Finally got the opportunity to read and then watch the Royal Marines video. I noticed that they had at least one woman in the video and I suspect that women are allowed in the Royal Marines. Another institution that will eventually rot from the inside. I graduated from West Point in 1976 just before the first female cadets were allowed in. From all that I hear things there have gone downhill.
Places where men can learn to be men by other men have been replaced by the secular elites who for the vast majority of them will not suffer the consequences of their progressiveness.
All this returns us to Genesis where God told Eve that one of her curses would be for her to desire her husband’s position, but that he would rule over her. The other part of Genesis which many times gets missed is where God tells the serpent (satan) that he would put enmity between him and the woman. Why do God have to do that - because the woman had become in league with satan. It appears that many women today - with the help of evil men - have embraced being in league with Satan.
Keep in mind that the "Right" is a catch-all category for people who aren't part of the current ruling paradigm. Rightism includes libertarians, populists, Burkean conservatives, Neo-Cons, rural traditionalists, "I thought the leopards wouldn't eat my face," the "wrong" type of leftists who get kicked off the farm, and so forth. For a lot of these people, family values is a dog-whistle for their coalitions and not an honestly-held principle.
On top of that, I think you're mistaking the culture-ways of Charles Murray's "Belmont" upper-middle-class with personal virtue. Belmont doesn't get divorced because they're high-agency, low-time-preference status and wealth chasers, and divorce is expensive and messy. Belmont marriage is a business proposition, and not the same thing as Christian Matrimony. We need to disentangle the way that marriage is used as a socio-economic tool for accumulation (which we do, also, let's be honest), versus marriage as a way of life that prioritizes the procreative married life as a good-in-itself. In other words, distinguish between Darel Paul's "blue model" marriage, "red model" marriage, and "creole model" marriage.
As to the first paragraph, why do you suppose "family values" sells at all if it's not an honestly held principle? I suppose you could argue it really just means "pushing back against whatever social insanity the left is trying at advance at this very minute." Some who want to do this are OK with what the left was pushing 20 minutes ago, while others would rather dial back 100 years.
But your second paragraph doesn't really ring true to me. The married left-leaning professionals that I know aren't exactly approaching marriage like the House of Habsburg. Maybe some rarefied elites, like the Clintons, are this way. And wise people consider financial compatibility before entering INTO a marriage. But I have trouble believing the cost of divorce is really holding that many marriages together in the long run (I absolutely believe it can help hold marriages together through a difficult season).
I do believe that holding together a marriage in the long run requires a certain amount of character, of self-sacrifice and self-denial for the sake of the other person, and this isn't the exclusive province of Christians. If the "business" end of it is the primary motivation, it's either going to end in divorce, or you're going to have a sham marriage that is maintained only for appearances.
With regards to Rightism, the point is that members of the coalition, especially libertarians, populists, Neo-cons, and former leftists do not really care about values politics but do care about sustaining their coalitions. Look at Newt Gingrich for example. The same way that members of the leftist coalition pretend to care about their allies but in fact do not. For example, Whoopi Goldberg and her "Holocaust doesn't matter to black folks, it's whites killing whites" comment.
To the second point, divorce is low-impulse-control behavior. Darel Paul has some great work on the topic, as does Charles Murray. Lots of marriages, especially "Belmont" or blue model marriages are essentially domestic partnerships where the passion fizzled out but it's not worth a messy divorce. They wait until the kids age out the house and then quietly separate or just go about their own interests. These kinds of relationships are irrelevant to our purposes. I don't know about Pence, but I highly doubt that the Obamas are all that into one another.
I strongly agree with the statement, "The idea of 'maintaining mastery and control [of] himself' is a key element of masculinity." That is the third masculine trait listed by Martin Seager as quoted by Aaron. If a man learns mastery and control of himself, the first two traits, that he must be a fighter/winner and a provider/protector, will naturally evolve, especially with some thoughtful guidance from a mentor. The three traits are sufficiently differentiated that listing all three is useful, but if I had to pick one, it would be the mastery/control trait.
I'd like to comment on the value of being a winner, the desirability of status, and why many consider seeking status to be undesirable. Different purposes can lie behind a man's motivation to have status and be a winner. A man naturally wants to express his talents and conquer. It's in our God-given DNA. A desire to excel in this way is good and natural. And it often leads to varying degrees of status and success. Status and success also confirm a man in his family and tribe. Because status and success are salient outcomes associated with self-mastery and control, we may think status and success are our goals. But I believe in many cases status and success are only a kind of synecdoche representing the sum of a man's strivings.
The negative rap for status arises because some men desire personal glory. Very few men have had the immense talents of an Alexander, Caesar, or Hannibal, but they and men like them are motivated by a craving for glory, success taken to its limits. The personalities of these men were nuanced, but all were savagely ambitious and cruel. The death of thousands didn't matter so long as they achieved their personal goals. Caesar alone is said to have been responsible for a million deaths in Gaul. Theirs is the rotten sort of desire for status that we rightly decry. And though few men possess their genius, to the extent that they share their ruthlessness, their desire for status is also wrong.
Rightly understood, a desire for status and success is good.
On 1 Timothy 3 and ambition for status: you can't trust your pastor or denomination not to be free of traditional or cultural lenses while interpreting scripture.
Finally got the opportunity to read and then watch the Royal Marines video. I noticed that they had at least one woman in the video and I suspect that women are allowed in the Royal Marines. Another institution that will eventually rot from the inside. I graduated from West Point in 1976 just before the first female cadets were allowed in. From all that I hear things there have gone downhill.
Places where men can learn to be men by other men have been replaced by the secular elites who for the vast majority of them will not suffer the consequences of their progressiveness.
All this returns us to Genesis where God told Eve that one of her curses would be for her to desire her husband’s position, but that he would rule over her. The other part of Genesis which many times gets missed is where God tells the serpent (satan) that he would put enmity between him and the woman. Why do God have to do that - because the woman had become in league with satan. It appears that many women today - with the help of evil men - have embraced being in league with Satan.
"Say what you will about Barack Obama or Mike Pence..."
Thank you for the opportunity. I would rather have a philanderer in the White House who didn't drone bomb children.
What did Matt Gaetz do that wasn't an FBI smear operation?
Gaetz appears to legitimately be a womanizer.
Keep in mind that the "Right" is a catch-all category for people who aren't part of the current ruling paradigm. Rightism includes libertarians, populists, Burkean conservatives, Neo-Cons, rural traditionalists, "I thought the leopards wouldn't eat my face," the "wrong" type of leftists who get kicked off the farm, and so forth. For a lot of these people, family values is a dog-whistle for their coalitions and not an honestly-held principle.
On top of that, I think you're mistaking the culture-ways of Charles Murray's "Belmont" upper-middle-class with personal virtue. Belmont doesn't get divorced because they're high-agency, low-time-preference status and wealth chasers, and divorce is expensive and messy. Belmont marriage is a business proposition, and not the same thing as Christian Matrimony. We need to disentangle the way that marriage is used as a socio-economic tool for accumulation (which we do, also, let's be honest), versus marriage as a way of life that prioritizes the procreative married life as a good-in-itself. In other words, distinguish between Darel Paul's "blue model" marriage, "red model" marriage, and "creole model" marriage.
As to the first paragraph, why do you suppose "family values" sells at all if it's not an honestly held principle? I suppose you could argue it really just means "pushing back against whatever social insanity the left is trying at advance at this very minute." Some who want to do this are OK with what the left was pushing 20 minutes ago, while others would rather dial back 100 years.
But your second paragraph doesn't really ring true to me. The married left-leaning professionals that I know aren't exactly approaching marriage like the House of Habsburg. Maybe some rarefied elites, like the Clintons, are this way. And wise people consider financial compatibility before entering INTO a marriage. But I have trouble believing the cost of divorce is really holding that many marriages together in the long run (I absolutely believe it can help hold marriages together through a difficult season).
I do believe that holding together a marriage in the long run requires a certain amount of character, of self-sacrifice and self-denial for the sake of the other person, and this isn't the exclusive province of Christians. If the "business" end of it is the primary motivation, it's either going to end in divorce, or you're going to have a sham marriage that is maintained only for appearances.
With regards to Rightism, the point is that members of the coalition, especially libertarians, populists, Neo-cons, and former leftists do not really care about values politics but do care about sustaining their coalitions. Look at Newt Gingrich for example. The same way that members of the leftist coalition pretend to care about their allies but in fact do not. For example, Whoopi Goldberg and her "Holocaust doesn't matter to black folks, it's whites killing whites" comment.
To the second point, divorce is low-impulse-control behavior. Darel Paul has some great work on the topic, as does Charles Murray. Lots of marriages, especially "Belmont" or blue model marriages are essentially domestic partnerships where the passion fizzled out but it's not worth a messy divorce. They wait until the kids age out the house and then quietly separate or just go about their own interests. These kinds of relationships are irrelevant to our purposes. I don't know about Pence, but I highly doubt that the Obamas are all that into one another.
I strongly agree with the statement, "The idea of 'maintaining mastery and control [of] himself' is a key element of masculinity." That is the third masculine trait listed by Martin Seager as quoted by Aaron. If a man learns mastery and control of himself, the first two traits, that he must be a fighter/winner and a provider/protector, will naturally evolve, especially with some thoughtful guidance from a mentor. The three traits are sufficiently differentiated that listing all three is useful, but if I had to pick one, it would be the mastery/control trait.
I'd like to comment on the value of being a winner, the desirability of status, and why many consider seeking status to be undesirable. Different purposes can lie behind a man's motivation to have status and be a winner. A man naturally wants to express his talents and conquer. It's in our God-given DNA. A desire to excel in this way is good and natural. And it often leads to varying degrees of status and success. Status and success also confirm a man in his family and tribe. Because status and success are salient outcomes associated with self-mastery and control, we may think status and success are our goals. But I believe in many cases status and success are only a kind of synecdoche representing the sum of a man's strivings.
The negative rap for status arises because some men desire personal glory. Very few men have had the immense talents of an Alexander, Caesar, or Hannibal, but they and men like them are motivated by a craving for glory, success taken to its limits. The personalities of these men were nuanced, but all were savagely ambitious and cruel. The death of thousands didn't matter so long as they achieved their personal goals. Caesar alone is said to have been responsible for a million deaths in Gaul. Theirs is the rotten sort of desire for status that we rightly decry. And though few men possess their genius, to the extent that they share their ruthlessness, their desire for status is also wrong.
Rightly understood, a desire for status and success is good.
Desiring status is like desiring money, in principle it's good. But we tend to notice it when it's gone awry.
Also, Christians have bad habits about judging motives and so tend to mishear Jesus' teaching about washing feet as condemning the desire for status.
On 1 Timothy 3 and ambition for status: you can't trust your pastor or denomination not to be free of traditional or cultural lenses while interpreting scripture.