A dating daughter is a father's failure

[MemeFan]

Have you been paying attention to Jordan Peterson in the last 5 years?

@rockfox isn't active for some months.

And rumor is his daughter is running his X account.

 

[MemeFan]

However, in the Concordant Version of the Old Testament, Exodus 20:12 reads, "Glorify your father and your mother." Note that the Concordant versions make every effort to translate every Hebrew and Aramaic word in WWCTOT into exactly the same English word, but they also do the same with every Greek and Aramaic word in WWCTNT -- so apparently the closest thing the word Paul chose in Greek meant 'honor' in English, and it may even be the case that, as he wrote in Greek to Greek-speaking audiences that the original Hebrew OT was translated from that language into the closest thing in Greek the authors of the Septuagint could ascertain (whoops! another translation process!).

The most original, though, was originally Hebrew, and it translates literally into 'glorify.'

Which in essence means to become noble.

nobility | Etymology, origin and meaning of nobility by etymonline

NOBILITY Meaning: "honor, renown; majesty, grandeur;" late 14c., "quality of being excellent or rare," from Old French… See origin and meaning of nobility.

www.etymonline.com

Which is only possible by doing great deeds which would make you widely known.

 

[MemeFan]

And who better to take it seriously than a father?

I don't get this. If husband to be and bride to be are most important relationship, where is place for father? By Pareto principle he is irrevelant.

This is precisely why it's a good idea: the thought of a father interfering is not supposed to make a potential husband comfortable.

Best way to welcome potential new family member is with fear. LOL.

One advice for you. If man isn't willing to meet your parents, he prefers relationship to be only of sexual nature.

Avoiding the downside is essentially helping the upside; the rest is negotiable.

This is so incorrect. I wonder did anybody else even try to apply decision science to this?

Never in history of man was decision making by committe advised as superior in speed and quality. Nope, it was recommend instead as very effective sabotage technique. Why? We need to achieve consensus and everybody needs to cover their ass as not to receive any potential blame. Therefore, safety will be most important value sought, especially since parents prefer safety instead of opportunity maximization (proper way) for their children.

Avoiding downside is about not getting everything burned down. It doesn't can turn meh choice into fantastic, not it can. Fantastic requires risk taking and going for opportunity maximization.

And I believe that marriage is under power laws, not normal distribution. Which implies small number of potentially fantastic relationships and very large number of meh.

And yes, you can lose potential partner because you play it slow and safe while somebody else does "sweeping of feet".

People are going to always have an opinion, that can happen with or without a father involved in the courting process.

It's wise to ask for additional perspectives which doesn't mean they deserve veto right or their opinion taken into account (you can receive idiotic advice). It's expansion of decision committe which I have problem which in every domain where it happens is great pain in ass.

Also, I was under the impression that most arranged marriages have a fairly short courting process. If you want sex right away, arranged marriage may be your best bet

Speed of time between first meeting and sex happening influence how masculine bride to be perceives her man. Slow is bad, very bad.

Male-female relationahips are very simple. 1. Are we going to have sex? 2. Under which conditions?

I prefer to know answers sooner and first question doesn't require father.

And touch is great way to test someone interest, complicated by presence of other people. Situation not helped by fact that touch is also my love language. Girls who can't enjoy my touching aren't for me.

Being properly trained doesn't make one void of mistakes. If a father trained her this way, then it's his job to see her through it until she finds a good husband.

Daughter will need this even after being married. It's more about getting useful skills for life, not one proper decision.

I prefer children able to stand on their own feet, not depending on me.

And everybody makes mistakes, so what. Life isn't about staying behing wall to keep you safe.

I don't see it as meddling in her love life until after she is married. She doesn't really have a love life until then; she has a courtship. Meddling in the actual marriage after the fact should be completely off-limits.

She has love life. It's way more than sex.

Teenagers need to understand other sex and only way is to spend time with each other.

People here are making critical mistake. You assume that courtship under control is way to do proper vetting. Better if chaperoned to avoid any sin. What is false assumption here? If you never spend time alone with another person, you never learn how another person is behaving when you are alone with him.

You only learn how he/she is behaving in group. And marriage partners spend most of their time alone (children not counted), not in group.

 

[Keith Martin]

@rockfox isn't active for some months.

And rumor is his daughter is running his X account.

There's a rumor that @rockfox's daughter is running his X account?

What about his biblicalfamilies.org account?



P.S. Rockfox is more prone than I am to take long voluntary absences from these forums. He'll be back. Or his daughter, if you're right about the rumor.

 

[MemeFan]

There's a rumor that @rockfox's daughter is running his X account?

What about his biblicalfamilies.org account?



P.S. Rockfox is more prone than I am to take long voluntary absences from these forums. He'll be back. Or his daughter, if you're right about the rumor.

Sorry, I meant Peterson's daughter is running her father's account.

 

[blessedwith2]

My two cents on this subject is that too often, the strong conviction of a leader becomes emphasized as much or more than "thus saith the LORD." The Bible defines sin as the transgression of the Law and since the Law does not require a father to arrange his daughter's marriage, it is not sinful or his failure if he does not. Let's let God decide who is the failure.

Perhaps this is one of the ways polygyny was eventually taught as sinful. Whether a father arranges his daughter's marriage is ultimately between him and God.

Having said all that, I think arranged marriages can be a very positive thing.

P.S. Not all of King David's marriages were arranged by the farther of the brides.

 

[Keith Martin]

Sorry, I meant Peterson's daughter is running her father's account.

Oh, that!

It's beyond being a confirmed rumor. Mr. Perfect Dad lost all grounding for quite a while, and occasionally daughter reacted from her own impatience while babysitting Dad's account.

 

[MeganC]

Is it incumbent upon YHWH to be honorable before we honor Him?

God is the source of honor. People who know and love God tend to be honorable.

Perhaps you haven't noticed but I have serious issues with people who claim entitlements like honor and authority without having done anything to deserve such things. Myself, I never tell my children to honor me. Either I am worthy of this or I need to do better. Either way, it starts with me and not the little person who sees the example I set for them.

 

[Keith Martin]

God is the source of honor. People who know and love God tend to be honorable.

Perhaps you haven't noticed but I have serious issues with people who claim entitlements like honor and authority without having done anything to deserve such things. Myself, I never tell my children to honor me. Either I am worthy of this or I need to do better. Either way, it starts with me and not the little person who sees the example I set for them.

Of course I've noticed.

However, while what you're saying certainly sounds good -- and certain individuals even make it look good within their own realms -- I would challenge anyone to identify a larger community where that has been implemented successfully. Every failure of every such system has justified its failure by blaming those who don't set the proper example, as if it's within human capability of not only perfecting oneself (one level of impossibility) but inspiring everyone else to perfect themselves as well (impossibility squared).

In truth, systems that demand that those in a superior position first demonstrate worthiness before being given deference are the systems that are most prone to not only corruption but being overthrown by those with evil intent who care not one whit about how virtuous the systems' creators are or consider themselves to be.

When we bring it back to God, we can see the most stark examples of what I'm pointing to. Behind any human assertion that God is the Source of Honor is the natural human tendency to either blindly assert that God is possessed of all ultimate Honor or, actually more commonly, to grant each individual human the right to hold God accountable for whether or not He is honorable. To find some excuse in Scripture for identifying chinks in God's Honor Armor is probably the most common justification human beings produce for either being atheists or giving themselves all the wiggle room in world to ignore God and set up their own moral codes.

When I asked,

Is it incumbent upon YHWH to be honorable before we honor Him?

I did so to lead into noting that expecting the one to whom one is supposed to be submitting to first demonstrate worthiness before submitting is nothing more than maintaining an excuse for refraining from submitting when one doesn't want to do what one is being asked to submit to.

I'll provide an example outside of the family hierarchy realm to illustrate what I'm describing. One of my former careers was running university dormitories and apartment complexes. In most cases, I was brought in to rehabilitate out-of-control environments. Ultimately, I became nationally-recognized as a discipline expert, and I can boil down why that happened to this: in almost all higher ed residential situations, discipline is approached in one of two unsuccessful ways:

1. Live-in staff tend to be the kind of people who enjoyed extracurricular activities when they were in high school and college, and they promote the approach that says everything will work out if the constituents come to recognize that staff is on their side, that staff has integrity, and that staff behaves as proper role models. If their supervisors support this approach, live-in staff respect their supervisors.
2. The administrators who supervise the live-in staff have a different approach: make policies; publicize the policies; ensure the live-in staff know the policies and expect them to also publicize the policies and then enforce them; unfortunately, what always accompanies this is the administrators expecting the live-in staff to report how enforcement is going, and then live-in staff is rewarded or punished based on how well the residents are behaving, so when misbehavior goes up, administrators punish live-in staff, but administrators never have any solutions for changing misbehavior besides "remind them of the rules." But when live-in staff punish residents, administrators punish live-in staff.

This is the primary reason why dormitories are so prone to chaos, disruption and damage. Schools brag about how people in dorms get higher grades than people who live off campus, but anyone paying attention knows it's only because it's easier to get to class and harder to become lazy stoners.

In this system, everyone from the residents to the live-in staff to the many layers of supervisors operates on the practice of expecting those 'above' them to first demonstrate honor and respect. This is the equivalent of rewarding the tyranny of the toddler. Yes, people are inspired by high-integrity, honorable people, but in addition to good-hearted people being inspired by their better angels, honorable folks also inspire bad-hearted people to take advantage of that honor.

I used many techniques to produce the results I got, but the most necessary fundamental one was to start off every year by giving the residents a very brief overview of the rules, asserting that ignorance would be no excuse, asserting that it was their own personal responsibilities to familiarize themselves with all the rules, warn them that they would be given a couple days before no-excuses enforcement would begin -- explaining that, when confronted, the first expectation would be to immediately comply with any directive given by a student staff member, and then subsequently comply with showing up for a hearing with me, where punishment would generally start off small but acknowledgement of what they did wrong would be required if they didn't want to be referred for higher-level adjudication. My staffs were always trained to listen to no excuses, and especially to refrain from any attempt on the part of a miscreant to turn it around to ad hominem attacks on the staff member, on me, on the residence life department, the school, their parents, the government or on God Himself. "Do not fall into the trap of thinking that you need to justify the level of authority you have. Just identify what they're doing wrong, inform them you'll be making a report, expect compliance and then note in your report what level of compliance you received. And walk away. If sustained noncompliance puts others at risk, get in touch with me, and I'll decide if the police are to be brought into the situation."

What worked was to entirely refrain from expecting myself or my staff to prove we were worthy of being complied with.

The same applies in the God:Christ:husband:wife:childrenets hierarchical configuration. Critical Theories teach the notion that, if one has a grievance, one needn't submit. The results are all around us. Feral pets. Feral children. Feral wives and girlfriends. Feral men. And at some level we must be justifying it all as Yah's and Yeshua's fault for failing to sufficiently role model for us how we should be behaving.

The bottom line, though, is that They do not owe us such demonstrations, nor do husbands owe their wives the practice of receiving a seal of approval from those women about how they're leading. Certainly, being an honorable, integritous, respectable, godly man is preferable to their alternatives, but part of leading as the head of one's family is also to simply expect one's woman to submit and provide the consequences when she doesn't.

I love you almost as much as life itself, Megan, and you can tell me to go f*** myself for saying this, but I'm asserting it anyway: you will be much better served if you let go of this obsession with whether or not other women's men are living up to your standards. If you're not sleeping in a man's bed, cooking his meals, cleaning his home, bearing and/or raising his children, following his lead, or implementing his vision, you don't even come close to having a vote in the matter -- and any effort you put into persuading other women that they should feel free to rebel against their husbands if those husbands aren't living up to your standards (much like any effort a man makes to convince other men that they should stop loving or protecting their wives if they don't live up to their standards) is destined to increase rather than decrease misery in those households.

The issue is not a matter of what authority a man claims for himself. The issue is the authority granted him by YHWH and Yeshua through their mouthpiece Paul in I Corinthians 11:3.

 

[NickF]

I’m not Megan but FWIW I’ve never thought this was what she was communicating. Seems to me there is talking past each other.

you will be much better served if you let go of this obsession with whether or not other women's men are living up to your standards. If you're not sleeping in a man's bed, cooking his meals, cleaning his home, bearing and/or raising his children, following his lead, or implementing his vision, you don't even come close to having a vote in the matter -- and any effort you put into persuading other women that they should feel free to rebel against their husbands if those husbands aren't living up to your standards (much like any effort a man makes to convince other men that they should stop loving or protecting their wives if they don't live up to their standards) is destined to increase rather than decrease misery in those households

 

[Keith Martin]

I’m not Megan but FWIW I’ve never thought this was what she was communicating. Seems to me there is talking past each other.

OK, I just got out of my system a lengthy response to you, Nick, related to whether or not Megan was communicating what I perceive her to be communicating [which, by the way, boils down to women having an escape clause from their marital responsibilities if their judgment -- or Megan's -- is that the men whom they pledged to follow don't measure up in some way, because men just can't demand submission, you know, whereas women can just refuse to submit] -- but I've erased it and prefer to just request that you enlighten us about how she and I are talking past each other.

 

[FollowingHim]

Myself, I never tell my children to honor me.

Ephesians 6:2-3
"Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise; )
That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth."

It's a commandment. In other words, something we are supposed to teach our children. To fail to teach them this is to fail to teach them a core commandment of God. I understand your personal objection to it @MeganC on an emotional level - but as your objection is in direct opposition to the plain instruction of God, the simple fact is that you are wrong.

 

[theleastofthese]

It seems like a bad idea to put the cart before the horse by demanding honor and authority without first being a proper example of it.

Furthermore, it didn't seem to me that Megan was forcing her standards of authority and honor into other people's marriages directly.

 

[NickF]

OK, I just got out of my system a lengthy response to you, Nick, related to whether or not Megan was communicating what I perceive her to be communicating [which, by the way, boils down to women having an escape clause from their marital responsibilities if their judgment -- or Megan's -- is that the men whom they pledged to follow don't measure up in some way, because men just can't demand submission, you know, whereas women can just refuse to submit] -- but I've erased it and prefer to just request that you enlighten us about how she and I are talking past each other.

you will be much better served if you let go of this obsession

Doesn’t seem to be an obsession, just a stated answer when the question is posed. Doesn’t seem to me that she’s any more obsessed about this than you are about the other viewpoint. Passionate perhaps?

with whether or not other women's men are living up to your standards. If you're not sleeping in a man's bed, cooking his meals, cleaning his home, bearing and/or raising his children, following his lead, or implementing his vision, you don't even come close to having a vote in the matter -

I haven’t read a single thing she’s written that gave me the impression she thought she had a vote. But like all the rest of us was answering the question posed from her perspective.

- and any effort you put into persuading other women that they should feel free to rebel against their husbands if those husbands aren't living up to your standards (much like any effort a man makes to convince other men that they should stop loving or protecting their wives if they don't live up to their standards) is destined to increase rather than decrease misery in those households.

Again, I don’t recall seeing anything that even in passing looked like she was trying to persuade women that they should feel free to rebel.

I could certainly be wrong about all this, I don’t have the benefit of lengthy history to lend me perspective. But perspective might be the problem.

Just last night I was humbled because I’ve been looking for a way to financially benefit a friend of mine in his business as a fair exchange of value for his assistance in marketing a new business venture of mine.

I was taking the entirely wrong approach and was blinded by my perspective.

You could be spot on in your assessment. But it seems to me like this is a hot button issue for you that immediately triggers an assumption about the motivations of others. If it weren’t because of my love for you both, I’d ignore and go on with my life.

Again, there could be copious historical data I’m not privy to. But you might be more well served to ask what her motivations are rather than assume.

Then again, I could be flat out wrong. Which is why I worded this the way I did. “Seems”

I’m not Megan but FWIW I’ve never thought this was what she was communicating. Seems to me there is talking past each other.

 

[NVIII]

Doesn’t seem to be an obsession, just a stated answer when the question is posed. Doesn’t seem to me that she’s any more obsessed about this than you are about the other viewpoint. Passionate perhaps?


I haven’t read a single thing she’s written that gave me the impression she thought she had a vote. But like all the rest of us was answering the question posed from her perspective.


Again, I don’t recall seeing anything that even in passing looked like she was trying to persuade women that they should feel free to rebel.

I could certainly be wrong about all this, I don’t have the benefit of lengthy history to lend me perspective. But perspective might be the problem.

Just last night I was humbled because I’ve been looking for a way to financially benefit a friend of mine in his business as a fair exchange of value for his assistance in marketing a new business venture of mine.

I was taking the entirely wrong approach and was blinded by my perspective.

You could be spot on in your assessment. But it seems to me like this is a hot button issue for you that immediately triggers an assumption about the motivations of others. If it weren’t because of my love for you both, I’d ignore and go on with my life.

Again, there could be copious historical data I’m not privy to. But you might be more well served to ask what her motivations are rather than assume.

Then again, I could be flat out wrong. Which is why I worded this the way I did. “Seems”

He's not the only one who sees it, by the way.

 

[theleastofthese]

He's not the only one who sees it, by the way.

This goes both ways.

 

[MeganC]

It's a commandment. In other words, something we are supposed to teach our children. To fail to teach them this is to fail to teach them a core commandment of God. I understand your personal objection to it @MeganC on an emotional level - but as your objection is in direct opposition to the plain instruction of God, the simple fact is that you are wrong.

Explain to me exactly how I was supposed to honor my father after he raped me?

Oh, and kindly don't dodge or evade my question like you usually do when you stake out a concrete position and get called on it.

Thank you.

 

[FollowingHim]

Explain to me exactly how I was supposed to honor my father after he raped me?

Oh, and kindly don't dodge or evade my question like you usually do when you stake out a concrete position and get called on it.

Thank you.

Oh Megan, that is such a tough question. I've spent a long time trying to work out how to respond, and I don't have all the answers, but I'll do my best.

When someone has done something so dishonourable, they have by definition made it extremely difficult if not impossible to honour them.

Honour is something we give in the interactions we have with people, and which there are no clear "rules" around. It's a principle, and a very fuzzy principle. Once you have been forced to flee your father's home in order to keep yourself safe, and no longer have any interactions with him, you also have almost no opportunity to honour him anyway. The commandment becomes almost irrelevant.

If we have an obligation to someone, but they make it impossible to fulfil that obligation, it is their fault that the obligation is not fulfilled.

For instance, say you buy something small on the understanding that the seller will send you an invoice with payment instructions. When the invoice arrives however, you find that the payment instructions are "Go to 365 East Street, Nairobi, knock on the door and ask for Esther, and pay her in cash in Kenya Shillings". You cannot practically do that. So you are not going to pay, and it's not your fault - it's the seller's fault for making payment almost impossible. But only almost impossible. If you happened to be in Nairobi some time in the future, you would still have a moral obligation to knock on that door and see if Esther still lives there, and give her her cash. An opportunity may arrive for you to do this, but it's not your fault that there are few opportunities to do so.

So if your father has forced you to flee for your own welfare, meaning you never have any interactions with him and no opportunity to honour him, that is his fault also.

I can think of some hypothetical circumstances in which you might still have an interaction in which you could choose to show your father honour. For instance, if the rape went to court, you might choose to honour your father by testifying accurately about the actual circumstances but refraining from asking for a specific punishment, leaving that actual condemnation to the judge. If writing publicly about your life and experiences, you might intentionally refrain from including your father's full name and mugshot, choosing not to publicly dishonour him. Both of these are very hypothetical, and things you "might" choose to do in those hypothetical situations, that is all. I'm not saying there's a law that you must do what I just said in those specific circumstances, or that you sinned if they have happened and you acted differently.

Since your father raped you, he is a disgusting bastard who deserves no honour. I'm not defending your father.

But the scriptural obligation is to honour your parents by default - all the above is just what happens after one has acted so dishonourably that honouring them becomes near-impossible. Until then, there is an obligation to honour them.

You are turning it all backwards, and claiming that a parent does not deserve any honour - even you deserve no honour from your children - until you have earned it. That is completely opposed to scripture. Scripture is clear that by default children are to honour their parents.

The fact that your father acted in such a dishonourable and traumatic way does NOT change the fact that children must honour parents who have NOT done that. If you have not raped your kids or done something else dishonourable, they clearly must honour you by default.

Teach your children to honour their parents. Feel free to teach them to stop honouring you if you act so dishonourably that they no longer can, feel free to use your father as an example when doing so. But teach them to honour you by default until then, because that is the plain teaching of scripture.

 

[NVIII]

It's only a tough question if you've never been abused before and slip into an effeminate frame of emotion and fear of offending. If you have been abused, it's only tough if you've never forgiven and reconciled. Until then, there is a spiritual darkness and a mental block. I identified it before, and I'll say it again, it's not any human that you are angry with, Megan. The sooner you let go and are delivered from this, the better. Your whole countenance and behavior will change. Your bitterness, hate, and fear will flee. At that point you will be able to honor your father by forgiving, reconciling with, and protecting him by not revealing his transgression, just as I honor the person who abused me in my youth. In so doing you will heap burning coals on his head, and your witness to others here and everywhere will become powerful, sweetened with grace and wisdom.

 

[MemeFan]

Of course I've noticed.

However, while what you're saying certainly sounds good -- and certain individuals even make it look good within their own realms -- I would challenge anyone to identify a larger community where that has been implemented successfully. Every failure of every such system has justified its failure by blaming those who don't set the proper example, as if it's within human capability of not only perfecting oneself (one level of impossibility) but inspiring everyone else to perfect themselves as well (impossibility squared).

In truth, systems that demand that those in a superior position first demonstrate worthiness before being given deference

Only natural and reasonable position. Would you give your business to be cared under, shall we say, unproven person?

are the systems that are most prone to not only corruption but being overthrown by those with evil intent who care not one whit about how virtuous the systems' creators are or consider themselves to be.

It's opposite. When honorable must demostrate competency to be honorable, then must keep being honorable. Otherwise adios.

When business starts selling crap, how would will situation last? Even greatest fan must sometime admit truth.

Problem only exists when you can't leave. Then evil people can do mischief and you can't get rid of then. This is primary reason why policitians are so bad. If seccession is allowed, any their idiocy would cause fall in income, as happens with businesses.

When we bring it back to God, we can see the most stark examples of what I'm pointing to. Behind any human assertion that God is the Source of Honor is the natural human tendency to either blindly assert that God is possessed of all ultimate Honor or, actually more commonly, to grant each individual human the right to hold God accountable for whether or not He is honorable.

Even Lord Himself must earn honor. By deeds and no way otherwise.

Without deeds He is just some talker speaking BS being full of himself.

To find some excuse in Scripture for identifying chinks in God's Honor Armor is probably the most common justification human beings produce for either being atheists or giving themselves all the wiggle room in world to ignore God and set up their own moral codes.

When I asked,

Is it incumbent upon YHWH to be honorable before we honor Him?

Yes, it has to be as matter of general principle. Why we should honor someone who doesn't deserve it. Satan was born before us, is wiser, can teach us many things. It's his deeds which disqualify him from receiving any honor. Without deeds criteria, Satan is also honorable one.

I did so to lead into noting that expecting the one to whom one is supposed to be submitting to first demonstrate worthiness before submitting is nothing more than maintaining an excuse for refraining from submitting when one doesn't want to do what one is being asked to submit to.

Off course is it reason not to provide honor. Maybe asker isn't worthy.

I'll provide an example outside of the family hierarchy realm to illustrate what I'm describing. One of my former careers was running university dormitories and apartment complexes. In most cases, I was brought in to rehabilitate out-of-control environments. Ultimately, I became nationally-recognized as a discipline expert, and I can boil down why that happened to this: in almost all higher ed residential situations, discipline is approached in one of two unsuccessful ways:

1. Live-in staff tend to be the kind of people who enjoyed extracurricular activities when they were in high school and college, and they promote the approach that says everything will work out if the constituents come to recognize that staff is on their side, that staff has integrity, and that staff behaves as proper role models. If their supervisors support this approach, live-in staff respect their supervisors.
2. The administrators who supervise the live-in staff have a different approach: make policies; publicize the policies; ensure the live-in staff know the policies and expect them to also publicize the policies and then enforce them; unfortunately, what always accompanies this is the administrators expecting the live-in staff to report how enforcement is going, and then live-in staff is rewarded or punished based on how well the residents are behaving, so when misbehavior goes up, administrators punish live-in staff, but administrators never have any solutions for changing misbehavior besides "remind them of the rules." But when live-in staff punish residents, administrators punish live-in staff.

This is the primary reason why dormitories are so prone to chaos, disruption and damage. Schools brag about how people in dorms get higher grades than people who live off campus, but anyone paying attention knows it's only because it's easier to get to class and harder to become lazy stoners.
In this system, everyone from the residents to the live-in staff to the many layers of supervisors operates on the practice of expecting those 'above' them to first demonstrate honor and respect. This is the equivalent of rewarding the tyranny of the toddler. Yes, people are inspired by high-integrity, honorable people, but in addition to good-hearted people being inspired by their better angels,

Wrong reasoning. There is no consequences for bad behaviour, therefore it persist.

honorable folks also inspire bad-hearted people to take advantage of that honor.

Only if honorable people don't punish bad people.

In long term bad people do get punished:

Givers vs. Takers: The Surprising Truth about Who Gets Ahead

A colleague asks you for feedback on a report. A LinkedIn connection requests an introduction to one of your key contacts. A recent graduate would like an informational interview. New research from Wharton management professor Adam Grant reveals that how you respond to these requests may be a...

knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu

I used many techniques to produce the results I got, but the most necessary fundamental one was to start off every year by giving the residents a very brief overview of the rules, asserting that ignorance would be no excuse, asserting that it was their own personal responsibilities to familiarize themselves with all the rules, warn them that they would be given a couple days before no-excuses enforcement would begin -- explaining that, when confronted, the first expectation would be to immediately comply with any directive given by a student staff member, and then subsequently comply with showing up for a hearing with me, where punishment would generally start off small but acknowledgement of what they did wrong would be required if they didn't want to be referred for higher-level adjudication. My staffs were always trained to listen to no excuses, and especially to refrain from any attempt on the part of a miscreant to turn it around to ad hominem attacks on the staff member, on me, on the residence life department, the school, their parents, the government or on God Himself. "Do not fall into the trap of thinking that you need to justify the level of authority you have. Just identify what they're doing wrong, inform them you'll be making a report, expect compliance and then note in your report what level of compliance you received. And walk away. If sustained noncompliance puts others at risk, get in touch with me, and I'll decide if the police are to be brought into the situation."

You bring consequnces for bad behaviour and it's suddenly stops.

What worked was to entirely refrain from expecting myself or my staff to prove we were worthy of being complied with.

Competence is most reasonable requirement for follower to ask. Otherwise, you risk you death, therefore testing potential leaders of what are they made of is critical.

The same applies in the God:Christ:husband:wife:childrenets hierarchical configuration. Critical Theories teach the notion that, if one has a grievance, one needn't submit. The results are all around us. Feral pets. Feral children. Feral wives and girlfriends. Feral men. And at some level we must be justifying it all as Yah's and Yeshua's fault for failing to sufficiently role model for us how we should be behaving.

Not good model since parent-child relationship isn't voluntary.

What builds ferality is state saving people from their idioicy.

The bottom line, though, is that They do not owe us such demonstrations, nor do husbands owe their wives the practice of receiving a seal of approval from those women about how they're leading. Certainly, being an honorable, integritous, respectable, godly man is preferable to their alternatives, but part of leading as the head of one's family is also to simply expect one's woman to submit and provide the consequences when she doesn't.

Leaders are still being tested. One of red pill conclusion is that women will never stop testing her man. There is good reason for that.

He could become weak and therefore dangerous to follow leader.