Today’s post is a short one, owing to a lack of time and imagination on my part. There are a few posts around the ‘sphere that I want to comment on or highlight for my readers.
To begin with, Beefy Livinson critiques the liberal “distinction” between “Rule of Law” and “Rule of Men.” As he explains it,
Government simply is authoritative discrimination in favor of one alternative instead of others.
Worth a read, especially for those with a political bent.
Deep Strength has a couple of posts up that are interesting. His most recent covers his first meeting with “her father.” I think it is well worth the read, especially for those single men looking to marry among my readers. He made a number of unforced errors, and hopefully others can learn from his experiences. Like some of the other readers, I thought that the father’s actions were also doubtful at parts. At the same time, it is evident that he truly cares about his daughter, which is a rarity these days. I think it is worth pointing out that the father may not have any prior support to help him in his own vetting process. Christian fathers are often as bereft of knowledge these days as young Christian men looking to marry. Past generations dropped the ball for everyone.
Additionally, Deep Strength examined the matter of vetting and the risk of divorce. Lots of good analysis there. I want to take a stab at answering the questions that Deep Strength posed at the end of the post. In particular, I want to offer an additional theory: the “Feminine Mystique.” Women like to maintain the air that the female of the species is ultimately unknowable. In the context of DS’s post that means unpredictable. I know Rollo has a post or two on the subject, but as I see it women like to keep men in the dark about how they really are as it benefits them for men (or most of them) to be ignorant. Ignorant men cannot catch on to strategies like AF/BB, for example. Also, it helps women filter for male attractiveness- those rare men who do “get them” are more likely to be successful with women, and thus probably superior genetic stock. There are probably other reasons, but I think I’ve established enough for what it is. It is also worth mentioning that much of it might be unconscious on the part of women- almost reflexive, as it were. But not all, of course.
Cane Caldo has made some dramatic life choices recently. The first post is here. The second is here, and the third here. A point he brings up is that patriarchy, as far as daughters are concerned, is heavily focused on protecting and guarding them. The same can be said of sons as well, in an indirect fashion. By ensuring that women are raised right, fathers in a patriarchy can ensure that their sons have access to decent pool of marriageable women. Without the protection of Patriarchy, such a pool will dry up quickly. See the present day for reference.
Zippy is back, at least for one post. Once again he covers the lies inherent in a democratic form of government. What surprised me is that he predicts our present system has as many as 50 years left in it. I wouldn’t have given it that long, but unfortunately he might be right. Ours has proven to be a surprisingly robust socio-political system, and inertia can have a profound effect.
Finally, congratulations are in order to blogger Chad, who became recently engaged to the young woman he has been courting for some time.