. So I was alert when the American Psychological or Psychiatric Associations decided that it had enough members who were to polite or too homosexual to democratically vote out a position paper removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual primarily because as things went in those pre-Dr. Phil days, they were OK and homosexuals were OK too. Thus the science, and I quire regret not having the exact scientific percentage of the members, was settled.
Me, coming as I did from the Bronx, I’m still waiting for the explanation.
this is a healthy conversation it’s inspiring to see you guys adjusting to new ideas
That’s not at all condescending, ‘feets. You DO know that we religious folks navigate at least two philosophical paradigms at all times: the one from the pulpit and the one from the larger culture?
Like speaking two languages, don’t you think that mastering two idea systems provides greater insight into both?
Which is why it’s highly annoying when all y’all, who speak only one language, tell us that our second language is just incoherent babble and therefore a waste of time STFU STFU STFU!
1140B is right: the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders was not based on anything but “we say so.”
You could, of course, argue that initially putting it in that category was likewise a fiat decision.
So then it all depends on your definition of “healthy” sexuality. And where are we to get that? If your referent is Kinsey and the Sexual Revolution, then “if it feels good, do it” dictates that it’s all copacetic.
All of the other verdicts are likewise assertions that are predicated on Where We’re Trying To Get With This.
Given that there are an infinite number of desired outcomes, I doubt there’s a way to settle the question in any definitive manner.
so yes as you can see it is very clear
the different groups for example the christians peoples and the gay peoples
they are undergoing a great reconciliation and there will be cake
it’s like in interstellar when matthew mcgonnahremanee goes to see his egregiously elderly daughter and he’s all like hi sweetie nice to see you big kiss ok bye gonna go check on anne hathaway
I don’t know dicentra, one man sticking his joystick up another mans poop shute isn’t “healthy sexuality” by any measure. Call that an assertion if you like, but I can’t see how you’d refute it.
“You could, of course, argue that initially putting it in that category was likewise a fiat decision. ”
Causality. Linked aberrant behavioral problems. Reality dis-functional schisms. The lists were almost endless.
“they are undergoing a great reconciliation and there will be cake”
Argument by assertion.
That’s not a cake, it’s a urinal deodorant.
AKA “Urinal cake.” See?!?
I’ll pass.
we can do a five layer devil’s food cake with cream cheese in between and cover it all in chocolate pettinice and on the top we can write this is a tasty reconciliation cake!
then we can all go out on the patio and watch the first robins of spring scruffling about for choice nesting materials
I don’t know dicentra, one man sticking his joystick up another mans poop shute isn’t “healthy sexuality” by any measure.
It is if the desired outcome is people doing whatever they want with their manparts.
Linked aberrant behavioral problems. Reality dis-functional schisms.
My understanding was that aside from being attracted to one’s own sex, gays passed all the other sanity tests.
Of course, some people are gay because of sexual molestation, and in that case you’re going to get truckloads of dysfunction.
My first two boyfriends were closet cases. The first was raised by sex offenders (his mom seduced a neighborhood teen and bore his child; uncles busted for kiddy porn; he was molested by his uncle). He was an emotional train wreck, developing God Knows how many personality disorders simultaneously.
The second was raised in a functional home and was plagued by self-loathing before coming out but otherwise was a functional human being.
So it’s hard to get a reliable sample on that wise.
“So it’s hard to get a reliable sample on that wise.” ??
You are aware that anecdote does not equal data? If you are so inclined, go read the research prior to the 70’s shift.
“My understanding was that aside from being attracted to one’s own sex, gays passed all the other sanity tests.” Why would you think that?
Amazing how the APA gets to skate on such things in their past. Most people probably thought homosexuality as “queer” behavior or sinful but, never a mental disorder until shrinks got involved.
Hollywood too on racial stereotypes. People in many parts of the country picked up racial stereotypes from films and not first hand experience. Hollywood did not create racism but, they gave it a template.
So you’re saying whatever gets your rocks off constitutes “healthy sexuality”?
Pretty low bar that…
it’s all gonna be ok eventually
here is my favorite artisanal chocolate i discovered it here in chicago
the birthday cake one is super super special but you can’t go wrong
i hope you guys can find some soon and enjoy it as much as i have
You are aware that anecdote does not equal data?
Of course I am.
My anecdotes demonstrated two types of gay men: sane and insane. I haven’t the faintest idea whether one is more representative of the group than another.
So you’re saying whatever gets your rocks off constitutes “healthy sexuality”?
I don’t say that. Our society says that.
The covenant into which I’ve entered says “no sex outside of marriage.” I’m a 51-yr-old celibate. I think my religion has the healthiest approach. (Sex is a holy thing that should not be desacralized by misuse, and God says what constitutes misuse.)
I’ve found it exceedingly difficult to persuade Our Post-Sexual-Revolution Society that something valuable has been lost by opening the flood gates and treating sex like a form of interpersonal amusment that maddeningly results in pregnancy.
Especially when those members of society are male.
Most women will agree that racking up notches on their bedposts isn’t a worthy goal, and many will confess that they wish they had fewer notches: not because of whom those notches represent but because they really don’t like having high numbers.
Men tend to wish they had more for the sake of having more. That’s just how your lizard-brains are wired.
Which is why societies tend to put the burden of chastity on women: In nearly every species, females are the gatekeepers regarding which males pass on their genes. So women are better equipped to say “if you want it you gotta put a ring on it” to filter out the unworthies, that is, those not willing to stick around and provide for the offspring.
We discard ancient wisdom regarding sex, family, and children at our peril. It’s pure hubris to declare that our later position on the timeline gives us license to disregard the past.
Nature will have the last say, but most will not have ears to hear.
We discard ancient wisdom regarding sex, family, and children at our peril. It’s pure hubris to declare that our later position on the timeline gives us license to disregard the past.
Hear hear.
“Men tend to wish they had more for the sake of having more. That’s just how your lizard-brains are wired.” Ever ask one? Assertion.
“Which is why societies tend to put the burden of chastity on women: In nearly every species, females are the gatekeepers regarding which males pass on their genes. So women are better equipped to say “if you want it you gotta put a ring on it” to filter out the unworthies, that is, those not willing to stick around and provide for the offspring.”
I don’t know where to start. Females, (mammals anyway), stand for and accept the act. Males, (mammals again), through ritual movement, combat, plumage, etc. winnow out rivals. What I remember from my studies, the physical act wasn’t pleasurable for either.
Males, (mammals again), through ritual movement, combat, plumage, etc. winnow out rivals.
You’re saying that males compete with one another, either to drive out rivals and claim females for their own, or to demonstrate to females that they are worthy mates. I fail to see how this observation disproves di’s assertion.
As to her earlier assertion about promiscuity in males, I thought this was so widely accepted as to be uncontroversial. Half the arguments we have around this subject boil down to importance of rituals and mores and other cultural pressures that discourage men from abandoning their mates and offspring.
“My anecdotes demonstrated two types of gay men: sane and insane. I haven’t the faintest idea whether one is more representative of the group than another.” Two subsets of the same pathology.
“Our Post-Sexual-Revolution Society ” You missed the memo; that is ongoing, ie; mainstreaming homosexuality.
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.*
” I fail to see how this observation disproves di’s assertion.” The female will stand for whichever male dominates the others. She made a statement wrt “In nearly every species” clearly not accurate. This is strictly a function of mammalian sexual physiology and primacy.
“Half the arguments we have around this subject boil down to importance of rituals and mores and other cultural pressures that discourage men from abandoning their mates and offspring.” Only half? What were the parameters of your discussion? Within what societal structures? What epoch?
“The Wages of Sin is Death.” My Dad used to say “The wages of Birth is Death.” What did he know?
“Men tend to wish they had more for the sake of having more. That’s just how your lizard-brains are wired.” Ever ask one? Assertion.
Studies say. No really, I read some article (via Insty) within the last six months wherein people were polled about any regrets they’d had about their sexual adventures. Men were more likely to say they wish they had done more chicks; women less likely to say that.
Females, (mammals anyway), stand for and accept the act. Males, (mammals again), through ritual movement, combat, plumage, etc. winnow out rivals. What I remember from my studies, the physical act wasn’t pleasurable for either.
The excellent plumage and wonderful colors in fish and birds are to impress females. If the male doesn’t impress her she moves on. Female bower birds only mate with a male whose bower they like; manikins and birds of paradise have to dance to the female’s satisfaction, else she leaves. Male fish often dig a nesting cavity in the sand and invite females to lay their eggs therein. Male herons build a nest and invite females to inspect it; she must accept the nest before mating happens.
Female ungulates only mate with the dominant male; they run away from interlopers, unless that interloper successfully cuts some females from the dominant male’s herd, demonstrating his worthiness to father the next generation because he’s just that badass.
With many other species, the males do shove each other out of the way to mate with a given female so that only the strongest gets to mate: house cats, cuttlefish, and ducks, for example.
Meaning that all fertile females pass down their genes but only the worthy males do. It’s not a reciprocal arrangement at all. That’s why human men often use their superior strength to control women as much as possible. Muslim cultures exert extreme control over women, so that men get the upper hand instead of they.
Latino men experience a great deal of anxiety when their wives are out in public: I see them at the laundromat with their wives, helping with laundry. I used to think that it was nice of them, but then I realized that they were keeping an eye on her (and rival males), not being Mr. Domesticity. (I’ve been in enough Latino homes here and abroad to know that it’s extremely common for men to forbid their wives from venturing out without them.)
As for whether it feels good, I doubt animal brains could compel them to expend that much energy in something that felt rotten. All of our other appetites use the carrot (pleasure center of the brain) as well as the stick (discomfort until the deed is done) to get us to perform vital functions. Our lizard brains are inherited from lower species with few changes — our enormous frontal lobes give us the option to say “That’s a bad idea,” whether it’s sex at the wrong time, eating tasty but harmful food, or defecating in one’s bed.
It may be helpful to make comparisons with our near relatives among the great apes, gorillas, chimpanzees and awayway off there, the orangutans. In particular look to relative body mass between males and females in each, look at the relative size of male testes between the gorillas, chimps and humans. Gorilla males are huge relative to their females. They live in intimate familial social settings these males, with a harem of females with whom they exclusively mate. They gotta be big to fight off usurpers. Their testes are tiny in comparison to their body weight. That’s because they don’t have to generate copious amounts of sperm, since the exclusivity. Chimp males, in contrast, do not live with the females with whom they mate, but in gaggle-tribes of fellow males (like gang members), and encounter females at the same time as all their chums, so have enormous testes relative to the body weight in order to produce copious amounts of sperm in order to have a shot at producing offspring over against their immediate competitors. Humans are somewhere in between these two extremes. By the by, these sexual arrangements of nature are themselves apparently attributable to food habit and foraging circumstances in the evolution of these species. So sex is food related, food sex related.
I do want more, just for the sake of having more — because loss happens. Loss of offspring, loss of prime breeding years, etc.
I am happily married and love my wife, but the male drive to litter the landscape with living samples of my DNA remains. My instruction in morality and my desire not to cause my wife anguish help to keep me from transgressing.
As does the fact I’m over 50, overweight, and unwilling to spend enough time with a latter-day 20-something to bring about a future child-support liability.
” (I’ve been in enough Latino homes here and abroad to know that it’s extremely common for men to forbid their wives from venturing out without them.)”
I wanted to laugh at this, but I won’t. Marlon my BIL did though.
I wanted to laugh at this, but I won’t. Marlon my BIL did though.
Because you know it’s true or because you think I’m a moron.
My instruction in morality and my desire not to cause my wife anguish help to keep me from transgressing.
Hence the assertion that one primary function of hetero marriage (second only to raising functional children) is to civilize men, because unattached men tend to become either predators or slugs.
When a society binds men to their children and their mothers, all that incredible male energy is channeled to the benefit of society: we get skyscrapers and intercontinental railroads and footprints on the moon.
Men who don’t respect a woman’s (reasonable) demands to tend to the nest and remain faithful end up damaging the woman, the children, and the society.
Throughout the ages, societies have had to face this reality: that male energy is like wildfire — it can either build or destroy, depending on how they’re expected to treat their families.
So the men who’ve wised up tell the young bucks, “Son, if you want to get some legitimately, put a ring on it; otherwise, you’re a child and not a man.”
Ancient wisdom, that.
And yet I was told on Twitter only yesterday that “marriage is to civilize men” is pure fascism, straight up.
In other words, my Twitterlocutor had never heard that argument before.
Happens every time.
this whole channeling male energy thing is very drum circle
through rhythm we find community and the strength to bond together as promise keepers not promise breakers and hey who farted dude that’s nasty
“Because you know it’s true or because you think I’m a moron.”
I know about my in-laws. I also know about La Cultura. Not from the outside. Love them and it, deeply.
I NEVER saw a man strike a woman. I NEVER heard a man raise his voice in anger at a woman. I take that back. I did see a drunk Nica slap his wife while they waited in line at the border. She didn’t want to carry his drugs across the border and he slapped her. Within 20 seconds he was face planted on the sidewalk by the other men standing behind them. This is the only time over many years and three continents that I witnessed that type of behavior.
Did you want me to choose one or the other?
My wife and I are very paleo in many ways, but non-traditional in others. It works very well for us.
they are undergoing a great reconciliation and there will be cake
Except the cake is a lie.
So is the reconciliation.
So please stop the flailing, griefer. This never was about some right or creating a right. It’s just a weapon. An excuse for little thugs like you to rail at and/or destroy people who don’t join along with the program.
I NEVER saw a man strike a woman. I NEVER heard a man raise his voice in anger at a woman.
I see way too much … (DA office)
(also females striking their male partners)
A lot more between non-married partners than married.
Thing is, Gulermo, I went from house to house to house to house (and still do, back home) as a missionary, talking to people about Deep Stuff.
We’d be knocking on doors and women would let us in (their husbands away during work hours) and they’d see the “Hermana X” nametags, not read the name of the church, and figure we were crazy nuns who didn’t wear habits.
So they’d spill their guts to us about all the rotten things their husbands were up to. A few hundred times this has happened to me during 15 months in Colombia and 7 years in my own neighborhood. (I visit Spanish-speaking people to help the local missionaries.)
Sometimes we’d start teaching a woman who was interested in our message, and after inviting her to attend church, the next time we arrived the husband answered and told us to get lost, because no wife of his…
(If she herself had lost interest, she’d either not answer the door or send a kid to say, “Mi mamá dice que no está” or make some other excuse.)
Sometimes the woman herself said she knew her husband wouldn’t let her. Or when we talked to her alone, she’d be all animated but if he was in the room she fell silent as a tomb. Or she’d casually remark that her husband “got really worried” if she ventured out alone in this dangerous foreign country.
One of the rotten things about being a missionary is that you learn about everyone’s dirty laundry, because you have to tangle with “We’re not married; he’s still married to someone back home.”
Or they both are married to someone they’ve abandoned in the old country. The kids running around the yard don’t all have the same parents.
I can guarantee you that the local LDS missionaries know more juicy stuff about your neighbors than you do. Not that they’d spill.
So then I kept seeing all those macho men folding laundry, year after year, and it puzzles me that their machismo would permit them to do that. I never saw that kind of thing in Colombia. The women washed clothes in the patio, by hand. No man so much as hung things out to dry.
Which is how I twigged to the fact that they’re not being domestic, they’re being possessive.
Because when those pendejos are out of the house, alone?
They hit on every woman who’s not guarded by a man.
It doesn’t take shouting or hitting to be that possessive; those are just the tacit cultural rules.
Saying “The plural of anecdote is not data” is like saying “the plural of tree is not forest”.
“I can guarantee you that the local LDS missionaries know more juicy stuff about your neighbors than you do. Not that they’d spill.”
There is a reason the LDS are universally disliked and shunned. I was one of “those” people you used to have “talks” with. Usually, twice a month, some months more. I watched LDS people stand outside homes in the street and argue theology.
I guess I wanted to ask you what color is the sky in your world, but what would that serve. I didn’t visit to proselytize my beliefs, I lived, love found me and I married into the culture. I also worked in Central America. I have traveled through South America and Spain. My 14+ years of daily experiences tell me you are wrong.
Not for nothing, “macho” also has a feminine form.
Also, what LDS does is not ” teaching “, but preaching.
Dicentra, I’d be careful drawing general conclusions from your missionary work. Well adjusted people would never let you in the door, much less spill their guts to a stranger.
Anecdote – admitted
I’ve had more than one Latina I’ve worked with tell me “I’ll never marry a [Latino] man if he’s traditional” or “His mother expects me to be a traditional Latina to her son”
BTW, LDS is little different than any other Christian religion. Really. In fact, there is much to be admired of their devotion to family. (one of the reasons they are a growing faith south of the border)
I’m not LDS but my paternal grandmother was.
Well adjusted men don’t beat up their women, either.
you’re not supposed to hit
” Really. In fact, there is much to be admired of their devotion to family. (one of the reasons they are a growing faith south of the border)”
I can’t speak to this truth. The Mormones I have met were great people. Loving and concerned with the well-being of others, but so were most of the missionaries I met. My in-laws might not feel the same.
Some of the most fertile mission work I have observed have been actual communal works performed. The most notable that comes to mind are a series of wells dug by Christians volunteers 20 years ago in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. Most of the newer church denominations that I saw were JWs.
“Well adjusted men don’t beat up their women, either.”
My SILs believes marital difficulties stem from the fact that the Marido, (husband), doesn’t use the “palito”, (stick or switch), enough. The Spanish word for wife is “esposa” the same word for handcuffs and only in the feminine form.
“Well adjusted men don’t beat up their women, either.”
Word.
That’s right McGehee.. My point is Dicentra is for the most part seeing a self selecting group. It’s kinda like Darleen working in the DA’s office. She probably sees a parade of low life men every day, but it would be a grave mistake to conclude that all men are low life’s.
Go to any California central valley Walmart, you’ll see a thousand unaccompanied Spanish speaking Latinas all over the store, and about four Latino men, mostly in the fishing department.
I’d say a better explanation for the laundromat antidote is the laundromat is, as I remember, an extremely boring place, and the women made their husband go to keep her company. They fold clothes to avoid dying from boredom.
it would be a grave mistake to conclude that all men are low life’s
There is, far and away, a greater number of men who treat others decently, as well as aid in holding the low lifes to justice.