Douglas Wilson

[FO4UR]

Seems very clear that Wilson is setting himself apart from what he calls "masculinists."

 

 

So...masculinists are a step worse than patriarchal men?:confused:

 

 

You were very quick to use the term "feminist" on me. I left it be, but since you opened the can...I can admit/deny to being a feminist, but it means nothing b/c we might have two different definitions, you and I.

 

Judging by what Wilson says, I define him as patriarchal. Saying he's not as bad as masculinists does not change my perception of what he actually says.

[tntgoodwin]

Can you even read what you just posted? You only need to educate your daughter so that she can educate your grandSON. You don't do it for her benefit, not for the glory of God, not for the betterment of mankind, but only to further the education of your descendants.

 

Yes, that is what he would say TO THOSE WHO HE CALLS MASCULINISTS.

 

That is not saying he agrees with that. He distinctly separates himself from them.

[tntgoodwin]

So...masculinists are a step worse than patriarchal men?:confused:

 

 

You were very quick to use the term "feminist" on me. I left it be, but since you opened the can...I can admit/deny to being a feminist, but it means nothing b/c we might have two different definitions, you and I.

 

Judging by what Wilson says, I define him as patriarchal. Saying he's not as bad as masculinists does not change my perception of what he actually says.

 

Sorry, I didn't use the term on you. I was referring to what he actually said in the video. I equate masculinists and patriarchalists as the same thing.

[Audrey]

My life has no value outside of how I can be used by, serve, and glorify God... does that make me a feminist?

 

It does if your god is female. Is she?

[tntgoodwin]

It does if your god is female. Is she?

 

lol, no. My God is male.

[WishboneDawn]

Yes, that is what he would say TO THOSE WHO HE CALLS MASCULINISTS.

 

That is not saying he agrees with that. He distinctly separates himself from them.

 

Hmmm. I grew up in the country. I can easily separate cow manure from horse manure.

 

I still recognize both as manure though.

[Mimm]

Hmmm. I grew up in the country. I can easily separate cow manure from horse manure.

 

I still recognize both as manure though.

 

:lol:

[Audrey]

lol, no. My God is male.

 

 

Then bless your heart and breath easy, darlin'. You're most certainly not a feminist.

[FO4UR]

Yes, that is what he would say TO THOSE WHO HE CALLS MASCULINISTS.

 

That is not saying he agrees with that. He distinctly separates himself from them.

 

Please watch that video again. He absolutely agreed.

 

 

Sorry, I didn't use the term on you. I was referring to what he actually said in the video. I equate masculinists and patriarchalists as the same thing.

 

Then we are talking circles b/c Wilson is clearly patriarchal.

 

No offense taken.:001_smile: I think you should read up a bit more on who he is and what he believes. Honestly, I err on the side of conservative (esp on this board), and I think Wilson is just.not.Biblical.at.ALL!!!!

[FO4UR]

Hmmm. I grew up in the country. I can easily separate cow manure from horse manure.

 

I still recognize both as manure though.

 

 

:lol::lol::lol: :iagree:

 

 

Then bless your heart and breath easy, darlin'. You're most certainly not a feminist.

 

 

Can I have some sweet tea with that Southern hospitality?:tongue_smilie:

[tntgoodwin]

...

Then we are talking circles b/c Wilson is clearly patriarchal.

...

 

I am not saying he isn't. I am saying that I haven't seen any evidence of it. I am saying in this video he is separating himself from pariarchists.

[Audrey]

 

 

 

 

 

Can I have some sweet tea with that Southern hospitality?:tongue_smilie:

 

 

Why you certainly may! Good day for it, too. It's been a hot one! :D

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, that is what he would say TO THOSE WHO HE CALLS MASCULINISTS.

 

That is not saying he agrees with that. He distinctly separates himself from them.

 

Sorry, I didn't use the term on you. I was referring to what he actually said in the video. I equate masculinists and patriarchalists as the same thing.

 

Doug Wilson is using the term in a different manner than you then. Doug Wilson is most DEFINITELY a supporter of patriarchy. Go read "Reforming Marriage" and get back to us.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am not saying he isn't. I am saying that I haven't seen any evidence of it. I am saying in this video he is separating himself from pariarchists.

 

No, he most definitely isn't. He is separating himself (a supporter of patriarchy) from a class of men he has termed masculinists.

[FO4UR]

Why you certainly may! Good day for it, too. It's been a hot one! :D

 

:D

 

 

No, he most definitely isn't. He is separating himself (a supporter of patriarchy) from a class of men he has termed masculinists.

 

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

Douglas Wilson certainly has an interesting perspective on rape:

 

Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people. . . This does not justify the perpetrators; it is simply the recognition that when disaster befalls a city, sexual disaster for the women is part of this. . . Violent rape is God’s judgment on a culture, and individual women who are part of that culture are included in the judgment. . . . We see the same judgment at work in disintegrating cultures: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil†(Eccl. 8:11). Here the rape is not being perpetrated by foreign soldiers, but is the result of citizens turning on one another. . . But when God’s hand of judgment is heavy upon a people, women are in far greater danger of sexual assault than at other times.

 

Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What It Means To Be a One-Woman Man

[tntgoodwin]

Doug Wilson is using the term in a different manner than you then. Doug Wilson is most DEFINITELY a supporter of patriarchy. Go read "Reforming Marriage" and get back to us.

 

Ok, I believe you. Sorry for yelling at you earlier.

 

The problem is THAT video. People were pointing to THAT video and using it as evidence of his patriarchism. That is why I was getting frustrated.

[mommaduck]

It does if your god is female. Is she?

 

lol, no. My God is male.

 

Though referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns, I'm not sure we can say that God (in the general Christian view of God, excluding the LDS on this one for this specific issue) is male or female. I would say not an "it" either, but not gendered in the human sense. Does that make sense?

[Ellesmere]

Ok, I believe you. Sorry for yelling at you earlier.

 

The problem is THAT video. People were pointing to THAT video and using it as evidence of his patriarchism. That is why I was getting frustrated.

 

Then you are getting frustrated with the wrong people about the wrong things.

 

But, I hope, you can at least see why he is controversial.

[simka2]

Ok, I believe you. Sorry for yelling at you earlier.

 

The problem is THAT video. People were pointing to THAT video and using it as evidence of his patriarchism. That is why I was getting frustrated.

 

Here you go. In his own words. Part of the issue is that many of us HAVE already read his words so we understood the video in their light.

 

http://www.reformedsingles.com/loving-headship-douglas-wilson

[Mrs Mungo]

From Reforming Marriage:

 

"The fundamental orientation of an obedient man is to his calling or vocation under God. Under normal circumstances, he cannot fulfill his calling alone - he needs help. The fundamental orientation of an obedient woman is to give that help. Another way of saying this is that the man's orientation is to do the job with her help, while the woman's orientation is to help him do the job. He is oriented to the task, and she is oriented to him."

 

"Wives need to be led with a firm hand. A wife will often test her husband in some area, and be deeply disappointed if he gives in to her."

 

"A wife must not complain in her fruitfulness . . . . it is the wife's duty to submit to the will of God and gladly bear children for her husband."

[Spy Car]

Ok, I believe you. Sorry for yelling at you earlier.

 

The problem is THAT video. People were pointing to THAT video and using it as evidence of his patriarchism. That is why I was getting frustrated.

 

Hey ah Tony, Douglas Wilson is one of the most well know advocates of patriachism in America. Don't be frustrated. His view is plain.

 

Bill

[obsidian]

Douglas Wilson certainly has an interesting perspective on rape:

 

Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people. . . This does not justify the perpetrators; it is simply the recognition that when disaster befalls a city, sexual disaster for the women is part of this. . . Violent rape is God’s judgment on a culture, and individual women who are part of that culture are included in the judgment. . . . We see the same judgment at work in disintegrating cultures: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil†(Eccl. 8:11). Here the rape is not being perpetrated by foreign soldiers, but is the result of citizens turning on one another. . . But when God’s hand of judgment is heavy upon a people, women are in far greater danger of sexual assault than at other times.

 

Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What It Means To Be a One-Woman Man

 

Very interesting (or more like :blink::cursing::cursing::blink:).

[mommaduck]

Hey ah Tony, Douglas Wilson is one of the most well know advocates of patriachism in America. Don't be frustrated. His view is plain.

 

Bill

 

Exactly. He is a well known patriarchist. This is known by both those in the patriarchy movement and those against it. One side happily claims him and the other side happily dismisses him...both for this exact view/issue. There's really no debate about it. It's what has attracted some people to him.

[Mrs Mungo]

Ok, I believe you. Sorry for yelling at you earlier.

 

The problem is THAT video. People were pointing to THAT video and using it as evidence of his patriarchism. That is why I was getting frustrated.

 

It *is*. What he was describing *is* his view. You don't understand that only because you are (surprisingly) unfamiliar with his works. You have been given enough information to research it on your own. Go forth. Read.

 

Then you are getting frustrated with the wrong people about the wrong things.

 

Here you go. In his own words. Part of the issue is that many of us HAVE already read his words so we understood the video in their light.

 

Exactly. I agree with both of these things, especially together.

 

It isn't the fault of the men and women here if you are woefully ignorant (in the proper sense of uninformed) of topics you insist upon engaging people upon.

[FO4UR]

From Reforming Marriage:

 

"The fundamental orientation of an obedient man is to his calling or vocation under God. Under normal circumstances, he cannot fulfill his calling alone - he needs help. The fundamental orientation of an obedient woman is to give that help. Another way of saying this is that the man's orientation is to do the job with her help, while the woman's orientation is to help him do the job. He is oriented to the task, and she is oriented to him."

 

"Wives need to be led with a firm hand. A wife will often test her husband in some area, and be deeply disappointed if he gives in to her."

 

"A wife must not complain in her fruitfulness . . . . it is the wife's duty to submit to the will of God and gladly bear children for her husband."

 

 

...and the implication is that the wife is in SIN if she is not happy with the arrangement.:glare: If she does not do what the man wants, she is in sin...according to this pov.

 

Man puts himself in place of God in the woman's life. That is the oldest sin there is...

[justamouse]

Douglas Wilson certainly has an interesting perspective on rape:

 

Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people. . . This does not justify the perpetrators; it is simply the recognition that when disaster befalls a city, sexual disaster for the women is part of this. . . Violent rape is God’s judgment on a culture, and individual women who are part of that culture are included in the judgment. . . . We see the same judgment at work in disintegrating cultures: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil†(Eccl. 8:11). Here the rape is not being perpetrated by foreign soldiers, but is the result of citizens turning on one another. . . But when God’s hand of judgment is heavy upon a people, women are in far greater danger of sexual assault than at other times.

 

Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What It Means To Be a One-Woman Man

 

That makes me want to throw up.

 

I cannot believe people use his books to teach their children.

[Aelwydd]

Yes, that is what he would say TO THOSE WHO HE CALLS MASCULINISTS.

 

That is not saying he agrees with that. He distinctly separates himself from them.

 

I think perhaps everyone here may have differing ideas or definitions for "masculinists."

 

I would say that after spending several months reading a masculinist board, and occasionally asking questions, that while there is some overlap, they do depart from patriarchalism in several respects.

 

Masculinists, IME, are often divorced men, who got burned by family courts and lop-sided child support payments. Some of them have legitimate claims, some are just complaining that they didn't get their way. Pretty much all of them are angry.

 

They tend to argue that if feminists are correct, that men and women are equal, then women need to be busting their asses doing dirty, dangerous and hard jobs like logging, working on electrical towers, and so forth, in equal numbers with men, if they want equal pay.

 

They argue that women who seek a divorce, and full custody of children, without a willingness to share parental duties are robbing them of their rights as fathers, even as they have their wages garnished and so forth for child support.

 

They bitterly argue that patriarchalism and chivalry both lock men into a position where they are considered automatically less "qualified" than women to be primary caretakers, simply because of their sex. They refer to the attitudes and controlling behavior of many mothers (mostly SAHM) who insist on keeping 90% of child care within their "domain" or role, are guilty of "gate-keeping."

 

At least, these have been the arguments I have heard repeatedly by MRA's (men's rights associations) and masculinists.

 

I'm sure that, like feminism, there are multiple "camps."

 

I actually think that some of them have valid criticisms of feminism, and patriarchalism both. There are a considerable number who are sexist; but there are also some who seem to hold to a level of raw egalitarianism that demands that women start taking their place alongside working men, and stop using the "maternal role" or instinct, as an excuse to sabotage or undermine their children's relationship with their fathers.

 

They view chivalry as sexist towards men; why should a man have to hold the door open for a woman, or refrain from using coarse language around her? If she is equal, he should treat her as one of the guys. Why should it be women and children off the sinking ship first? The children part, they have no beef with. But, they argue, why are women given preference for survival?

 

That's why I find it odd in the video that Wilson would maintain that his answers are tailored to a masculinist audience. Perhaps he is speaking to a particularly hard line group of misogynists, because that element certainly exists in the movement.

 

But, I think that it's as least as likely for Wilson to have gotten the following sentiment from that group: Whether women go to college or not, they need to stop deriving their living off the backs of men. And we don't want her to be solely responsible for our sons' education anyway--we want equal access and equal time.

 

So, I find it suspicious that he was simply making an argument to please masculinists. Masculinists typically despise the "give women a sheltered, protected place under a man's authority" argument, because they feel it's been used to their detriment.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Aelwydd

[Gailmegan]

Ok, I believe you. Sorry for yelling at you earlier.

 

The problem is THAT video. People were pointing to THAT video and using it as evidence of his patriarchism. That is why I was getting frustrated.

 

Putting aside any of his words except the video, it is still clear that he is patriarchal. If he were not, and were truly trying to distance himself from masculinists, he would have replied something like, "What do I tell masculinists? I tell them that there view of women is wrong, that God blesses women with gifts the same as men and uses them all on their own for his glory, not just in subservience to men." the fact that he DIDN'T reply along those lines shows that he is patriarchal - even without the myriad external references he has made to his views on women.

[Aelwydd]

I am particularly disturbed by WHY these two men feel that a college education is acceptable for women. I had no idea how completely opposed to their worldview I was until this. From the horse's mouth. Ahem.:lol:

http://www.canonwired.com/ask-doug/women-college/

 

Of course, I have to ask.

 

Are you certain which part of the horse it came from? :D

[Gailmegan]

I think perhaps everyone here may have differing ideas or definitions for "masculinists."

 

I would say that after spending several months reading a masculinist board, and occasionally asking questions, that while there is some overlap, they do depart from patriarchalism in several respects.

 

Masculinists, IME, are often divorced men, who got burned by family courts and lop-sided child support payments. Some of them have legitimate claims, some are just complaining that they didn't get their way. Pretty much all of them are angry.

 

They tend to argue that if feminists are correct, that men and women are equal, then women need to be busting their asses doing dirty, dangerous and hard jobs like logging, working on electrical towers, and so forth, in equal numbers with men, if they want equal pay.

 

They argue that women who seek a divorce, and full custody of children, without a willingness to share parental duties are robbing them of their rights as fathers, even as they have their wages garnished and so forth for child support.

 

They bitterly argue that patriarchalism and chivalry both lock men into a position where they are considered automatically less "qualified" than women to be primary caretakers, simply because of their sex. They refer to the attitudes and controlling behavior of many mothers (mostly SAHM) who insist on keeping 90% of child care within their "domain" or role, are guilty of "gate-keeping."

 

At least, these have been the arguments I have heard repeatedly by MRA's (men's rights associations) and masculinists.

 

I'm sure that, like feminism, there are multiple "camps."

 

I actually think that some of them have valid criticisms of feminism, and patriarchalism both. There are a considerable number who are sexist; but there are also some who seem to hold to a level of raw egalitarianism that demands that women start taking their place alongside working men, and stop using the "maternal role" or instinct, as an excuse to sabotage or undermine their children's relationship with their fathers.

 

They view chivalry as sexist towards men; why should a man have to hold the door open for a woman, or refrain from using coarse language around her? If she is equal, he should treat her as one of the guys. Why should it be women and children off the sinking ship first? The children part, they have no beef with. But, they argue, why are women given preference for survival?

 

That's why I find it odd in the video that Wilson would maintain that his answers are tailored to a masculinist audience. Perhaps he is speaking to a particularly hard line group of misogynists, because that element certainly exists in the movement.

 

But, I think that it's as least as likely for Wilson to have gotten the following sentiment from that group: Whether women go to college or not, they need to stop deriving their living off the backs of men. And we don't want her to be solely responsible for our sons' education anyway--we want equal access and equal time.

 

So, I find it suspicious that he was simply making an argument to please masculinists. Masculinists typically despise the "give women a sheltered, protected place under a man's authority" argument, because they feel it's been used to their detriment.

 

Hmm. We were posting at the same time. If i am understanding you correctly and that is the intended audience of Wilson's reply, then it makes his patriarchal views even more apparent, saying that women shouldn't be totally independent from men.

 

I hope that makes sense. It's past my bedtime. *yawn*

[Slartibartfast]

I don't really have any issues with what was said here.

 

I do disagree with his Federal Vision theology, and his legalism...which translates into his views on slavery. (Which I also do not agree with.)

 

I have no issue with his belief in "paleo-Confederatism."

 

I have yet to see evidence of his "patriarchism."

 

Thank you ALL for helping me learn more about this man.

 

I definitely don't think he is comparable to Fred Phelps. He doesn't seem hate-filled, just incorrect in some things.

 

The bolded are contrary to one another. Do you not know what his beliefs are?

 

Paleo-Confederate to him means that he believes in state's rights, he does not believe women should be able to vote and he believes the vote should be limited to property owning males.

 

You do not have an issue that he believes only land holding men should be able to vote?

 

I think being "incorrect" and being decisively racist/sexist/classist is just as bad as Fred Phelps. I guess you don't care when it isn't you? As long as it isn't your rights being questioned you don't mind?? As long as it isn't your value as a person he is doubting then it doesn't matter to you?

Edited August 2, 2011 by Sis

[Michelle My Bell]

Honestly, if you want encouraged in your classical Christian homeschooling endeavors, stay far, far away from Doug. I read one of his books years ago, and what he wrote about classical Christian homeschooling was basically that it is vastly inferior to classical Christian schooling. Actually I think it was worse than that, but I didn't keep the book, so I can't quote directly. It left me feeling that classical Christian homeschooling cannot be done well. If I didn't know better, I might have quit homeschooling after reading his book. Fortunately I know better.

 

I like what this blogger writes. Here's one little quote from one of her posts: "If you want to teach your children about straw man arguments read Doug."

 

I saw him at a church in my home town. I get really disgusted when people who have never homeschooled think they know so much about it. That was my take on DW.

[JulieH]

That makes me want to throw up.

 

I cannot believe people use his books to teach their children.

:iagree:totally! The dude is WHACKED!

[Mimm]

Putting aside any of his words except the video, it is still clear that he is patriarchal. If he were not, and were truly trying to distance himself from masculinists, he would have replied something like, "What do I tell masculinists? I tell them that there view of women is wrong, that God blesses women with gifts the same as men and uses them all on their own for his glory, not just in subservience to men." the fact that he DIDN'T reply along those lines shows that he is patriarchal - even without the myriad external references he has made to his views on women.

 

:iagree:

[Aelwydd]

Hmm. We were posting at the same time. If i am understanding you correctly and that is the intended audience of Wilson's reply, then it makes his patriarchal views even more apparent, saying that women shouldn't be totally independent from men.

 

Right. His rationale that he's talking to masculinists just doesn't make any kind of logical sense to me, considering how many masculinists scoff at such "protectionism" of women.

 

Some of the ones I talked to were ok with traditionalism, and patriarchalism. But just as many hate traditionalism and patriarchy, because it begat gender roles. And "gender roles" is, in their minds, what is responsible for the state automatically placing kids with the mother.

 

That's why he can't refer to masculinist acceptance of such a rationale as if it were at all representative of the movement. There'd be some who'd think like that, but a lot who would just give him an eye roll and call him a tool.

[Mrs Mungo]

He is using the word masculinist to mean a particularly misogynist type of supporter of patriarchy.

[Aelwydd]

He is using the word masculinist to mean a particularly misogynist type of supporter of patriarchy.

 

Yeah, I figured that'd be his audience. But even though I have some major issues of disagreement with MRAs and masculinists, neither do I think they should all be lumped in under the patriarchy umbrella. Some of their grievances are in direct opposition to core values promoted by traditionalists and patriarchalists.

 

I mean, it's difficult to argue that a father can be just as loving, tender, and attentive as a mother, if you hold to views that God naturally endows women with superior gifts in that area, to fulfill a divine "role."

 

Logically speaking, then children, especially younger children, would be better off under their mother's care, if a choice had to be made. Masculinists don't like that argument.

[Audrey]

Douglas Wilson certainly has an interesting perspective on rape:

 

Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people. . . This does not justify the perpetrators; it is simply the recognition that when disaster befalls a city, sexual disaster for the women is part of this. . . Violent rape is God’s judgment on a culture, and individual women who are part of that culture are included in the judgment. . . . We see the same judgment at work in disintegrating cultures: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil†(Eccl. 8:11). Here the rape is not being perpetrated by foreign soldiers, but is the result of citizens turning on one another. . . But when God’s hand of judgment is heavy upon a people, women are in far greater danger of sexual assault than at other times.

 

Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What It Means To Be a One-Woman Man

 

 

Why, thank you ever so much, Bill. I had not disgorged my supper yet. That helped tremendously. ;)

[Gailmegan]

Why, thank you ever so much, Bill. I had not disgorged my supper yet. That helped tremendously. ;)

 

Yeah. I hadn't replied to that yet because there just aren't words to express my revulsion.

[JennifersLost]

Though referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns, I'm not sure we can say that God (in the general Christian view of God, excluding the LDS on this one for this specific issue) is male or female. I would say not an "it" either, but not gendered in the human sense. Does that make sense?

 

I'm glad someone pointed that out. I read that and thought, "Wait a minute - since when is God a man??????" I'm not a Christian, but even I know God is supposed to be a God - not a man!

[elizabeth]

Of course, I have to ask.

 

Are you certain which part of the horse it came from? :D

 

Oh I most certainly am. I had not had the privilege of reading his wisdom on rape yet though. He is an as* not a horse, I was mistaken.

[Aelwydd]

Oh I most certainly am. I had not had the privilege of reading his wisdom on rape yet though. He is an as* not a horse, I was mistaken.

 

You know, I read that and got so excited.

 

I thought to myself, surely his next segment will be on how David lopped off the foreskins of 400 Philistines to please his future father-in-law, Saul.

 

We all realize God's judgment on a culture means a man's willy is in perilous danger.

[kiana]

You know, I read that and got so excited.

 

I thought to myself, surely his next segment will be on how David lopped off the foreskins of 400 Philistines to please his future father-in-law, Saul.

 

We all realize God's judgment on a culture means a man's willy is in perilous danger.

 

Sure ... Lorena Bobbitt?

[Slartibartfast]

*chokes*

[Aelwydd]

Sure ... Lorena Bobbitt?

 

No, silly. God's judgment. He's the one that decides who gets raped and whose willy gets a trim.

[kiana]

No, silly. God's judgment. He's the one that decides who gets raped and whose willy gets a trim.

 

Are you sure that she wasn't told to do it, and got a bit overenthusiastic? Maybe she was only supposed to cut off the foreskin :D

[Aelwydd]

Are you sure that she wasn't told to do it, and got a bit overenthusiastic? Maybe she was only supposed to cut off the foreskin :D

 

Well, if she did, we all know it doesn't excuse her as the perp. I mean, God only ordained this event to happen, and took pleasure in seeing justice done. Any and all groin scalping, itself, however, was solely the work of Bobbitt.

[Ellesmere]

It *is*. What he was describing *is* his view. You don't understand that only because you are (surprisingly) unfamiliar with his works. You have been given enough information to research it on your own. Go forth. Read.

 

It isn't the fault of the men and women here if you are woefully ignorant (in the proper sense of uninformed) of topics you insist upon engaging people upon.

Well said.

 

Tony, there is no shame in being uninformed, but please don't be willfully ignorant. As Mrs. Mungo said, "Go forth and read." A quick skim of Wilson's writings should be enough. Life's too short for more.

 

lol, no. My God is male.

I'm not shocked.

 

 

I have no issue with his belief in "paleo-Confederatism."

 

 

 

 

Why not?

 

 

Sometimes my posts don't come across as well as I'd hoped. Everything that I've written to you is without sarcasm. Really.

[FO4UR]

 

We all realize God's judgment on a culture means a man's willy is in perilous danger.

 

 

And now we know why patriarchal men don't wear kilts.