An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about feminine clothing. This follows this post about the gay agenda. This follows this post about Valentine's Day. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

Does the Bible forbid women from wearing pants?

What does the biblical statute about a woman not wearing anything that pertains to a man mean today?

Answer: Deuteronomy:22:5The 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. says: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God." Like many of the statutes, this law had to do with pagan customs of the time, and as we will see, does not refer to women wearing pants. The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary explains:
"Disguises were assumed at certain times in pagan temples. Maimonides...mentions that a man attired in a coloured female dress, in honour of Venus, Ashtaroth, or Astarte, and a woman equipped in armour, worshipped at the shrine of the statue of Mars...
"Asiatics, when they engaged in the worship of Ashtaroth, were accustomed, according to Philocorus, quoted by Townley (in his edition of Maimonides, note 33), to exchange the male and female dresses. In fact, all idolators confounded the sexes of their deities—representing them sometimes as male, at other times as female; and hence, their worshippers, male and female, fell gradually into the custom, which became extensively prevalent, of changing their attire in adaptation to the sex of a particular divinity."
God's command to Israel forbade the people from incorporating pagan religious rites into true worship. In spite of this instruction, today's Christianity commonly mixes paganism in with the worship of Christ.
Does Deuteronomy:22:5The 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. forbid women from wearing pants? No, it doesn't. In fact, even men in the Middle East through the history of the Old and New Testaments did not wear pants; they wore a robelike garment. However, there is an underlying principle that applies today. Men should dress in an appropriately masculine manner and women should dress in an appropriately feminine manner. Clothing manufacturers make pants designed for men and pants designed for women.
For more insight, please read our article The Modesty Question: How Far is Too Far?

• apparel for women
• Christian Living
• Does God care how I look? How does He want us to look?
• Personal Appearance

15 comments

Feminism and the Pinkification of Professional Football

A timely post about from www.badeagle.com about the U.S. game of football. This follows this post about George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg attempting to manipulate the U.S. Congress. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.

Feminism and the Pinkification of Professional Football


by David Yeagley   Everyone has seen the pink footgear, pink body flags, and pink gloves being paraded on the NFL fields all over the country. Everyone knows that it’s about breast cancer awareness, and that it is a woman’s campaign.   Hardly a more worthy or important campaign could be thus launched. Yet, this ominous intrusion into the man’s world is tainted by raw feminism of the recent past which put women reporters in men’s locker rooms. Something is deeply amiss, despite the equality of death and spousal commitment.   While it is true that what affects one spouse intimately affects the other; while men’s prostate cancer has been ‘advertised’ by women as though women get prostate cancer also (by proxy, by spousal affectation in the conjugal, physical relation); the fact is, as Limbaugh pointed out, there is no campaign for men’s testicular cancer, or anything about particularly masculine forms of cancer. (Fact is, men sometimes get breast cancer also, rarely.)   Strong men are always the target of all women. Women are abjectly attracted to strong men, of any color, usually. The women generally looks to the man as the provider and protector, one way or another. But feminism as a political movement hates men. It is attracted to the man as an enemy, as something to be degraded, despised, and emasculated. (This is what the anti-Indian warrior image is all about. The strongest image of all must be removed unquestionably!)

Women simply cannot leave men alone. Something like professional football is irresistible–by any woman, of any political brand or hormonal condition. It is almost as if the women must participate in the strength of a man, be like him (like Xena), or attack him for being a man, for being stronger than her.

Perhaps my view here is itself tainted by my earlier experience of raw feminism at Yale Divinity. One of the last bastions of the male profession, the ministry was invaded by very aggressive woman who, for the most part, were not considered the generally attractive type of woman, and could never market themselves as objects of sexual attraction. In other words, there was a lot of resentment and hurt in most of the female seminarians. They wanted to compete with men on an equal basis. After all, there were half of the image of God, and expected to be regarded as such. It was a kind of reaction, from anger. They couldn’t be regarded as beautiful, but they were determined to be regarded as equal.


It was a sad and disappointing experience for me, personally, and affected me ever after.
I note also that, in the recent edition (not yet on line), Fall 2013, of Reflections (a YDS quarterly) is on “the art of aging,” and features old women, in articles, by women authors, and in female photography. Of course, what could be a more natural loss of marketable beauty than aging? Liberalism, of course, wants all to be equal, always, at the cost of every natural inclination.

The photo featured in the first article in the YDS Reflections, Fall 2013 edition. From the Marianne Gontarz York collection

Female homosexuality is a major element of feminist “equality,” of course. In an environment like Yale Divinity, it can be very aggressively advocated, as homosexuality in general. It isn’t always the case, but one dare not protest it any too loudly when it is the case. It would be the epitome of un-Christian behavior, to condemn anyone for anything so personal.




So American professional football is going to have to take it on the chin, so to speak. It is a feminist tackle from behind. A devastating blow, leaving a professional concussion on the game, indeed.



Note that move of the kick-off line from the 20 to the 30 yard line. There are no more kick-off returns now. It is a wasted gesture. This is one of the first, most notable emasculations of the game. Why was this exciting, dramatic play cut out? The injuries occur during punt returns, where there is little blocking available. What are the stats on kick-off return injuries? Some stats do show that there are more injuries on the kick-off returns, but they don’t say what kind of injuries. Why, it’s a full 2%! And the reduction of injuries is a full 0.2%. Great accomplishment.



It is liberalism invading another American cultural tradition, trying to destroy it, or to at least control it with tyranny. Unfortunately, the breast cancer campaign is their front line offense now. True, there are many men on the field and in the crowd whose lives have been affected by their wives’ breast cancer. That is undeniable. It’s just a shame that such a sincere concern must be ‘infected’ and inappropriately injected into the men’s sports world. It is a most egregious inpropriety.



But, propriety has never been a principle of liberalism. Only coercion. Only tyranny. Only oppression and control.



Men wear pink now. Men must bow to women–mean, angry women, who are using normal, feminine women as their offensive line.



And so this is the new mascot for all professional football: a pink ribbon. It’s all about women’s breasts now, the female protrusions. It’s like some primitive goddess worship on the front line. Save the breasts! Bow to the breast!

Anti-Male ABC: Seeking “Affluent Women,” New Netwk Shows Feature “Emasculated Men”

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ about ABC's new shows such as Last Man Standing and Man Up. This follows this post about the television shows Dancing With the Stars and Glee. This follows THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all  follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!

Anti-Male ABC: Seeking “Affluent Women,” New Netwk Shows Feature “Emasculated Men”


By Debbie Schlussel

BLOGGERS NOTE: Show support for her by writing her here writedebbie@gmail.com





Apparently, ABC now stands for “Anti-Male Broadcasting Company.”



Seeking more affluent women for its core audience, the network’s fall line-up, announced Sunday, will feature “emasculated men” and “empowered women.” And America’s men are sitting by and taking it. So, maybe, life imitates crap art. Check out this quote which appeared atop the Life section of yesterday’s USA Today print edition, but is only  available online in this cached syndication:







“The core target audience of affluent women is absolutely critical,” [ABC Entertainment President and programming chief Paul] Lee says. Several new shows will feature “empowered women” (soapy Pan Am, Charlie’s Angels) and emasculated men (comedies Man Up and Tim Allen’s Last Man Standing).



Huh? Dude, where are your testicles?



Can you imagine if ABC had the gall to announce: “Hey, we want wealthy men, and so to attract them, we are gonna show weak, bimbo chicks and men in charge, the way it used to be”? Nah, if ABC did that, Congress and the FCC would immediately haul network execs to testify in their boxer shorts while being cross-examined by the male-repellant Glorias–Allred and Steinem–and being threatened with castration.



ABC programming chief Lee elaborates on ABC’s fall line-up attack on men in another publication:



Women are taking over.



That’s the prevailing theme in many of ABC’s new slate of shows. One of the offerings comes from . . . Tim Allen. The comedian will star in the sitcom “Last Man Standing,” which debuts in October.



The show follows Mike Baxter (Allen), who calls the shots at work but is outnumbered and overruled at home by his wife and three daughters. To make matters more emasculating, Mike’s wife, Vanessa (Nancy Travis, “The Bill Engvall Show”), gets a raise at work and starts making more money than him.



“Tim’s take on it is that he’s really in a world surrounded by women instead of ‘Home Improvement,’ where he was in his own world,” said Paul Lee, ABC’s president of entertainment at a Television Critics Association’s press panel Sunday. “We are a network that’s dominated, and certainly in terms of the value of our sales, with affluent women’s audiences. So to look at men in a women’s world was a very interesting take.”



No, not “very interesting.” More like, very disgusting. And sexist.



The Alphabet Network will also be picking up the sitcom “Man Up,” which follows male friends who are afraid they are soft because they use flavored creamers in their coffee and play video games instead of using their hands and getting dirty. Mather Zickel (“Reno 911″) and Teri Polo (“Meet the Parents” movies) star in “Man Up,” which will premiere in October and air after Allen’s “Last Man Standing.” In the midseason, the cross-dressing comedy “Work It” will debut. It follows two desperate and unemployed men who dress as women to get jobs.



OMG, it’s “Bosom Buddies” on estrogen. G-d Help Us. STAT.



“It’s the job of television, and has been since we started, to look at the plight of men,” Lee said. “And I think we look at it in very different ways. The ‘Man Up’ guys are resentful that they didn’t go to war like their (fathers). They just play ‘Call of Duty.’ It’s our job to create television that questions how people feel in the world.”



Says who? Uh, no, that’s NOT your job, ABC. Your job is to entertain, to provide quality programming suitable for broadcast TV, and to entertain everyone, not just Eleanor Smeal and the winning WNBA team.



Don’t forget that the public broadcast airwaves–including ABC–are owned and regulated by the public. Given that, I’d like to know: where the heck are the cojones of the male half of the American population, and why the heck aren’t they “mad as hell” and “not gonna take it anymore,” a la Howard Beale in “Network?” Like I said, can you imagine if a major network said they would feature women this way? Wouldn’t happen. But the reason it’s happening here is because men are taking it, accepting it. They’re not getting angry, like they should be. There is no more male rage in America. Instead, that’s been subsumed by women. And men are busy holding their wives purses.



I’m thinking of filing my own complaint with the FEC about this, since no men are pursuing it. Maybe a defamation or discrimination lawsuit against ABC is in order. Frankly, I wonder where the men in Congress are. They are still the majority in Congress, but even the so-called “courageous conservatives” really aren’t that courageous. They don’t have the decency to hold hearings and take ABC to task, as they have the power to do. Why not?



Yes, our collapsing economy and physical national security are very important. But so is the threat of America’s dying “strong male.” As I always say, no matriarchy in history ever lasts. Not one matriarchy has even been temporarily great and contributed to civilization. A weakened American male is the ultimate national security problem. And if you think it has no effect on the economy, think again.



Heck, if we actually had real men in Congress and the White House, they’d have had the balls to cut what we needed to, rather than cut their balls off and avoid the spending cuts.



I blame part of ABC’s new line-up on ball-less “male” actors in Hollywood. Tim Allen is selling out his manhood for a paycheck, rather than saying, “Hey, I don’t go for this portrayal of my gender. It’s bad for me, bad for my sons and grandsons, and bad for America.” I cannot imagine John Wayne or Charlton Heston willingly playing roles like Allen is, no matter how many figures are in the paycheck. And Allen is an emblem of many American men. They’ve sold out. Sold out for video games, wives who make more than they do, etc. And they’ve sold their souls with it.



American men, it’s time to man up. Where are you? Why aren’t you fighting back and writing letters to ABC in droves? Why aren’t you demonstrating outside ABC in New York, demanding an end to the sexism?



And why is the only person upset about this a woman–me? That I even have to ask any of these questions shows me the American male is really an extinct species. The younger generations merely have slacker shells born with the “accidental appendage” of a penis.

Women Who Make the World Worse

A very interesting book you can get from Amazon here or your library here. For some more reading for Valentine's day. click HERE! For more interesting posts like this click here.

Its about modern feminism, not early womens rights.

By James "Collins" (Midland, Texas) - See all my reviews

So many people have not read the book, or refuse to acknowledge the facts, continuing their hypocritical argument that modern feminism is about equality. Modern day feminism, of course, has nothing to do with equality. It seeks more to elevate women's privileges, rights and interests above and beyond that of what men receive. None of Kates topics are from a time period anywhere near the 50s and I felt the book, and some of its reviews, show how some women are becoming worse than men ever were. These women blatantly discriminate, think they have a right to do so, and are proud of it. There is a big gap between the women's rights movement of the 40s 50s and 60s and of modern day feminism. The negative reviews this book receives has shown how many feminists continue to link today's movement with yesteryears and, somehow, that makes them automatically righteous. These women deserve their own chapter in Kates book `Women who make the world worse'. It is not difficult to see the effect that these women have had on society. Kate structures her book well and tackles each example with solid, researched information. Government legislation, biased family courts, ignorance towards lagging performance in schools of boys and the feminization of the military, sports, workplace and justice system. The idiocy over the Harvard `incident' was my favorite chapter, illustrating how some women will not accept that men may be better at some things than women, but applaud women who excel beyond boys in a women focused education, work and political system. There's lots of money and jobs out there for women who cry foul when they don't get their own way. Kate is able to highlight just what modern feminists have to lose should men ever get equality. Harvard has been forced to put forward $50 million to fund a new equality department which, headed by a staunch feminist no doubt, will justify it own existence and secure its own funding based on perpetuating female oppression, whether it occurs or not. Kate does not tackle all of modern feminisms double standards, there certainly are plenty more of them out there, but she does an excellent job of identifying and analyzing the ones that have the most effect on our society. I am glad that some women have a good grasp on the facts of modern day feminism and are able to separate the differences between feminism and equality so effectively. Kate is highlighting not how far women have come, but how far some women have gone. It gives hope for equality....some day. There is a saying amongst mens rights groups. `Reverse a gender issue and see if it would still be tolerated'. Would women tolerate the treatment men receive in society today? Of course not. That would be discrimination, wouldn't it?

Are You This Whipped?: Husbands, Housework & Sex *BUMPED*

A very interesting post from Debbie Schlussel on husbands doing household chores to read for Valentine's day. For more interesting posts like this click here.

Are You This Whipped?: Husbands, Housework & Sex
By Debbie SchlusselThey do these studies and publish the results all the time: men who do housework and share chores with their wives have a better sex life and happier marriage. I smell baloney. The results are always the same, including the pronouncements of a recent study that came to the same conclusion and was eagerly touted by Wall Street Journal “Work & Family” columnist Sue Shellenbarger.NOT SexyA new study shows that for husbands and wives alike, the more housework you do, the more often you are likely to have sex with your spouse.Earlier studies have hinted at this connection for men; the sight of a husband mopping the floor or doing dishes sparks affection in the hearts of many wives. But the more-housework-equals-more-sex link for wives, documented in a study of 6,877 married couples published online recently in the Journal of Family Issues, is a surprise. . . .But for some high achievers who take a “work hard, play hard” approach to life, researchers say, working hard in one domain produces more energy for others. The study also found a correlation between hours spent on paid work and the frequency of sex in marriage.Uh, yeah, I’d say that’s the more impressive part than cleaning the house. If you can’t appreciate a man going to work and bringing home a paycheck, you’re vacant. Withholding sex from a guy who works to support your family, just because he won’t clean the bathroom is sickening. And you need to be married to Gloria Steinem, not a man.Many husbands and wives I interviewed offered an additional explanation—that housework may be a proxy for a general willingness to invest in shared interests, a symbol of commitment to home and hearth. Perhaps “working on the same task … makes the couple remember why they married—to be on the same team, to build a life,” Ms. Danis says.PUH-LEEZE. If you need to see your husband cleaning your counters in order to remember why you’re married to him, perhaps a divorce is in order. And you need to ask yourself why you “can’t remember” why you married, when you spend his paycheck? Isn’t working to feed the family “working on the same task”? Anyone who doesn’t get that is the real source of the marital woes.Personally, I wouldn’t find a guy who would do housework and chores for me very sexy. It’s not very masculine, and it’s a sign I don’t appreciate the work he does all day at his real job. It’s degrading for a man. (Repairing things is a different story. That’s a manly thing.) And remember, we’re not talking Mr. Moms, here–an entirely different topic and even more unsexy. This is about working people, who have to come home and then work again . . . at chores (because the missus demands it in exchange for sex).Is it really a good thing that men engage in womanly duties in order to get sex? No way. Are women really giving men a “happier marriage” by withholding sex unless their husbands clean toilets, do laundry, or take out the garbage? Only if they want to be married to women with penises.Because that’s basically what’s happening. When you blur the gender roles, feminize the men and masculinize the women, it’s not a good thing. And with many wives working and their men doing housework, America’s married women who force their husbands to do what was a woman’s traditional role in order to get what was supposed to be a given, essential part of a marriage (sex), it makes a mess of things. Sexual blackmail may have great short-term results, but I’ll bet long-term these marriages aren’t the ones that last.Matriarchies always fail, and not just in nations . . . but also in family households.And while your kids may not know what goes on in the bedroom, they’re definitely influenced when they see daddy doing the dishes and vacuuming and mommy ordering him around. If you think that kind of thing breeds strong men and feminine women, think again. It’s the exact opposite.But, hey, if you wanna raise wimpy sons and bossy, shrewish daughters, it’s an awesome teaching tool.So, how is it in your marriage (if you’re married)? Who does the housework? Are you “whipped”?
Remember: Chickification Nation is the Formula for Disintegration.

Are You This Whipped?: Husbands, Housework & Sex

A very interesting post from Debbie Schlussel on husbands doing household chores.


Are You This Whipped?: Husbands, Housework & Sex
By Debbie Schlussel
They do these studies and publish the results all the time: men who do housework and share chores with their wives have a better sex life and happier marriage. I smell baloney. The results are always the same, including the pronouncements of a recent study that came to the same conclusion and was eagerly touted by Wall Street Journal “Work & Family” columnist Sue Shellenbarger.
NOT Sexy
A new study shows that for husbands and wives alike, the more housework you do, the more often you are likely to have sex with your spouse.
Earlier studies have hinted at this connection for men; the sight of a husband mopping the floor or doing dishes sparks affection in the hearts of many wives. But the more-housework-equals-more-sex link for wives, documented in a study of 6,877 married couples published online recently in the Journal of Family Issues, is a surprise. . . .
But for some high achievers who take a “work hard, play hard” approach to life, researchers say, working hard in one domain produces more energy for others. The study also found a correlation between hours spent on paid work and the frequency of sex in marriage.
Uh, yeah, I’d say that’s the more impressive part than cleaning the house. If you can’t appreciate a man going to work and bringing home a paycheck, you’re vacant. Withholding sex from a guy who works to support your family, just because he won’t clean the bathroom is sickening. And you need to be married to Gloria Steinem, not a man.
Many husbands and wives I interviewed offered an additional explanation—that housework may be a proxy for a general willingness to invest in shared interests, a symbol of commitment to home and hearth. Perhaps “working on the same task … makes the couple remember why they married—to be on the same team, to build a life,” Ms. Danis says.
PUH-LEEZE. If you need to see your husband cleaning your counters in order to remember why you’re married to him, perhaps a divorce is in order. And you need to ask yourself why you “can’t remember” why you married, when you spend his paycheck? Isn’t working to feed the family “working on the same task”? Anyone who doesn’t get that is the real source of the marital woes.
Personally, I wouldn’t find a guy who would do housework and chores for me very sexy. It’s not very masculine, and it’s a sign I don’t appreciate the work he does all day at his real job. It’s degrading for a man. (Repairing things is a different story. That’s a manly thing.) And remember, we’re not talking Mr. Moms, here–an entirely different topic and even more unsexy. This is about working people, who have to come home and then work again . . . at chores (because the missus demands it in exchange for sex).
Is it really a good thing that men engage in womanly duties in order to get sex? No way. Are women really giving men a “happier marriage” by withholding sex unless their husbands clean toilets, do laundry, or take out the garbage? Only if they want to be married to women with penises.
Because that’s basically what’s happening. When you blur the gender roles, feminize the men and masculinize the women, it’s not a good thing. And with many wives working and their men doing housework, America’s married women who force their husbands to do what was a woman’s traditional role in order to get what was supposed to be a given, essential part of a marriage (sex), it makes a mess of things. Sexual blackmail may have great short-term results, but I’ll bet long-term these marriages aren’t the ones that last.
Matriarchies always fail, and not just in nations . . . but also in family households.
And while your kids may not know what goes on in the bedroom, they’re definitely influenced when they see daddy doing the dishes and vacuuming and mommy ordering him around. If you think that kind of thing breeds strong men and feminine women, think again. It’s the exact opposite.
But, hey, if you wanna raise wimpy sons and bossy, shrewish daughters, it’s an awesome teaching tool.
So, how is it in your marriage (if you’re married)? Who does the housework? Are you “whipped”?
Remember: Chickification Nation is the Formula for Disintegration.