When I was a child, we were a nation at war although it didn’t always feel like it. It was an unpopular war. This had an effect of defining what “Left” and “Right” meant. Right was law-and-order; you did what you were told. Left meant you were always ready for that confounding moment when obeying the law meant doing something immoral, and your moral code imposed on you an obligation to flout the law. “Civil disobedience” they called it.

The division started when people on The Left stopped being ready to flout the law, and started being eager to flout it. It intensified with the Watergate Scandal, which culminated in an impeachment showdown, with Congress against the President. The Law against The Law. It was a confusing time.

Not so confusing, though, as now. The Left remains eager to flout the law, but this eagerness to apply critical thinking where their opposition had abandoned it — it’s simply not there. Perhaps it was mythical in the first place. “Joe Biden’s running, don’t even question it because Kamala is dead weight” replaced, in a matter of minutes, with “Kamala is the best thing since sliced bread and so is Stable-Boy Tim.” Nobody can sell the idea that this twisty-turn, in a single day, en masse, is the result of individual thinking. Nobody tries. They just memory-hole all the relevant events and pretend it never happened.

And the masks! It’s 2024, you’re still walking around with a mask?

How obedient.

It seems we’re learning something about civil disobedience, about rebelling. Seems the human genome can only rebel against one authority figure. Once the rebellion is entirely triumphant and the old authority figure is displaced by a new one, you get complete unquestioning obedience, up to and past the milepost of immorality, into the realm of the absurd.

I’m no longer a spring chicken. I have a head full of gray hair, my Dad died last fall and now my brother and I are senior patriarchs of the clan. And yes, when I sleep wrong I’m in pain for the next two or three months. Feeling the years. But it seems my entire lifespan has been sucked up into a single lesson about authority, law-and-order, and rebellion. I’m still not entirely clear on what I’ve been learning for it looks like nobody else is clear on it either.

But from all I’ve seen of it, the rebellion is not, after all, rigidly attached to any kind of moral code. From what I’ve seen, it’s just rocking the boat for the sake of rocking the boat. The very act of substituting one authority figure with another, is the whole point. Once that’s done, without fail, obedience is restored. More strident, unthinking and slavish than any obedience that came before.

And throughout it all, and beyond, the “rebels” think they’re rebels. Fine, upstanding, moral-code-living, stout hearted badass rebels.

It’s almost cute.

Somewhere I saw one of these “man in the street interview” clips, and the question had something to do with feminism and The Patriarchy. The guy with the microphone allowed the radicalized social-studies girl, who seemed very nice by the way, no facial piercings or green/purple hair, to sound off with all the familiar bumper sticker slogans and college-words. “Patriarchy” must have been one of those, because he had an interesting question: What would a “matriarchy” look like?

Oh, well I suppose guys could still go to school, but women would graduate more often and they’d get the better and higher-paying jobs. Guys would still work, and doing the lower, menial jobs the females don’t want to do. Something like that.

Follow-up: What’s the difference between that, and what we have?

Um, err, ah, uh…don’t know.

This got me to thinking. Here and there in The Bible, we have some entries that seem to establish the male sex as dominant, coming into existence first, etc. Following those, there are wrinkles and contradictions, along with hundreds of years of biblical scholars trying to noodle these things out and make sense of them. What if it’s an error in interpretation?

Civilization after civilization, we see men dominating — “on paper,” you might say. A populace elects or installs some kind of council or legislature, all or mostly men. But very few things get done that men would want, and women wouldn’t. A lot of things get done that women want, that men don’t.

It is what we should expect to see happen. Beth Dutton said it best: They have all the pussy and half the money.

Suppose we just presume God made women first, and see if all the things we’ve observed about life, and our place in the world, fall into place. Just picture it.

God would realize in the immediate aftermath, assuming She didn’t see it coming ahead of time, that there’s something going on here, at worst an architectural oopsie, or at best, an unfinished critical task. Woman would require a helpmate, one capable of getting her pregnant. And so God assembles a response team of Her most trusted and capable angels. The satisfaction of Woman is a core requirement, but this is difficult to achieve and many prototypes are discarded over this.

Perhaps this is what drives the human equation: Chasing the approval of women, which is like chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I said all things we know about the world, might fall into place. Looks like I was on to something.

But we’re here, so the trusted and capable angels must have made some progress.

Now picture the meeting when they finally come up with a release candidate. He is ready to have life breathed into him, impressive, masculine, reclining or sitting on some raised platform, the skulls and bones of his predecessors beneath his feet. Unveiled with flourish, along with new pronouns: He/Him/His.

God has questions, naturally.

Woman can live with this?

Yes, absolutely.

She’ll be satisfied and happy?

Erm, probably not.

But he’ll be an adequate helpmate for her?

Yes Boss. We made sure.

Why should she tolerate his presence?

We have imbued him with some advantages. He is taller than she is, so he can reach things she can’t. Also he’s somewhat stronger, so he can open jars she can’t open and do other things she can’t do.

Very good! What else?

His relationship with the flora and fauna is different from hers. He doesn’t creep out at the sight of bugs and other wiggly things, so he can smash those and make sure she doesn’t have to deal with them. We’re thinking later on, they can start to eat meat because he is fleet of foot and can chase things. His peripheral vision is more sensitive to movement, he doesn’t need as much sleep, and he can withstand greater extremes of heat and cold. In short, we have made him into a hunter.

So, he’ll teach her how to hunt?

No, he can’t teach her anything. Our plan is that he’ll do the hunting.

Yes that might work. What about money?

He can make more of it than she can, in less time. But we’ve planted in him an inexplicable desire to give it all to her.

Excellent! So between the two of them, who’s in charge?

He’ll think he is. But we’ve set him up to acquiesce to pretty faces and long eyelashes, and do whatever she says. If all else fails, we’ve put a “joystick” on him, if she plays with that he’ll agree to everything.

And he’ll bring her what she needs?

Yes, as fast as he can.

And he’ll tell her the truth?

Yes.

About everything? All things great and small?

Yes, and yes.

So for example, if she asks him if this fig leaf makes her ass look fat…?

At this last question, there is a hurried exchange of glances among this panel of angels. Much murmuring, many worried faces. After some tense moments, the impromptu discussion comes to an end and the head angel addresses the Heavenly Host once more:

Sorry, God. We’ll have another candidate in the morning.