Categories
gender policing irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny reactionary bullshit red pill transphobia

Women in military uniforms are crossdressers, and “loathsome” to God, Red Piller says

During the Civil War, women literally crossdressed in order to join the army
During the Civil War, women literally crossdressed in order to join the army

Well, this is a new one to me. Dalrock is a Christian Red Pill dude who’s been kicking up a fuss about women in the military, on behalf of God almighty, who’s apparently got some strong views on the subject.

And now he’s found a new reason why God doesn’t want to see women wearing military uniforms — because women wearing what has traditionally been a male outfit is basically a form of crossdressing, and crossdressing is icky.

In a recent post, Dalrock quotes from Christian blogger Douglas Wilson, who argues that “opposition to this monstrosity is a function of biblical faithfulness.” How so? Well, it seems that there’s a passage in Deuteronomy that says:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

But wait, you say, that doesn’t actually mention anything about women wearing military uniforms per se. Ah, but according to Wilson it really does.

Notice the odd construction — “that which pertains to a man.” The Hebrew underneath is keli geber, and should be read as the “gear of a warrior.” Whether we are talking about a man in fishnet stockings, or a woman decked out in full battle regalia, we need to recognize that God finds it loathsome. So should we.

And it’s not just military uniforms that are an abomination for women to wear. As Wilson wrote in a followup blog post, that “gear of a warrior” bit “could also perhaps be extended to include something like a telephone lineman’s tool belt.”

Oh, and women being cops? That’s also a big Biblical no-no, “especially when it involves riot gear.”

Dalrock, for his part, agrees that the Lord doesn’t love a woman in a uniform, declaring Wilson’s argument to be “a simple, straightforward biblical case.”

That aside, Dalrock has a slightly different spin on the issue than Wilson:

I think a woman wanting to put on a military uniform and go into combat is not that different than a man wanting to wear a dress.  Both are literal and figurative forms of cross-dressing.  Both also are expressions of envy, and they are equally twisted. 

One wonders what these guys make of the literally crossdressing Corporal Klinger from MASH.

Or these guys:

highlanders

 

98 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DerangedDan
DerangedDan
6 years ago

Also, wristwatches were invented by a clever lady who hung her watch on a bracelet. (I know, I know, nobody bothers with wristwatches since the arrival of cell phones.)

And they were considered too feminine for men to wear for a long time because they are basically bracelets. It’s only the fact that WWI soldiers found them so much more convenient than pocket watches that made them acceptable for men.

And wrist-based timekeeping isn’t totally dead. The whole smart watch thing seems to be taking off lately.

Jarred H
6 years ago

Doug Wilson? DOUG WILSON?

This is the guy who:

1. Performed and blessed the marriage of a convicted pedophile who was deemed at high risk for repeat offending and went so far as to pray that the couple have children.

2. Pushed to get a low sentence for said pedophile in the first place.

3. Neglected to inform his church of any of the above when he welcomed said pedophile into his church and performed said wedding.

4. Has made numerous attempts at slavery apologia.

5. Has said some really racist shit to defend his anti-choice position.

And this is the kind of person Christian Red Pill dude is holding out as an authoritative voice/expert opinion.

guy
guy
6 years ago

@SocialJusticeAtheist

The most vocal in the US are denominations that either explicitly endorse theocracy or consider it very important to go around telling people that they need to convert or they’re going to hell, while the other denominations tend to not bring up the subject that much outside of church. Though there was a hilarious incident where Trump selected a church to officially visit and, well, the church reads selections from the bible on a three-year rotation and uses a translation with modern phrasing, and, well, this happened:

1 Corinthians 12
But I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blown up into self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are a part of. An enormous eye or a gigantic hand wouldn’t be a body, but a monster. What we have is one body with many parts, each its proper size and in its proper place. No part is important on its own. Can you imagine Eye telling Hand, “Get lost; I don’t need you”? Or, Head telling Foot, “You’re fired; your job has been phased out”?

Followed by a sermon on how it was everyone’s Christian duty to care for Syrian refugees and Mexican migrants.

On the other hand, there are some denominations that support the US’s Middle East policy while trying to breed a red cow to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem so that it can be desecrated as part of a plan to fulfill ancient prophecies and bring about the end of the world. It’s, uh, kind of a long story. I am pretty sure they have at least some influence on US foreign policy but am not really sure how much.

The largest denomination worldwide, Catholicism, is a complicated issue. There’s a long historical and theological backstory to this, but basically Catholics believe that it is important for people to receive sacraments, the sacraments can only be performed by a priest, and only the church can ordain priests. Priests are required to report to the Pope and he can prohibit people from receiving sacraments.

So people who believe in that but disagree with the church on theological issues may either stick it out and debate it in the church, or declare that the Pope is obviously wrong, therefore he cannot be a valid Pope and this other guy is Pope. I think it’s been a few centuries since the last time the second thing happened on a large scale, but European kings did it sometimes.

The Catholic Church is presently adamantly opposed to contraception, abortion, and homosexuality, but individual Catholics may disagree. They’re the source of most of the “religious organization that is not a church sues to block something” stories because they run a lot of hospitals and universities.

chagrin
chagrin
6 years ago

Joan of Arc?

Olive O'Sudden
Olive O'Sudden
6 years ago

In case any of y’all would like to know more about Doug Wilson, this is a good place to start:

A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.

This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

He’s a charmer, alright.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/07/marital-rape-doug-wilson-on-dominance-and-submission-in-the-marriage-bed.html#sthash.642e7E2K.dpuf

Olive O'Sudden
Olive O'Sudden
6 years ago

@chagrin
February 21, 2016 at 9:58 pm

Joan of Arc?

Joan of Arc was prosecuted by a Church court and convicted of heresy for wearing men’s clothing.

guy
guy
6 years ago

Generally, when someone is executed for heresy and then made a saint it can be taken as a sign that people disagree with the original verdict.

Falconer
6 years ago

@Tovius:

The Romans also didn’t wore pants (unless you were a cold soldier stationed in a northern province). To them pants were what the northern barbarians wore, and were considered inherently uncivilized.

I’m sure you’ve heard about all the letters home we still have from soldiers stationed on Hadrian’s Wall that are basically I love you it’s cold please send more socks.

Social Justice Atheist
Social Justice Atheist
6 years ago

@guy

Wow, all that is very interesting.

I think it would actually be fun to do research on different religions/denominations because I have never really had an opportunity to study religion before and a lot of the ideals/beliefs of some faiths are very fascinating.

And I would love to hear more about that Trump church visit. LOL bet he didn’t see that sermon coming!

bluecat
bluecat
6 years ago

The bible has a whole heap of advice, but people seem to only pick and choose what THEY want to pursue

Quoted for truth.

The bits that almost everyone who bangs on about gay sex and women not wearing trousers have agreed to forget include not lending money at interest, cancelling all debts every seven years, and (possibly relevant at the moment) treating immigrants as well as you’d treat everyone else.

About weird prohibitions which don’t necessarily make sense, not making sense may be part of the point if you want Our Crowd to distinguish themselves handily from The Other Crowd(s).

If we catch someone sneaking around the encampment and ask them if it’s forbidden to eat the seventh rib of the mammoth on a Tuesday, or whether mixed fibre socks are legal for priestesses, the *least* logical answer – the one which they are least likely to get by chance – is the one which works best as a test.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
6 years ago

According to Richard Carrier, it’s possible to tell which archeologically excavated towns in ancient Canaan were Jewish and which weren’t by looking for pig bones and seafood shells in their trash.

To me, this suggests that it was entirely possible to live a healthy life in ancient Canaan by eating shellfish and pork, and therefore that the reasons why shellfish and pork are forbidden must be something other than the commonly-advanced ones.

Penny Psmith, you’re from that region if I recall correctly. Am I talking nonsense here?

Kootiepatra
Kootiepatra
6 years ago

Just a quick note on that Doug Wilson quote (he’s been on my radar for a while, because studying Christian theology on gender is what got me started on the whole feminism thing):

When Wilson refers to “egalitarians”, he’s referring to a broad camp of Christians who believe women can be teachers / leaders / pastors / priests / whatever without restriction. These folks may or may not call themselves feminists (many do), but they wholesale reject the idea of hierarchies between the genders.

Wilson is classified as a “complementarian”, someone who believes that men and women are designed to complement each other in their roles (i.e. men always lead and women always submit). They may be openly hostile and sexist (women who work are rebellious harpies), or more passively “benevolently” so (chivalry, protection, provision kind of language).

Just figured it would be helpful to clarify that, in that quote, “egalitarian” doesn’t refer to the disingenuous “equity feminist/why not call it humanism” sealions, but rather to Christians who believe the Bible promotes actual equality between the genders.

occasional reader
occasional reader
6 years ago

Hello.

Hmm, if the christian god was really interested in the gendered clothe stuff, it would have rather create the Woman and the Man with clothes rather than full nude… By the way, the general representation of the christian god in cartoon is nude or with a robe. So much for the genreded clothes…

Have a nice day.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ occasional reader

Can I just say I love the way you always sign off your posts in such a cheery way?

guy
guy
6 years ago

@EJ

That doesn’t follow. It’s quite possible that the non-Jewish settlements simply had a higher rate of foodborne illness, but not so much higher that they were unsustainable. And of course in the modern era we have other ways of ensuring food safety, so you can’t extrapolate from modern food poisoning rates following modern food safety guidelines.

I do know that while most sushi is raw fish, I have never seen raw shrimp served; it is a regular staple but invariably cooked.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ guy

I was introduced to the delight of raw prawns. It did seem odd at first but apparently, so long as they’re fresh its perfectly safe, and they are pretty yummy (or at least they were before I went veggie).

Raw scallops are pretty common where I am too.

bluecat
bluecat
6 years ago

@ EJ – some of the earliest settlements excavated in the UAE had deposits of butchered and cooked pig bones, and it’s pretty ruddy warm there in the season.

I was at a Natural History group meeting once in the UAE and an archaeologist came to tell us all about it. He showed some images of the bones they’d found and asked us to guess what they were. Everything from camel to human was suggested – except for pig.

Skiriki
Skiriki
6 years ago

I found this article about pork and who eat it and who don’t very interesting:
http://blog.longreads.com/2015/10/14/i-would-rather-be-herods-pig-the-history-of-a-taboo/

guy
guy
6 years ago

I should note that as an atheist I find it entirely plausible that the dietary laws are meant to keep food safe but were created by people who did not understand foodborne illness and some rules may be entirely off-base even if the overall impact of the whole set is productive. And that they might ban foods that are entirely safe if handled properly because they were frequently handled improperly. And while I’m not really familiar with the preperation rules, I gather that they have the impact of reducing cross-contamination.

Though checking, apparently shellfish is a common food allergen, which may explain that.

Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
6 years ago

Doug Wilson is back?! Oh dear God. I think I’ve lost some of my faith in humanity.

katz, I love your Mulan GIFs!

Bina, I love your Iggy Pop quote and image! Is it weird that now I want that dress?

sunnysombrera, I agree! I love learning more about clothes.

LindsayIrene, I agree that both of those things are sexy, though I personally wouldn’t find the woman in full battle regalia sexy because I’m a straight woman.

SJA, I so agree with you. How (outside of linguistics, which is a whole other kettle of fish) can an inanimate object naturally have a gender?

And – the whole old vs new Testament thing: except for the 10 commandments (which really boil down to don’t be a dick), if one bothers to read what Christ said, it is clear the old testament law is null and void. That is why Gentiles can become believers.

Point these idiots at the part in Revelations where John sees the forbidden food. That is a key passage on the old law being null&void.

Cosigned, I do *everything* single handed. That’s why I don’t consider idiots like these to truly be Christians. And I say this as a Christian.

Freemage
Freemage
6 years ago

From a cynical analysis, Peter in Acts basically figures out that a lot of Judaic law is going to be unpopular with the Gentiles, and rather than trying to convince potential recruits to Christianity that they need to give up cheeseburgers and foreskins, he just decides to have a ‘vision’ that declares that “anything God has declared clean is totes awesome”.

Other than food and uncut phalluses (phallussi? phallusese? phallii?), though, there’s no general description of how to apply that rule. So long as you can stick your head far enough up your own sphincter that you can ignore the evidence that sexual orientation is not a matter of personal choice, you can hold onto your bigotries.

Orion
Orion
6 years ago

there’s no general description of how to apply that rule

au contraire, Acts 10:28 is rather unambiguous.

God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean

%d bloggers like this: