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:
I so wish that they had trotted out that “Monstrous Regiment of Women” too…
Then again, I much prefer PTerry’s “Monstrous Regiment” over douchebros.
I wonder what these guys make of Greek hoplites and their short skirts, medieval knights and their dress-like surcoats, and Israelites and their long tunics.
MRAs really do seem the type who would smirk and adjust their fedoras, saying “look at those betas” while facing a screaming bayonet charge from the Black Watch
Sooooo…. they realize that its now normal for women to wear clothes that a few centuries ago would be considered men’s clothing right? I mean society’s weird about me occasionally wearing a dress, but are they really so regressive that they get angry when they see women in pants? (The answer to this question is probably yes.)
Also what do they mean by figuratively cross-dressing? Can someone metaphorically cross-dress?
*raises hand*
Anyone else think the flailing about women in the military is really about these guys believing they have no worth outside of their testosterone?
If I can ‘defend’ my self (with weapons or fists) then why do I need them?
This dude is bringing Hebrew onto his choice of scripture which he probably shouldn’t because the whole Bible is rife with mistranslations, and I don’t know how dedicated he is to it considering he’s probably going against several passages already.
Biblical-era men wore skirts. Assyrian warriors not only wore rather short skirts, they braided their hair and lined their eyes. Among the mandarin class, young ladies wore pajamas; only men and married women wore open-bottomed garments. In many parts of the world, both men and women wear trousers under a tunic, and only slight styling details in the tunic distinguish them. In a number of societies, women have openly displayed arms in their apparel… so how do we decide what pertaineth to whom?
No, no, you see those aren’t WHITE PEOPLE. So their weird little quirks don’t matter, silly person
I wore torn jeans and plait shirts in the 90’s because I was huge fan of grunge. Will the 9-year-old me be sent to Hell even if I now dress in tunics and leggings? I so confus.
Jesus never once wore a pair of pants.
Oh, so it’s the anti Joan of Arc argument? The thing Joan most got in trouble for was not going to war but refusing to wear a dress.
If you believe this and take it literally, then you had better also be prepared to give up shrimp, and pork, and mixed-fibre clothing.
Somehow, though, I don’t see Dalrock & Co. railing against polyester-cotton blends.
I guess Quiet from MGSV (under these rationales) is actually appropriately dressed for battle, as she is wearing clothing traditionally seen as being for women.
Sounds like a loophole if you can still go to war, even in a bikini and torn tights because you aren’t wearing traditionally male trappings.
imagine stupid assholes like these governing a country like mine…it’s both a hell and a joke.
I found some appropriate apparel for women to go to war in:
http://images.halloweencostumes.com/products/6743/1-1/sexy-army-major-costume.jpg
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0127/0982/products/BW1104_1024x1024.jpg?v=1376064730
Here’s one that covers a bit more if God is worried about women showing skin:
http://images.esellerpro.com/2448/I/388/15/FDS43487_ebay.jpg
@ Skiriki – The Borogravian Monstrous Regiment knew the value of a pair of socks.
I doubt anyone of these knuckleheads has ever served in the military. And if they had they didn’t get far.
Also Dave Bautista puts Manny Pacquiao in his place http://www.sdgln.com/entertainment/2016/02/20/galaxy-and-wwe-star-bautista-has-rough-language-pacquiao#sthash.9tNVH0XS.S5p3dG8F.dpbs
Ah, of course. We have to take the Bible literally, so when it says the ‘gear of a warrior’ it actually also means the gear of… utilities workers. I mean putting up telephone lines is basically the same thing as fighting ISIS, right?
What’s next, Mr. Wilson? God doesn’t approve of women being plumbers? Or mechanics?
One of my friends is a devout Christian and was also one of Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children. I’d trust her or one of her sisters-in-arms over this Dalrock fellow any day of the week.
@GIJoel
I don’t know much about Dalrock but I tend to learn about Wilson’s horrible antics on The Wartburg Watch blog, and he has never served in the military. He is highly obsessed with masculinity, as defined by having power over women, and it’s quite clear from his blog that he worships his own male ego above all else. Apparently he’s quite the dictator in his church, he knowingly married a convicted pedophile to a young woman (said pedophile went on to molest his own son), and just recently wrote a blog post that blames women for their own rapes.
He’s a fucking cancer on this earth, I hate him so much. Fortunately his cult is fairly small, so there aren’t too many women subject to his rotten teachings.
-Eddie Izzard
Well, if we’re getting technical, high heels were originally designed for rich noblemen to show off their calves (And the idea was that no one who would wear such impractical shoes doesn’t have to work), so women wearing high heels now is technically cross-dressing. Does that mean that women shouldn’t wear heels anymore?
Not to mention that there are plenty of things in the Bible that Christians don’t do anymore because it’s just not convenient to modern life, or they’ve realized that it just doesn’t apply anymore, or it’s just too cruel. The Bible was written quite a long time ago, and has had several translations, some of which favored those in power at the time.
So, Dalrock can call me back when he’s okay with stoning people for working on Sundays, having vegetable gardens, and wearing polyester.
This makes me so happy. Both as a queer person and as a WWE fan.
Bless your face, Dave Bautista.
I thought that was Iggy Pop?
@Paradoxical
Hello Father, Hello God
I’m your ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-cherry picker.
@PI
Not quite true; the heels originally served the very important purpose of keeping your feet in the stirrups when someone was trying to knock you off your horse. Later on, they came to signify that you rode everywhere and never had to walk a significant distance, and after that just a way to mimic the dashing cavalry (Also the ultimate origin of the necktie; young men who wanted to project a ‘bad boy’ image wore colorful neck scarves like the Croatian mercenary cavalry, and since a lot of them were rich aristocrats, everyone else imitated them, and eventually you get the icon of stuffiness we have today).