Wassily Kandinsky: On White (1923)
Those of us who care about reconstructing a notion of patriarchy spend a lot of time studying the standards extant in healthier cultures. We are motivated by the pragmatic desire to find what works, in order to promote such ideals among our own lost peoples.
Some examples include our own culture, which enjoyed much saner mores, prior to about 1955. Certain other societies provide practical examples. There are also prehistoric accounts, extant in sources like the Hebrew Bible, Talmud, and Epic of Gilgamesh. And then there are notions from classical antiquity.
One static artifact that exists in across times and cultures is the woman’s privilege within her own home. This privilege exists whether the woman owns her own home outright, or whether she lives with her husband, father, or brother.
I pulled this photo off a web page, but it depicts (as I tried to capture) the sex-specific doorknockers on contemporary Iranian homes. I’ll give you the rundown, as I understand it, as a tourist of a few years ago, who wasn’t really paying attention to such important things.
In Iran, if you go knocking at a door, the first thing you do is to use the correct knocker. IIRC, the male doorknocker looks intuitively like a penis, and the female knocker looks like a vagina. You knock on the door with the dick-door-knocker, which sounds distinctly different compared with its female counterpart. You use your left hand, because your right hand is already up, covering your eyes.
You cover your eyes and use the dick-door-knocker, because in Iran, a woman has the right to walk around bare assed and topless in her own home, or in her husband’s home. Her beauty and her body is for her husband’s enjoyment, not for the general public’s amusement.
If a skank-ho wimminz walked around in public naked, in small-town Iran, she’d get a prison sentence, or at least get her ass whipped in front of her neighbors. The burden of modesty is legally inverted in the woman’s home. When you knock at a stranger’s door, it is theoretically possible for a nekkid woman to open up that door, and if you gawk at her, you’re the one who is going to do prison time, or at least get a good beating, by the morality cops, out in the town square. She is held harmless, because she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her husband’s house.
I haven’t looked for an example of a man getting his ass beat, after looking at a nekkid broad in the doorway, but knowing wimminz the way we do, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were examples of careless dudes who got set up for this. Really, people were so careful to warn me (a dumb Canadian tourist) about it, that it’s safe to assume it to be common knowledge, and I wouldn’t feel too sorry for the chump who did get punished for peeping.
Over on Dalrock, there is a discussion about the Biblical narrative of David and Bathsheba. For those that don’t know the story, here it is, as recounted in 2 Samuel 11:
1 And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried still at Jerusalem.
2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.
6 And David sent to Joab, saying, Send me Uriah the Hittite. And Joab sent Uriah to David.
7 And when Uriah was come unto him, David demanded of him how Joab did, and how the people did, and how the war prospered.
8 And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king’s house, and there followed him a mess of meat from the king.
9 But Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house with all the servants of his lord, and went not down to his house.
10 And when they had told David, saying, Uriah went not down unto his house, David said unto Uriah, Camest thou not from thy journey? why then didst thou not go down unto thine house?
11 And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.
12 And David said to Uriah, Tarry here to day also, and to morrow I will let thee depart. So Uriah abode in Jerusalem that day, and the morrow.
13 And when David had called him, he did eat and drink before him; and he made him drunk: and at even he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house.
14 And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah.
15 And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.
16 And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were.
17 And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab: and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also.
So, we’ve got a man who climbs up onto his roof to peep at his neighbor’s wife. He decides he likes her enough to get her to come on over and fuck him. Once she becomes pregnant, our man decides to kill her husband. Incidentally, that husband is depicted as being unwaveringly loyal, both to his boss, and to his men.
As a misogynist, I enjoy blaming wimminz for their crap behavior. Even so, I can’t find fault with this wimminz initially. People on Dalrock disagree, yet, none of them can make a very convincing argument with the text.
Bathsheba can certainly be blamed for jumping the fence, and catting around with her husband’s boss. But, can she be blamed for bathing in her own home? A careful reading of patriarchal mores would suggest she was harmless, before the sexy time.
And in case you’re worried that I’m being selective, and applying contemporary Iranian mores to the Bible, I’ve got other sources that give us the same verdict. Cicero’s Letters paint a very clear picture of this female privilege, as it was enjoyed by his wife, Terentia. So, the custom existed in Rome. It also existed in the American State of Washington, as it is encoded in RCW 9A.44.115.
This general notion is not limited to Ancient Rome, or people in Seattle. Laws against peeping exist in every state and province in North America, suggesting that a healthier society inverts the imperative to modesty when a female is in her own house.
Personally much like they want to prove courtly love doesn’t exist in the Bible (which I agree with)…they want to prove anytime a wimminz does something she carefully planned it out for it to happen.
I’m the same way…I would be hard pressed to think the wimminz planned something in this day and age like baby trapping a guy or unleashing a divorce on him…but this is Scripture. They seem to think she knew the perfect spot at the perfect time to know when David would get up, go on his roof, and see her in her birthday suit, bathing. And then she’d know he’d send some wingman to get her into his chambers and he’d do the deed. We got all of the motivations David did…we didn’t hear anything about her motivation and as such it’s nothing but implying. I get the implying but I also know God would know the score in this instance.
They seem to think the Holy Spirit would be in the dark about wimminz planning something like that in her heart.
I’ll need a computer and not a phone to respond to this tomorrow.
I will say this .. before we go saving the world .. let’s make sure it wants to be saved.
I’ve learned this lesson the hard way.
For example .. I used to believe returning to the Patriarchy was the answer. But, is that the right answer? At this point I’m not sure .. because if we use the 1950’s as an example of the good times .. they did get use to the 1980’s .. then to the 2010’s .. I believe if WE want to return to the Patriarchy it must be much .. much earlier than 1950’s.
And I don’t think all of the change that has happened to this point from that point can be accomplished.
I’d be happy, now, if we could get th wimminz to pull their fair share of the load in America.
Because the
payfull-time work load gap is in need of rebalancing.As King David and Bath-She-Babe that is a topic I need a computer for. Hint .. people don’t truly understand the King and Servent / Subject dynamic. And it was on display here.
“Bathsheba can certainly be blamed for jumping the fence, and catting around with her husband.s boss. But, can she be blamed for bathing in her own home?”
She wasn’t bathing where anybody could see her… she was bathing where sexy King David could see her. Not a smoking gun but exactly what the bored wife of a soldier on deployment would do to monkey-branch to the top.
The mind boggles to imagine what President Trump would see if he opened the Oval Office’s curtain on a Friday night.
It’s still only speculation as the Bible makes no mention of what her intentions were outside of bathing… it only makes David’s.
I mean if we are going into women are bathing territory as some grand master hypergamous plan…then we have to admit they truly are the masters of our fate.
I’m actually more in sympathy with this sort of reading than I let on; but, if we want to be consistent, we have to take the text at face-value. I’m not a postmodernist, who thinks that all meaning is interpretation. The text is meaningful in itself.
The authors of the Hebrew bible had no problem calling out immorality, so if Bathsheba was trying to entice someone, it’s reasonable to assume it would be described as such, in print. To distort the text to the extent some of these guys are doing is to enter Sheila Gregoire territory, and basically edge toward re-writing it.
That’s what they call an open secret.
I could read this remark as another (certifiably gay) accusation a la Dalrock, that I’m just trolling. In fact, I know Dalrock’s fallacy, because I have to fight with it myself.
We all read texts through a filter of our own whims and biases, and we all love ideology. It takes work to see things (including the Bible) without distortion.
“We all read texts through a filter of our own whims and biases, and we all love ideology. It takes work to see things (including the Bible) without distortion.”
Oh, I completely agree. I was just attempting some lighthearted humor, no need for offense.
Which is ironic because Dalrock’s last few posts were all about deconstructing the ‘courtly love’ bias we have for Biblical ‘romance’ stories.
And just like that we are back to wimminz be wimminz…even though there was no certifiable proof in the text that happened.
And this leads me to my response .. Thank you Earl .. perfect seg-way.
1 Sam 16:7
But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
The “heart” and “mind” are used interchangeable in The Word of God (our Holy Bible).
Regardless of whether Bathsheba knew or did not know King David would see her .. How does God see this event?
The answer is in 2 Sam 12 when King David and Nathan discuss this issue. Now the pertinent parts …
1 And the Lord sent Nathan unto David.
then
2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:
3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.
4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
then
5 And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:
6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
I can stop here .. GOD sent Nathan to deliver the news .. GOD judged King David’s heart (and mind). King David even called it like it was. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.?
Check that order .. “despised the commandment of the Lord” and then “evil in His sight” and then “he took his wife” and then “he had him slain”.
Bathsheba suffered the loss of their child. But, nothing else tells us she had any more punishment or any fault in this event. If you have scripture that tells us otherwise please let me know.
I think that GOD knows better than any of us when he can judge the heart .. which could never do with what info we have.
Trust GODs Word on this matter .. I do.
Fixed it ..
“I think that GOD knows better than any of us when HE can judge the heart .. which we could never do with what info we have.”
Might be good to remind the Christians at Dalrock this point.
Thank you Earl .. but .. I don’t think they care what I think .. I’m not in, nor do I wish to be in, their clique.
I’m a Confirmed Bachelor (i.e. what is now called MGTOW) that doesn’t think marriage to our current crop of modern womminz is a good idea. I’m more of a thorn in their side than anything.
So, I asked the question I was hoping folks would dial-in on from 2 Sam 12:3 .. here .. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/a-challenge-to-traditionalists/#comment-283401
I haven’t had any bites yet .. hmmm.
Here’s the question ..
What say you?
Well Christ is called the Lamb of God.
I think the reason why men want to blame Bathsheba it because look at how it worked out for her: She became the third wife to the king effectively making her the queen of Israel and after her stepchildren loss their minds her son became the air to the throne and his father Successor to the throne. Her second son with David is described by the Bible as being the wises and Richest man who ever lived or will ever live.
Taking out a contact visit have a Story reads: some slut was bathing in full view of the king had an affair the king husband with murdered she became queen her son became king
Talk about cash and prizes
Absolutely!
Well while they are in the middle of the bias of constantly thinking everything is about wimminz hypergamy and cash and prizes…this particular text since it is the Word of God always has something about God’s view in it.
2 Samuel 12:24-25
Then David consoled Bathsheba his wife. He went and slept with her; and she conceived and bore him a son, who was named Solomon. <<>> and sent the prophet Nathan to name him Jedidiah, on behalf of the Lord.
They don’t realize it but much like the ‘modern’ view of courtly love distorts Scripture…the ‘modern’ view of hypergamy also distorts Scripture.
Not sure why the <<>> took it out …but it was to highlight ‘ The Lord loved him’ part of the text.
@honeycomb
Your argument is (almost?) irrefutable. The use of lamb as THE Jewish symbol of innocence (and purity!) is pretty undeniable. My hats off to you for being able to say in two sentences what I was unable to say in many paragraphs.
Thank you Derek.
I was hoping I could lead others to the same conclusion. I’m happy it helped.
Signing on with Derek to give you the thumbs-up. That’s something I missed, and it’s a very solid interpretation.
Based off honeycomb’s insight, Bathsheba lost her first son with David because of David’s sin. The elevation of Solomon was God’s way of compensating her for the loss of her son, since she was held pure and blameless by God.
I have been trying to back you up, but Dalrock always leaves my comments in moderation. I don’t think he likes me very much. Maybe they’ll show up in an hour or two. Or maybe I’ve finally been banned for not toeing the party line.
I had no idea he was doing that Derek.
I’m surprised I’m not in the same boat .. but you are a Happily Married Brother .. so maybe that is more scary than a lone bachelor.
If Dalrock bans you before he bans me, I’m going to be very offended.
Before we jump to conclusions, you brothers should know about the weak-ass spam filters we have at wordpress. Some of you get kicked in there regularly (Honeycomb and 70sJason), while actual spammers occasionally enjoy free rein to post gay xxx.gif pr0n, seemingly with no limits, which I have to delete.
The most charitable explanation is that he requires something like 100 comments before he auto-approves comments (and I’m not there). Most people who comment over there have many, many comments going back in time. I’m relatively new. Or maybe his filter doesn’t like the fact that I use a lot of tags and long comments.
LOL. I do seem to be unable to get along with Cane Caldo, no matter what, and he seems to be Dalrock’s favorite.
Meh, Dalrock’s probably busy doing something else in real life and not doing moderation right now. Sometimes it takes hours for my comments to show up.
This has been happening since my first post there. I’ve never bothered to mention it before because he can run his site however he wants. But in this case, I can’t defend someone else (honeycomb), so that bothers me a bit.
Don’t read my comments as complaining about Dalrock. I don’t begrudge a brother running his site as he sees fit.
It takes quite a bit for Dalrock to ban someone. I know of InsanityBytes, Artisanal Toad, and GBFM. I don’t miss any of them.
I don’t know how one gets to be highly esteemed by Dalrock, but I doubt that I will ever reach that status.
I have learned that it is wise, for me anyway, to leave certain commenters alone.
I have him on ignore (1) .. and the more I post over there .. the more people I ignore.
(1) There is no ignore button .. I just manually ignore every word he types.
OKRickety sez ..
Smart move OKR.
Somethimes though .. you just have to tweek some of them. I’m naturally that way.
@Derek Ramsey@
Go and ask Boxer about my run in`s with Dalrock. Long story short, Dalrock is a feminist mangina piece of shit who will not allow any dissenting views to his own, no matter how respectful they are , and he keeps you in moderation for a retarded amount of time as he checks you out to make sure you’re toeing the party line
You see, our boy Boxer here is a .real. man, he doesn’t moderate all our comments like the gutless coward Dalrock is
I learnt a long time ago that Dalrock pretends to be a right wing conservative Christian, but in reality he’s a little insecure feminized baby who lives in an echo chamber where he tolerates only his own opinions and of those who agrees with him
It was so funny watching our boy Artisanal Road take Dalrock down using multiple scriptures as his weapons but being the gutless piece of shit that Dalrock is, he promptly banned him
No bans or blocks here from Boxer, he can take a fight and he ain’t no coward, and in my view is more of a .Christian. than Dalrock will ever be
Artisanal Toad———— not road, stupid auto correct