| |
| Ah, yes. The good ol' separate but equal line! I was waiting for that one to come out. :-) | I agree that "separate but equal" as applied to races is always unequal. "Separate but equal" is not an apt description of an orchestra conductor and a violinist. Nor is it an apt description of a husband and wife. |
| That is indeed the quote I am looking at, and yes, I looked at it in context. You seem to have dug through and been thrilled to find one token acknowledgement that the wife is not COMPLETELY inferior to her husband-just mostly. Seriously? That's all you've got on this one? | Congratulations on finding the quote
in context. As I said, the reference "P17 in the sidebar" made no sense to me. And I have North's book. Since I couldn't find the quote that was used on the blog post we're now commenting on, I googled the phrase, and found more context on the blog I linked to above, suggesting to me that this "GonzoTimes" blogger got the North quote from that other blog. (When I googled a phrase, I used quotation marks. It was only by removing the quotation marks that I got the link to Gary North's book online and found the quote on page xix.) I didn't "dig through" the book looking for something on equality of spouses, I was just dealing with the poor-referenced quote circulating on these blogs. I think you'd have to dig through North's 30+ books to find a quote that says the wife is "COMPLETELY inferior to her husband." |
| Gary's
trying to play both sides of the fence on this one. First he makes the analogy that husband:wife::God:man which is clearly a superior-inferior relationship. | Then there's nothing wrong with "a superior-inferior relationship." The Westminster Catechism draws out the meaning of the 5th Commandment by speaking of "inferiors" and "superiors." I realize that the word "inferior" provokes a knee-jerk reaction among those who are victims of educational malpractice in government-run schools, but throughout Western Civilization this has not been the case. The world is richer because of these "inferior-superior" relationships than a world of secular egalitarianism. |
| But in this one very small subset of ways of
comparing husband to wife, she's not inferior. Sure, he's the head of the household. Sure, he's God to her. Sure, she's supposed to obey him. | The wife is commanded always to obey God rather than man when man is an unjust oppressor. |
| She's inferior to him in oh, so many ways. BUT LOOK! She's not ETHICALLY inferior to him! Oh, my! I feel so much better! | The use of the word "ethically" appears to have confused you. It's sort of a term of art for North. He could have used the word "economically." Here's the whole quote: The man is head of the household. He represents God before his wife and children. They are to obey him. His authority is analogous to and reflective of God’s
authority. The wife is functionally subordinate to the husband, just as the Son of God is functionally subordinate to the Father. The wife is not ethically inferior to the husband, just as the Son of God is not ethically inferior to the Father. There is hierarchy in the family, just as there is hierarchy in the Godhead itself. (This is what theologians call the “economical Trinity,” to distinguish it from the “ontological Trinity,” meaning the co-equal nature of the three Persons. Both doctrines are true, depending on what aspect of the Trinity you are discussing.) "Economy" refers to function. "Ontology" refers to being or nature. For you to say that a Christian husband is a "tyrant" and a "bigot" who "subjugates" his wife is something that the Son of God would not agree with as applied to His Father. Even though the violinist has to "obey" the conductor, for you to say that an
orchestra conductor "subjugates" the violinist is just knee-jerk ignorance. |
| Hahaha. :-) Please. That is just so silly. :-) | Silly knee-jerk ignorance.
Silliness that does not build a durable and humane civilization. |
| Flag PunkJohnnyCash and 1 more liked this Like ReplyReply | |
| |
| I'm sorry, as an anarchist I support NO RULERS. Therefore anyone who supports hierarchy or dominance over others is against me 100%. | My goal is the 100% elimination of the institution called "The State." Because of this, the California State Bar would not give me a license to practice law, even though I passed the Bar Exam and was otherwise fully qualified to defend people attacked by the State. I also am committed to abolishing the institutional "Church," for which and from which I was excommunicated. I might think that "PunkJohnnyCash" might want to work with me on these two projects. But because I believe in the ethical legitimacy of a violinist being
"subordinate" to a conductor, a "ruler" who is to be "obeyed," "PunkJohnnyCash" says I'm "100%" against him. I reject "dominance" over others, as well as "subjugation." Again, this is silly knee-jerk ignorance. Where does it get us? Does it make us a stronger united force against the institution that kills millions of people and confiscates $trillions of property? Gary North presents a compelling and intelligent case for the abolition of 97% of this institution, directed primarily toward those who tend to approve the existence of that 97%. That's not useful? You're 100% against abolition of only 97% of the State? You will denounce and OPPOSE anyone who wants to limit the State unless they also want to abolish marriage and orchestras? |
| Flag Michael
liked this Like ReplyReply | |
| |
| By the way, Kevin, why is it that your idea of family necessitates subjugating female to male? | There's that completely objective, dispassionate word "subjugate."
1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
The orchestra conductor did not "subjugate" an unwilling violinist. Gary North did not "subjugate" an unwilling woman into being his wife. So (as if you didn't already know), my view of family does not necessitate "subjugating" female to male. |
| What's your problem with co-leadership based on each individual's personal qualities rather than rigid roles that elevate one individual above another based not on individual qualities but collectivist stereotypes? | The "subjugation" of God the Son to God the Father is in fact based on "individual personal qualities." The "subjugation" of the violinist to the conductor is based on "individual personal qualities." That the husband is a male and the wife is a female is a genetic fact, not a "collectivist stereotype." In a
sense, the vast majority of Christians believe marriage is "co-leadership based on each individual's personal qualities" rather than "subjugation." But when there's a difference of opinion, and all this "co-leadership" stuff still results in a 1-1 vote, Christians believe God gave the husband the tie-breaking vote (and also the command to take personal responsibility for his vote). It's a system that has served the human race admirably for six thousand years. |
| How is imposing sexist expectations and roles on husbands and wives somehow more "humane" than recognizing them for who they are as unique individuals? | Totally illogical. Nothing Gary North has written justifiably leads to the conclusion that he does not recognize his wife for who she is as a unique individual. Come on, let's get serious. I'm the one
who recognizes the powerful distinctions between men and women. You reduce human beings to bland, lowest-common-denominator generic beings. |
| | Recommended reading:
 
Men
and Marriage
by George Gilder |
1 day ago
