Sign into an existing account

Any behavior could be interpreted by many rules. If one wants to see subjugation/submission, he/she will see it. If I say there is a transcendent grace in the male-female pair under Christianity, you can say, "Fairy dust. It is subjugation economically." Still, we can wonder whether economic theory is the be-all/end-all explanation of the nature of reality. I do not think that it is, for many reasons - but since Darwinism is fundamentally an economic theory, you are limited to viewing reality economically. Another rule. I could point out how subjugated you are to such a theory - you ought to free yourself, young woman.

The paradigm of 'ask your husband' under Christianity is not saying he is better than you. In fact, it is acknowledging his mentality is more suited to a particular domain of the pair's existence than her is: namely, concerns of the tribe/nation/polity and its endurance/perpetuation into the future. I can totally step out of religious matters and make a case regarding the female psychology, that it is intrinsically more self-oriented and less group-oriented than the male psychology. This is typically what I mean when I say that man and woman play different moral games.

This purchases the fairly reliable assumption that the men within a society will tend to emphasize laws/practices that protect the entire 'game' of society. This is why they tend to be more militaristic, and why the male in-group v. out-group perception pertains to a much wider field than the more effeminate field of one's being a stranger to a particular social circle. Men are thinking about invaders of nations. Women are thinking about invaders of a communal order, the predictability or threat of particular males that come a' callin'. Of course, I'm speaking of general trends and not of rules that deterministically govern all men or all women - it's fairly obvious that you are interested in topics at the level I've just characterized as 'male'; then again, you are an exception among women (at least in my experience). It does no good to say that you've met others at this site who are like you; it is very likely the case that women who 'make it' at sites as male-skewed as this one are just those who are a bit different than the typical female population who statistically avoids these places.

The point I'm making is that there is a reason for the 'ask your husband' paradigm. We can assume that a woman's moral priorities will be far more geared toward her wellbeing and her child's - they will be domestic in scope, meaning only that their boundaries are 'closer to her interests'. The man has a predicament in a society, which in being diplomatic among other men and carrying on his civic duties for mutually protecting the whole social 'game' means that he has to make decisions that are not only for his family's (his wife's, his children's) interests, but he must balance these against the prevailing national interests. Thus, it is for the male to be the diplomat.

There is no proper interpretation of the Christian marriage dynamic where a man is 'better' than his wife. Instead, the intention is that he and she will work it out together. She will present her arguments. He will present his own. There ought to be compromise, often taking domain specific boundaries: she will more often compromise here, and he will more often compromise there. In the end, each household in a society must represent a decision - not two, not three, but one - else society is fragmented, or fragment-able by dividing the wife from her husband (which is precisely what feminism accomplished, and opened itself up to wolves by virtue of this). Thus, it is said for reasons stated above, that the final 'house' decision comes to the male. Again, if he is acting properly, he will not ignore his wife, but he will consider her interests very seriously because they are the ones he ultimately represents, and she is the one he lives for. This is really about hierarchy for the sake of social endurance.

A society where the male and female are separated into individual 'sovereign' units is a weaker society. Families are the relevant unit, and there is no family without hierarchy and leadership. My ideology would simply be that which says that it is more appropriate for the male psychology and social role to be the arbiter of the final decision, since it is he who mediates between his family and other families, which can also be understood as the highest risk position in the society: since it is his head which is on the chopping block if diplomacy fails. He understands this better than the female does, who again, is predominantly selfish, for good evolutionary reasons.

The word 'evil' is loaded. But there is something inherently anti-social in the female character. They will say that men have more anti-social qualities, and this is true, because his disagreeability just is his ability to compete with other males in the social game of differentially winning more resources for his own wife. Women on the other, who are traditionally considered as being pro-social, are highly agreeable in public which can make the overall society toxic (consider how our feminized society uses virtue signaling like moral tokens to play contrived games, even while most of these people know they are lying through their teeth - the facts of reality are buried beneath Brady Bunch social dynamics and the infection mounts), even while in her heart she is doing all of this purely for self-seeking. One cannot deny, if they have experience, the way women behave in groups of other women. I've heard so many women discuss how toxic women truly are: this toxicity is an overwrought term to describe her self-seeking behavior.

Men cannot behave this way, or there would be no society. They must be more diplomatic with other men. Again, there are always exceptions. And it is the case that the moment you introduce women into any competitive hierarchy, the entire thing becomes feminized. Men can no longer compete in a pure way, they must adjust their strategies to become more feminized. This always leads to less efficiency. Male hierarchies are pure social efficiency. Women become resentful about this fact, but most often this is because they tend to focus on the males who are successful, and they tend not even to 'see' the men who are not. If they did, they'd realize men were the true sacrificial elements of society. The majority of men are sacrificed, even when they don't die. "Look, a boardroom filled with ten men! An injustice!" No, because there are 10,000 others who couldn't make it there, and those men will be decrepit by 50 years from knee and hip problems, working rough jobs in mines, or working on high lines, or what have you.

Women that are not controlled by the society in this way do tend to promote chaos, primarily when their nurturing instinct is prevented from being focused on the self and the home, and becomes overextended/misguided into helping members of the out-group. Men are a boundary condition needed to prevent this from happening.

Your views on the evolutionary biological 'cum wars' between man and woman are mistaken, in my view. Again, there's always a rule. You could view them this way, if all we are is selfish genes. I believe in concepts like final causation (telos), where the male-female pair have an intrinsic essence to be united in this way. You want to say that each has their own exclusive reproductive strategy that competes against men; I want to say it competes against individual men, so it is a heuristic for finding the best male. But none of this make sense if there is not a higher order governing the ideal society.

A society can consist of warring men and women who play fertility games and act monogam-ish. A society can consist of a more logical order than this, and it is without exception that a society under the Christian view is a better one, in which both male and female sacrifice their perfect freedom to the higher duty of their bond.

Partners, not enemies. This is a choice. No rational argument can implore that choice.

Killing people was not a liturgical or sacramental part of the Christian faith. That's the only distinction I require. Among pagans, killing was liturgical and sacramental.

So we have the distinction between feminine spiritual figures and female 'clergy'. Catholicism has Mary, but not a plethora of feminine goddesses - it situates the divine feminine in one person. I take this as a more highly sophisticated structure, in the same way that monotheism is more sophisticated than polytheism. That is, it is achieving greater abstraction in its universals.

I'm not terribly educated on druidism. But as far as I knew the Bondorai were female druids (priestesses). I am skeptical that ancient Druidism or Norse religion started as a strict patriarchy and somehow morphed over time. The archaeological evidence I am aware of for the most primitive belief systems suggests a completely opposite development. Under regular conditions, religions begin with worship of the feminine and evolve beyond this. For that reason, I'm skeptical that Druidism began as you are suggesting it did. I don't argue that there weren't social norms that made it less likely a woman would become a druid, but I do think the feminine sexual relation to the divine was a cornerstone of ancient pagan ritual, and things like sexual rituals or orgiastic rituals were not uncommon.