It’s Been A While Since I lost A Fight…

Artisanal Toad
It started off well, but I got put in an unusual position when I slipped and fell. There was a little voice in the back of my mind telling me that this would not end well, but I kept going from simple inertia. I couldn’t stop. Next thing I know I took a hard shot to the chest and there went three ribs. That hurt. I head-butted to no avail. Then I took a hard shot (maybe two) to the nose and right eye. That split my nose all the way to the septum (11 stitches and I’ll never look the same again) and my right eye was swollen shut within moments. Then I hit the concrete head-first (I think that’s where the concussion came from but at that point I couldn’t say). After that it was just blood and pain and I lay there knowing it was over. I’d just had my ass kicked.
The worst part? Looking back up from my position on the ground, I could clearly see that I didn’t do one bit of damage to that staircase. Not one bit.
That was a bit over 4 days ago. The emergency-room doc was so impressed that his first act was a needle of morphine. Then came the lidocaine and he started stitching. Then the x-rays and a CT scan of the head. Today is my first day of really feeling like getting out of bed. I’m currently ugly enough to scare small children, but at least they gave me some decent painkillers.

14 thoughts on “It’s Been A While Since I lost A Fight…”

  2. Dying to know what you wrote at Dalrock that merited a deletion. That’s quite an honor. I can’t work it out from the subsequent discussion.
    Reply
    1. Caspar
      In the OP Dalrock was pointing out that Michael Philips avoided discussing the tools women use to usurp the headship of their husbands. EastTexasFatboy pointed out that given the current conditions, it will take a societal reset (a hard reset, with a significant portion of the population dead) before feminism can be restrained and suppressed. I commented that even under those conditions, it won’t work because the most conservative of the denizens of the manosphere refuse to recognize the Biblical options a husband has to hold his wife accountable.
      First, I pointed out that God never said to build prisons. The current concept of prisons is rooted in the Quaker idea that the wrong-doer should be isolated in order that they might be “penitent” and pray for forgiveness and repent of their sins. This is (literally) why they’re called “Penitentiaries” today. What God prescribed was corporal punishment and restitution for all crimes for which restitution could be made, and for crimes for which no restitution could be made the sentence was death.
      I cited 10 passages from Scripture that discussed corporal punishment for adults (pointing out that many of them were gender-neutral) and made the point that if a man was subject to corporal punishment from the civil authorities, how could a wife not be subject to her husband in the same way. I followed up on that with the argument that wives, white knights and manginas will scream that the husband is to love the wife as Christ loves the church. Well, guess what? If you read Revelation 3:19 you’ll see that Christ said “Those whom I love I reprove and discipline. Be zealous therefore and repent.” Thus, we see that the husband’s task in loving his wife includes reproof and discipline. Discipline includes corporal punishment.
      However, what if we have a completely rebellious wife who refuses to submit to the discipline of her husband? On the conservative end of things, there are those who believe that divorce is forbidden between two believers. Others believe that divorce is only an option in cases of adultery. In other words, a wife can nag, whine, be disobedient, refuse to submit, refuse to have sex and engage in all manner of passive-aggressive behavior and the husband is stuck with her. God, however, provided another option for the husband in such a situation: He’s allowed to take another wife. In the Law the text discusses the “rival wife” and the husband who has two wives, one loved and the other hated. In other words, the wife has no right to make life living hell for the husband because he has the right to take a second wife if his first wife refuses to cooperate with him. Call it Biblical dread game.
      These are two “tools” that God provided for the husband to hold his wife accountable, because the other side of accountability is consequences. If one is in a situation in which there are no consequences then there is no accountability. Dalrock has written extensively about women and their refusal to be held accountable for their actions. He criticized Michael Philips for writing extensively about patriarchy and headship but hardly mentioning divorce or the tools that women use to usurp their husband’s headship. I find it ironic that in the post titled “turning a blind eye” that Dalrock turns a blind eye to the issue of accountability and the husband’s responsibility to hold his wife accountable. In order to do so, there have to be consequences for misbehavior, but apparently this is not a subject that can be discussed so he deleted my comment.
      Reply
  3. Thanks; now I can read through the discussion again more intelligently. I can see the relevance to the OP, but I can also see how it might be too much even for Dalrock’s forum. He has deleted even his reproof, although some of the responses remain.
    It is a conversation I’ve imagined with the missus many times — what does it really mean that a husband has authority, when it comes right down to it? She did not hesitate to threaten official violence in response to an imagined threat from me, who have never lifted a finger against her. In today’s environment, whatever tool you wield can be tossed in the garbage heap of “abuse”, and a single three-digit phone call is she needs to do you in forever. A patriarchal household requires the wife’s continual consent not to go over your head. Not only it that backward in concept, but when she tires of it, her consent will be conveniently transmogrified into you being a control freak or a long-term spiritual abuser. We’re not talking about simply not marrying or not marrying born-again churchian sluts, either, but about day-to-day dealings with a Christian wife, who rolls her eyes at your good commands and obeys outwardly but harbors rebellion in her heart, smirking inwardly to herself, knowing that all your grandstanding about being the head is just that.
    Eve loves to see power and violence used on her behalf, and the victor’s reward is her affections. I suspect every woman longs to some degree for her husband to earn her affections in that way. Like with Cain, sin is at her door, and it must be very tempting to know all that official power is sitting out there, but not to use it when the husband pushes his envelope too far. It would be analogous to the husband having a bevy of sexually voracious babes reminding him over and over, “If she ever gets out of line in any way just give me a call, and I’ll take care of you. And I swallow.” It would be very difficult for a man not to invent reasons to fall back to that position if a legitimate reason did not present itself.
    Reply
  4. “This post will probably get deleted but if you’re going to push the point that the husband had completed Authority over his wife, is corporal punishment OK?”
    On topic: what happened to Vashti? Not corporal punishment.
    then the only real perfect way to end a marriage where to deal with a disobedient wife is her funeral.
    Wrong
    That why Woman who understand the word want weak men. In Rome to kill a wife was nothing. Don’t tiptoe around it. Is what Ester’s husband did to his first wife.
    We woman are bitches.
    Am I not understanding that wrong
    At is this what you’re saying. If not why ?
    Answered below.
    Reply
    1. Renee, first of all, I don’t need to “push” the point that the husband has complete authority over his wife. Ephesians 5:22-24 states that in clear and unambiguous language. “Wives submit yourselves to your husband as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is head of the church.” If you want to say that there are areas in which the wife doesn’t have to submit to her husband, you are also saying that there are some areas in which the church doesn’t have to submit to Christ.
      I listed ten separate verses that discussed the corporal punishment of adults. The idea that corporal punishment could administered to men but that a husband didn’t have the authority to punish his wife for her disobedience or rebellion is ludicrous.
      You are not citing Biblical doctrine, you’re describing romantic fantasy. In the end it all boils down to one thing: should women be held accountable for their actions? Because being held accountable means there are consequences. If a woman is to be held accountable for her actions, does the husband (as part of loving his wife as Christ loves the church) have a responsibility to hold her accountable and administer such sanctions as are necessary to adjust her behavior?
      If you take the position that only God can judge you then forget about getting married. Seriously.
      Reply
  6. Ok AT you’re talking about corporal punishment for a wife’s disobedience or rebellion. I get that but I thought that is a common belief in that manosphere. Like Casper, I have seen comments in favor I of dread game. Dalrock did not respond to those comments …
    I am asking if you cited “capital punishment” as a situation in your comment at Dalrock’s blog. If you did not, I’m curious why your comment was deleted.
    Reply
  7. You said : You are not citing Biblical doctrine, you’re describing romantic fantasy. ”
    You mean the book of Esther, when a queen disobeying her husband cost her life?
    Reply
    1. You said:
      On topic: what happen Vashti? Not corporal punishment “
      then the only real perfect way to end a marriage where to deal with a disobedient wife is her funeral” That why Woman who understand the word want weak men. In Rome to kill a wife was nothing. Don’t tiptoe around it. Is why ester’s husband did to his first wife.
      1. Vashi was the wife of Xerxes of Persia, not Rome.
      2. The Roman doctrine of paterfamilius that actually gave the husband the power of the sword only existed for a short time, historically.
      3. You need to re-read Chapter 1 of Esther before saying she was killed, especially verse 19. She was sent away and no longer allowed to come into the presence of the King, her position as queen being given to another more worthy. No-where does it say she was killed, just like when King David did the same with Saul’s daughter Michael. In both cases they were put away. Still supported but no longer allowed to come into the king’s presence.
      Reply
  8. You are right. I was thinking “no longer allowed to come into the king’s presence.” was the human equivalent of being able to remove the wife from the Favorable presence Of God. Since a husband has equal authority over the wife with Christ ( who has all power ), to give spiritual life to his bride a husband would have the right to take physical live away from her. I not putting it down or saying I don’t agree. But it’s something I thought was okay because I only thought it was wrong due feminist thinking.
    NO, NO, NO. See my comments below.
    Anyway The quick and dirty is I’m just to understand this stuff. I just thought the paterfamilias thing was the argument that got you banned
    Reply
    1. No, I didn’t get banned. Dal simply had a problem with one of my comments and deleted it. I’ve been commenting on his blog for years and he knows I’m not a troll, but the issues I brought up cannot be discussed with the vast majority of his readers. I made further comments in that thread with no problem.
      There is a problem with your response. The woman can remove herself from the favorable presence of God by violating His command not to separate herself from her husband (1st Cor. 7:10). The husband is ordered to love her and treat her with respect and honor as the weaker vessel (1st Peter 3:7). He is ordered not to divorce her (1st Cor. 7:11). The husband DOES NOT have the power to remove spiritual life from his wife.
      God never gave the husband the Roman power of the paterfamilius. As I stated way upthread, he has the authority to discipline his wife (c.f. Rev. 3:19) and if necessary take another wife in cases in which the wife refuses to submit to his authority. That, and that alone, was the gist of my argument.
      With respect to Esther and the pagan wife of a pagan king, don’t get your tits in an uproar. The story isn’t relevant.
      Reply
  9. On your forget about marriage comment I starting to as I think being a. I think that’s being an unmarried woman for the service to the Lord. With a right understanding of word, that would better for The Lord. Like the women of faith that Paul writes about. But I trust God and life is His will to do with what he wants ( easy to write about but hard to live ). If I don’t Marry I’d be mad but if I go to hell… that would suck. I can waste all my time on preparation for a fake marriage or live for a real God… and anyway, Matthew 22:30.
    Reply
  10. Ok I get It: you did not write ( do not believe) a husband has the right to kill his wife. I go to a church were woman are told that physical or sexual abuse is bad…. That it is better to service the body and move in signs and healing ” I thought I was wrong for not wanting to marry; that hit me”
    Plus I just started to understand all of this.
    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *