In the first of five newly scheduled visits to the Hawkeye State, Donald Trump arrived in northeast Iowa with a warning.
“In order to win in 2024, Republicans must learn how to properly talk about abortion,” he told an audience of some 2,000 potential voters, packed into a ballroom here.
"This issue cost us unnecessarily but dearly in the midterms. It cost us dearly, really, and unnecessarily."
I don't know if he is guilty, but twenty years ago...Come on!
Despite him not having even been accused of streaming anything objectionable on YouTube, the social media giant has demonetized Russell Brand.
Well, what do you think?
A 12-year-old lad was placed in isolation for wearing shorts to school during the sweltering heatwave.
Archie Thompson was told by staff at Fullhurst Community College, in Braunstone, Leicester, he could don a skirt instead.
I can understand his mother's indignation:
"I was outraged at that comment to be honest," she admitted. "He can wear a skirt but he's not allowed to wear shorts.
Yet isn't there a whiff of hypocrisy:
"He's a boy, he doesn't want to wear a skirt...He identifies as a male..."
If skirts/dresses are distinctly female clothes which aren't suitable for boys/males to wear, while pants and shorts are for men, then why most Western women wear them and not dresses?
5 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.
This cross-dressing didn't start in the current year, if you know what I mean. We just decided one day that the rules didn't apply to women the same way they applied to men. Present day progressives just take the equality idea to its logical end...
Here is actually a kinda interesting post from VD:
As Sun Tzu says, to win, one must know the enemy as well as knowing oneself. This is why Deltas so often lose in situations they could easily win, as they make no effort to understand or anticipate their opposition, but are more concerned about being seen to be doing the right thing. Howeve, the last thing a woman who is ending her marriage in search of fun and freedom wants is to be tied down full-time by her children, with even less time for fun and games than she had when she was married.
I should add that men have a natural advantage over women, even in our feminised and increasingly misandric society. However, they are constantly shamed by basically everyone around them into not using it. It worked with Baby Boomers and is one of the reasons the 1960s feminists were so successful: because of the rather misplaced chivalry of the men of that generation.
However, there is literally zero reason to be chivalrous in a situation which the linked blog post describes. Sometimes you need to go for the jugular...
Stop treating them with contempt:
Even when one can’t help being around contemptuous people, one creates different kinds of distance. The henpecked husband, for example, increasingly retreats into work and hobbies to minimize dealings with his wife. It would be silly to think the same kind of dynamic wouldn’t happen in our congregations...
The first step is to recognize and repent of our fear. Like most Americans, American Christians are absolutely terrified of being labeled misogynist...
Alas for them: popular culture judges anything contrary to feminism as misogynistic, and the Bible is by no means a feminist book.
So Christians “defend” the Bible by placarding a few passages that sound maybe-sort-of feminist (e.g. “Deborah!” “In Christ there is no male and female!”), while ignoring and even obfuscating all the passages that cannot possibly be reconciled with feminist philosophy (“Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man”).
If we try to overcompensate in this fashion even on Scripture, how much more do we do so regarding the men in our midst?Modern churches shame Christian men for not wishing to marry single moms:
So without further ado, here are the theological errors in his three reasons he thinks “Christian men should pursue Christian single moms for marriage.”
“1. Single Christian moms are as pure as the sinless Son of God, which is more than you deserve in a wife.”
Here, Parkison confuses righteousness coram deo (before God) with righteousness coram mundo (before the world.) Before God, single Christian moms are indeed pure due to the imputed righteousness of Christ, which he mentions several times in the piece. But in this very same sentence, he judges Christian men coram mundo when he indicates that they don’t deserve such a wife. After all, coram deo, Christian men are likewise pure & perfect. Accordingly, they truly deserve a spotless bride just as much as Jesus Christ does. In other words, Parkison is making an apples-to-oranges comparison here.
Such attitude to single moms being perfection itself is rather new. I'd like to give you an example of how the law and custom used to treat single moms somewhere about 100 years ago in my country.
First, there were no "single moms". You had widows, which were respected, divorced women and unwed mothers of bastards illegitimate kids. Those groups were all treated differently. I'm not sure how the law treated the rights of a divorced mother before WWII. After the war, they usually got the custody but the divorce itself was considered something extremely shameful and their choice of prospective marriage partners was rather slim.
Poor widows were to be provided for by their male relatives, usually brothers. Since a woman was not considered responsible enough to raise a child on her own, the law made her brother the guardian of the child and any decision, such as education had to be approved by him. As you can understand, many men were very resentful at the idea of having to support both his own family and that of his sister. I heard stories about some relatives where the lady was left a widow with 6 or 7 children and her brother made such a deal out of it that she swore to marry the 1st man who would take her. She then married a widower with 6 kids of his own (all boys while hers were all girls).
Even though he had married her so that she could take care of his kids, he again resented very much the necessity of providing for the kids of another man and promptly kicked her daughters out of the house by the 1st opportunity so that they had to enter domestic service (there was little opportunity of other employment).
I also read that in some places widows were provided for by the community but had to take care of the orphans in return.
And what about the real "single moms", the euphemism invented for the one reason only, to take away the stigma?
A woman who produced an illegitimate kid was obviously deemed unfit to raise him herself. If the family were poor the child was taken away and placed in an orphanage. The mother then had to work, and pay out of her wages for the upkeep for her bastard. She was allowed to visit him from time to time. If she married (and yes, it did happen even back then), she had to quit her employment (married women couldn't work, of course), so it was up to her husband to pay for it. The child still stayed in an orphanage though.
Again, I heard stories of a distant relative somewhere in the 1920 or thereabout who always claimed that her pregnancy was the result of r8pe (though the man was never prosecuted) yet it didn't help her. She later married and her husband kept paying to the orphanage. Germany, btw, had similar laws about male guardians, and they were abolished only somewhere in the 1980s from what I heard.
So that was the law and tradition about single moms back then. I'm not implying we should go back to it, just providing the info:)
