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

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

98 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Skiriki
Skiriki
5 years ago

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.

MexicanHotChocolate
MexicanHotChocolate
5 years ago

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.

Chris
Chris
5 years ago

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

Zeb Berryman
Zeb Berryman
5 years ago

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?

ChildofMedia
ChildofMedia
5 years ago

*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?

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Jackie; currently using they/their, he/his, she/her pronouns)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Jackie; currently using they/their, he/his, she/her pronouns)
5 years ago

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.

reymohammed
5 years ago

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?

ChildofMedia
ChildofMedia
5 years ago

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

No, no, you see those aren’t WHITE PEOPLE. So their weird little quirks don’t matter, silly person

Leda Atomica
Leda Atomica
5 years ago

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.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Jesus never once wore a pair of pants.

Wondering
Wondering
5 years ago

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.

Bina
5 years ago

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.

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.

Jamesworkshop
Jamesworkshop
5 years ago

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.

katz
5 years ago

comment image

arash
arash
5 years ago

imagine stupid assholes like these governing a country like mine…it’s both a hell and a joke.

Saphira
Saphira
5 years ago
Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
5 years ago

@ Skiriki – The Borogravian Monstrous Regiment knew the value of a pair of socks.

GiJoel
GiJoel
5 years ago

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

Chaltab
Chaltab
5 years ago

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.”

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?

Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
5 years ago

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.

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
5 years ago

@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.

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

They’re not women’s clothes. They’re my clothes. I bought them.

-Eddie Izzard

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

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.

GiJoel | February 20, 2016 at 4:17 pm
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

This makes me so happy. Both as a queer person and as a WWE fan.

Bless your face, Dave Bautista.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Jackie; currently using they/their, he/his, she/her pronouns)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Jackie; currently using they/their, he/his, she/her pronouns)
5 years ago

They’re not women’s clothes. They’re my clothes. I bought them.

-Eddie Izzard

I thought that was Iggy Pop?

@Paradoxical

Hello Father, Hello God
I’m your ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-cherry picker.

Dalillama
Dalillama
5 years ago

@PI

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

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).

Bina
5 years ago

I thought that was Iggy Pop?

No, Iggy said this:

http://i.imgur.com/OoE5X6S.png

Also, I have to say, he looks stunning in that. Better than I would, in fact.

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
5 years ago

Does the below count as dresses, do you think? Would Wilson and Dalrock have a problem with these guys, I wonder.
http://www.wakefield.anglican.org/images/uploads/Tom,John_Neil250.jpg

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
5 years ago

In other news, I’m quite fascinated by the history of fashion that’s being discussed in this thread. Do carry on!

Eonid
Eonid
5 years ago

In Persia and then in Europe heels were first adopted for the aforementioned horse-riding purposes, but even earlier, in Ancient Egypt, high heels were worn by butchers to keep their feet out of the blood and muck from their work.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ dalillama

wore colorful neck scarves like the Croatian mercenary cavalry

I’m guessing you know that that’s where we get the word ‘cravat’ (an alternate spelling of Croat)

Tara the Antisocial Social Worker
Tara the Antisocial Social Worker
5 years ago

Legend has it that trousers were invented by queen Semiramis in order to lead her troops into battle.

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.)

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Jackie; currently using they/their, he/his, she/her pronouns)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Jackie; currently using they/their, he/his, she/her pronouns)
5 years ago

@Bina

Ooooooooh! Okay. Thanks.

In other news, I’m quite fascinated by the history of fashion that’s being discussed in this thread. Do carry on!

Platform shoes were first used in China; nobles would wear them over their slippers to protect them and their clothing when the ground was wet or muddy.

comment image

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

I guess women should stop wearing hose.

comment image

LindsayIrene
5 years ago

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.

Nope. Sorry. I think that both are sexy.

My work clothes consist of men’s’ Dickies pants, men’s tee shirts, men’s socks, and men’s steel-toed boots. OMG I”m a cross-dresser!

Croatia celebrating the cravat with the world’s biggest necktie:

comment image

Tovius
Tovius
5 years ago

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.

shay simmons
shay simmons
5 years ago

Please please please let me be there when either of these tossers walks up to a member of the Black Watch and calls him a cross-dresser.

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

******TMI:****** Not gonna lie: Men in lacy lingerie is like a huge turn-on for me. Stockings, garter-belts, panties, the whole nine yards.

Just….unf.

LindsayIrene
5 years ago

Don’t forget corsets, PI. *drool*

Social Justice Atheist
Social Justice Atheist
5 years ago

This makes perfect sense if you think about it. Because, you know, clothing is naturally gendered and we don’t just assigned gendered cultural meaning to it, it is natural.

Seriously?

Do these guys realize that pieces of clothing cannot naturally have gender? There is no “men’s” and “women’s” clothing really, it’s just the meaning we humans assign to them. Clothing itself not even being natural, there is no way that it is “natural” for women to wear skirts and dresses and men to wear suits and ties, etc. In fact, clothing fashions change all the time and what could be considered male/female clothing nowadays could totally change in as little as 100 years or so.

I’m not very familiar with the Bible or Christian God, but I’m sure zie could care less what people wear. You know, unconditional love and all. Not to mention zie created people naked and therefore, wouldn’t clothing just be a human invention that a god wouldn’t be too concerned with? Like I said though, I’m not all that familiar with Christianity so any Christians here feel free to correct me.

Social Justice Atheist
Social Justice Atheist
5 years ago

@ Paradoxical Intention

Yep, men wearing things like that turns me the fuck on XD *sigh*

**haha TMI also I know, just thought I’d share that**

Neurite
Neurite
5 years ago

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

Wow, just when I thought I couldn’t love Drax any more. Nice.

I do *everything* single handed
I do *everything* single handed
5 years ago

Kilts are *very* butch. I wore one when I married. My wife wore a white suit from Norstrom – my mother-in-law was determined her daughter would wear white.

Oh, yeah – My wife is a former Marine. One of the big reasons I married her (because it said a lot about her character and being strong-willed). We value and marry strong women in my family. Our kids tend to be hellions && they need *strong* parents.

I don’t know what it is like for women wearing a dress/skirt in cold windy weather, but for a guy in a kilt …. it takes a *real* man to do so. Took me a couple of days to “find myself” afterwards.

There is a story of a clan chief leading his warriors to a battle. They lay down on the ground to sleep. His warriors were concerned their chief was losing it, because he used a *rock* as a pillow.

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.

Love this blog. These idiots need to be shown what they really are – idiots worthy of derision and mocking.

katz
5 years ago

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.

Er, Acts. But yes, exactly.

Hu's On First
Hu's On First
5 years ago

More about Doug Wilson here. Apparently he really doesn’t like it when “small-breasted biddies” pester him.

Skiriki
Skiriki
5 years ago

Victorious Parasol: Indeed, or as PTerry signed my Monstrous Regiment book, “Love & Socks”. 😀

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

Ah, the time-honored “The Bible says it’s wrong” argument.
They couldn’t care less about the actual clothing or actual biblical injunctions. It’s all a ruse.

It’s just one more way for these guys to try to control women and push their own way to the top. Follow me! I’ll tell you what’s right and wrong. And send me money, lots of it!

These particular guys won’t be able to push their way to the top, so they’ll heap judgment on us from the sidelines. Wave as you go by!

ETA “Small-breasted biddies”? If that statement isn’t following in the footsteps of Jesus, I don’t know what is!

I do *everything* single handed
I do *everything* single handed
5 years ago

@katz: (blush) You are correct.

My Acts instructor (class was in 1977), would just look at me and sigh if he found out I had forgotten. He still might – he was then and is still a friend. Fortunately for me, I doubt he reads blogs of any sort :^)

As a Christian, I find many who claim to be christians have a ghod they can only see when they have their heads up their ass. Makes me sad on many levels.

Jarnsaxa
Jarnsaxa
5 years ago

That dress is very much Iggy’s color. Not sure about the neckline–scoop might be more flattering–but the rest of it is fantastic!