gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog - Tumblr blog

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

Five tips on being a good boyfriend/husband?

1. Always treat her with respect and as an equal. even when she’s not present. Especially when she’s not present. That’s when respect matters most. Don’t talk about her flaws and shortcomings with your friends and family. Always show off her virtues and accomplishments instead.

2. Always make her feel special according to her tastes. For example, Emerald doesn’t like the traditional teddy bear/chocolate/strawberries combo. Instead, I cater to her interests in books, clothes, and Amazon.

3. Pray for her: her needs, desires, dreams, and growth. Pray every day. 

4. Pray for yourself. Don’t neglect your spiritual growth, because your relationship with God is more important than any other.

5. Be yourself. If you don’t, she could fall in love with someone who doesn’t exist, which isn’t fair to either of you.

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

The Dominant Christian Man

I absolutely love this article…

The thoughts of one Christian man, on a journey to rediscover what a male-lead, female-submissive marriage should be, in Christ Jesus, and as defined by the Bible. Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Domination vs. Domineering This post could also be called Leadership vs. Tyranny.

Domineering is what I think most women fear when they are asked to submit to a man, and it is at the same time what most men are frightened of doing, or being perceived as doing. Domineering is a form of tyranny. It is demanding obedience, service, and the benefits of a relationship for purely selfish purposes, and without regard to the feelings, needs, and desires of those in submission.

Women often say, “I don’t want to be a doormat.” Or they might say, “ I don’t want to cook, and clean, while he sits and does nothing.” These images portrayed by the way women object to submission reveal preconceived notions of how they believe submission would be like.

At the same time, there is a younger generations of men who have been sold these ideas that a man doesn’t impose his will on a woman. These men are not able to take the lead. These are men who hesitate to make decisions, and often leave the decisions up to their feminine partner. Such fellows can’t even decide where to go for supper, because they are afraid of even being perceived as domineering.

To further complicate the problem, men and women alike mature more slowly than in previous generations. People who have fewer practical needs than previous generations simply don’t have the environmental pressures to grow up. This means that many men aren’t all that trustworthy. Fewer men than in previous generations have the courage to be responsible leaders. It is no wonder women are reluctant to submit to their husbands.

Dominance or leadership, on the other hand, is unselfish. A dominant man will lead, but will lead for the benefit and interests of his wife and family. The dominant man is trying to provide a safe environment wherein he can please his wife and children. The dominant man lives by Philippians 2:3-8:

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Here is what happens in a relationship with a dominant man and a submissive woman: The dominant man plans an activity for his mate and himself. During the course of the activity, and afterward, he is looking for emotional responses from his submissive female that she is pleased, and that she likes what he has chosen for them to do. The feedback he gets from her is his confirmation that he is not domineering her, but rather looking out for her interests. Things he plans that don’t get the feedback he desires, or that don’t please her, are not repeated. Over time, he learns what she likes to do, or what she might like to do, and becomes more proficient at planning and executing activities for the two of them, and the woman is thus empowered by surrendering her power to her mate.

Here is the message I’d like men to get out of this post. It is possible to lead without dominating. We men need to confront our fears or domineering, and take the lead in our relationships. If you are a man that tries to please his wife or girlfriend, then you are probably a good candidate to be a dominant man, even though you may be held back by your far of being too overbearing.

Women, it is possible to submit to a man and not feel powerless, nor like a “doormat.” By submitting in a healthy relationship to a responsible man, you will be empowered, not weakened. Think about the man in your life… Does he want to please you? Does he try? If the answer is ‘yes,’ then you probably have a man who would be a good dominant, even though he might be rather ineffectual right now.

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

What happens in cradles and kitchens will prove to be more effective than what goes on in Congress.

Neal A. Maxwell

Schönen Muttertag, TradMoms!

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

A description of Hell by the Elder Paisios

- Elder, what is Hell like?

- Let me tell you a story that I’ve heard:

Once there was a simple man who kept asking God to show him what Paradise and Hell are like…

So, one night, in his sleep, he heard a voice saying: «Come, let me show you what Hell looks like».

He suddenly found himself in a room, where many people were seated around a table. In the middle of that table was a pot filled with food. But all those people were hungry, because they were unable to eat. They each held a very long spoon in their hand. They were able to take food out of the pot, but couldn’t bring the spoon to their mouth. Because of this, some were complaining, others were shouting, others were weeping…

Then he heard the same voice saying to him: «Come now, and let me show you what Paradise also looks like».

He again found himself suddenly in another room, where many people were seated around a table, just like the one before, and in the middle of that table was -again- a pot full of food. Those people also held the same kind of long spoon in their hand. But every one of these people was full and happy, because each would dip his spoon in the pot and feed the person near him….

- Do you understand now, how you too can feel that you’re living in Paradise, from this lifetime?

Whoever does a good deed feels gladness, because he is rewarded with a divine consolation.

Whoever does bad things suffers, and he makes the terrestrial Paradise a terrestrial Hell.

Do you have love, kindness inside you? Then you are an angel, and everywhere you go or stand, you will be carrying Paradise with you.

Do you have passions, meanness? Then you have the devil inside you, and everywhere you go or stand, you carry Hell along with you.

We begin to live Paradise or Hell from this life, here……

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

I would not normally respond to something like this.  I doubt I will change anyone’s mind.  However, I trained as a historian and I can’t abide historical malpractice.  

Many of the sources cited are not credible or have since been debunked.  For example, some of it comes from the website of Doug Long, who described himself as a retired computer programmer.

I took the OP’s advice and googled for sources, only I searched for ones both credible and scholarly, not hobby conspiracy theorists.  The best, brief and balanced summary of the debate over the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings I found was at the Boston University Historical Society website.  Here is the link: http://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html.   It merits quoting at length. Note that it  addresses the US Strategic Bombing Survey cited above.

 ‘As made by Gar Alperovitz more than forty years ago, the original revisionist argument maintained that the atomic bomb was used primarily to intimidate the Soviet Union in order to gain the upper hand in Eastern Europe and to keep Moscow out of the war in the Far East. While the whole cloth of this “atomic diplomacy” thesis was too extreme for most revisionists, they wove bits and pieces of it into their own critiques of the bombing of Hiroshima.

Revisionism’s heyday lasted until the 1990s. Then the historiographical ground began to shift. A new body of scholarly work emerged, often based on hitherto unavailable documents, which countered revisionist arguments that the atomic bomb was primarily a diplomatic weapon in 1945, that Japan would have surrendered prior to the planned U.S. invasion had the bomb not been used, and that projected casualty figures for the anticipated invasion of Japan were far lower than those cited by supporters of the decision to use the bomb. The scholars producing these books and articles provided powerful support for Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. Thus Edward Drea’s MacArthur’s Ultra: Codebreaking and the War against Japan (1992) chronicled how Allied intelligence tracked the Japanese military buildup on the southernmost home island of Kyushu in the months prior to Hiroshima, a buildup that demonstrated Tokyo’s intent to fight to the bitter end and rendered all “low” casualty estimates dating from the spring and early summer of 1945––the estimates relied upon by revisionist historians––obsolete and irrelevant months before American soldiers were scheduled to land in Japan. In 1995 Robert P. Newman’s Truman and the Hiroshima Cult demolished the credibility of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey’s claim that Japan would have surrendered in the fall of 1945 absent both the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, while Robert James Maddox’s Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later effectively dismantled what was left of the “atomic diplomacy” thesis. Two years later, in “Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasion of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications” (The Journal of Military History, July 1997), D. M. Giangreco conclusively documented the existence of enormous casualty projections, some of which undeniably reached Truman and his top advisors. The next year, in “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender––A Reconsideration” (Pacific Historical Review, November 1998), Sadao Asada, relying on a thorough review of Japanese-language sources, exposed as untenable the contention that Japan was prepared to surrender before Hiroshima or that a modification of the Potsdam Declaration guaranteeing the status of the emperor would have produced a Japanese surrender.

These and other works culminated in Richard B. Frank’s Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, published in 1999. Frank brought together the evidence already mentioned and a great deal more, including crucial Japanese-language sources, leaving virtually every aspect of the revisionist case in tatters. It was not long before Downfall gained widespread recognition as the definitive work on the subject. Against this background, the cancellation of the Smithsonian Institution’s proposed exhibit to mark the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, which relied almost exclusively on revisionist scholarship, was only the most publicized setback suffered by proponents of the revisionist case during the 1990s.’

ERASE the idea that America saved lives by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan from your minds. ERASE the idea that it was anything more than a political move to scare Russia and also to satiate US curiosity as to the true ability of nuclear weapons. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not military bases. They were heavily populated civilian cities chosen precisely bc the U.S. wanted to see how many people an atomic bomb could kill in one go. Japan was on the verge of surrendering, the U.S. literally wanted to test out their nuclear weapons on people that they deemed disposable. That is it. If those bombs were dropped by any nation other than the US veryone involved would have been tried as war criminals.

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

-Breathing Art Qualcunocomeme

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

-Breathing Art Qualcunocomeme

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

-Breathing Art Qualcunocomeme

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

Cathédrale de Chartres.

https://instagram.com/p/BgoNzljFTXQ/

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

Greenland….. by Ofjord

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

❤️❤️❤️

[gentlemanoftheoldschool-blog]

So many young women today think that because one chooses to be a housewife that she is oppressed, but I see it from a different point of view. I frame it as….my husband has reached a pinnacle point in his career/ life in which he can afford to care for a family on his own and I think that should be celebrated! Many men find that to be anachievement.

I would much rather spend my days serving one man and the family that we created, than randomly hooking up with immature boys w/ no funds or ambition and calling it progression.