When I was young my father ran a fleet service out of his service station. It was basically a tow-truck business minus the tow-truck. Stranded motorists would call and he would go help them on the spot. If he couldn’t fix the problem there he could arrange for a tow truck to bring it back to his mechanic’s bay. Most of the issues were very basic; he would go out and change a flat tire, jump start a dead battery, or unlock a car with the keys locked inside. To unlock cars he carried a tool called a slim jim much like is pictured to the left. It is essentially a kind of lock pick for cars. I bring this up because to a police officer some of the things he carried could look suspiciously like a burglary kit. The same tool which can help a stranded motorist is also used by car thieves.
However, owning or even carrying a slim jim didn’t turn my father into a car thief. They are just a tool; how the user utilizes the tool determines whether it is a positive or a negative. Likewise when most people think of game they think of pickup artists. There is some reason for this since from what I can tell pickup artists are generally the best teachers of game out there. If you really want to understand the intricate details of game, they are probably your best bet. But this doesn’t mean that learning or using game will make you a pickup artist. Athol Kay uses game to improve his marriage and teaches other men how to do the same. This post is about how a pastor might benefit from understanding game. Some of the links for more explanation of the theory go to pickup oriented sites, so bear that in mind when deciding on whether or not to follow them (especially Roissy/Heartiste). Also, please note that I don’t claim to be a game expert. While I understand the basics, the truly elegant implementation ideas are more likely to come from those commenters who have more experience with game.
In the discussion following my post on Focus on the Family lionizing unwed mothers, the question was raised why 90%+ of churches today have replaced biblical teaching with feminist thought. The generally accepted answer was that since women are the primary attendees and are seen as the primary source of church revenue, churches have done this out of fear of hurting their business model. As Brendan pointed out on a separate thread, the right answer is for churches not to be afraid of teaching the Bible as it actually is, and they should be willing to accept a smaller but sincere congregation. If pastors had enough conviction in their faith and were willing to stand up to women in the congregation, this would not be an issue. However, as we have seen such pastors are vanishingly rare.
But how could game help a pastor teach the Bible as it is without cowering in fear of the majority of the congregation? Commenter Deti described the basic problem perfectly, which we can use as an example. Here is what happens when a pastor teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands, or holds women accountable to their marriage vows (emphasis mine):
Pastors have to walk tightropes with their congregations. I’ve seen this happen so many times: some pastor says something which calls out women in general, or which criticizes women in general. And predictably, the women are up in arms. Letters are written. Names are called. Threats and recriminations are exchanged, privately and publicly. Meetings are held. Women show up to weep, wail, complain and gnash their teeth at the pastor, his supporters, his detractors, the church’s men. The pastor and the men are called sexist, incompetent, pigs, uncaring, unfeeling, heartless, and “incapable of showing Jesus’ love and understanding” to the less fortunate of the flock. Women threaten to leave the church. Men (prompted by their harridan wives) also meekly say they’ll leave if things don’t improve right away. Families get in the pastor’s face, demanding things change or by golly, they’ll stop writing those tithe checks. And inevitably a few families leave.
Most pastors will see this as a test of their leadership; are they able to hold the congregation together during times of strife. Being afraid in general to displease women, they then tend to find a way of compromising. Maybe we can say all of the right words on marriage but not actually hold women accountable. Maybe we can find a way to pretend we still believe in the doctrine but explain it away as something no longer applicable in modern times. This is of course exactly what is happening.
A pastor who knew game however would understand that this isn’t a test of his leadership, it is a challenge of his authority. It is testing to see if he is fit to be a pastor and lead the congregation. This is what is called in game a “fitness test”, or in more coarse parlance a “shit test”. This is a test to see if the man will bend as a leader (he “passes” by not doing so). It is a test of his strength. Will he leave his frame (this is the Bible and it is the Word of God) to placate their emotions? Or will he maintain his authority as the pastor of the congregation. Roissy’s 15th commandment applies perfectly here:
Maintain your state control
You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.
The truly counterintuitive part of fitness tests is the woman wants you to remain in control despite her often desperate efforts to knock you out of the frame of leader. She needs to know you are strong and in charge. She can’t find this out by asking you; every leader will claim they are as solid as a rock. She needs to test you to see if you are the real deal, or just another faker in a robe (in the case of a pastor). When you pass, she is actually very pleased that you did so. This is why all husbands have experienced that madening moment when they gave into their wife’s emotional demand in an effort to make her happy, only to have her become even more furious with him than before. Moreover, she typically is unaware she is actually doing this. Roissy discusses this in the context of a man meeting a woman in a nightclub:
Remember, the worst/best shit tests are those that FOOL THE GIRL herself. If she doesn’t even know what she’s doing, how will *you* know when she’s weighing your stones? The “hold my drink” shit test frequently falls into this category of “subliminal but deadly”. She may honestly need you to hold her drink. But you still shouldn’t do it.
I like this example because on the surface it seems incredibly petty. Why not help the woman out? The problem for the man in the nightclub/drink scenario is he would be following her lead during a time in the relationship when he has yet to establish himself as the leader. This is especially problematic because feminism teaches women to always try to be in control to show they are the equal of men. Later in the relationship this small issue might be of little importance, but at this stage it is critical that he not follow her lead. The fitness test example Deti provided is of course much more serious, but the basic response required is no different; the pastor must not relinquish his authority. He must maintain the frame of leadership, bringing the weeping women into his frame instead of joining theirs. If he does this without losing his frame as a confident leader, he will find the majority of the women in the congregation will be surprisingly pleased with him.
However, this is where it gets counterintuitive again. If he is being strong in an effort to please the women, it is unlikely to work because they will sense this. He needs to truly be unafraid of their reaction to be able to pass the fitness test. Roissy explains in his 16th commandment:
Never be afraid to lose her
You must not fear. Fear is the love-killer. Fear is the ego-triumph that brings abject loneliness. You will face your fear. You will permit it to pass over and through you. And when your ego-fear is gone you will turn and face your lover, and only your heart will remain. You will walk away from her when she has violated your integrity, and you will let her walk when her heart is closed to you. She who can destroy you, controls you. Don’t give her that power over yourself. Love yourself before you love her.
Note that when applied to the Word of God and women in the congregation, this is the same exact advice that Brendan offered. The pastor shouldn’t fear teaching the Word because it might offend those he is teaching. Only a craven weakling would fear teaching the Word of God because some women might cry and complain. These women are actually doing the congregation a great service. They are testing for a fake, a pastor who has no business being up there. Unfortunately 99% of the pastors today are failing this test and cowering to the women.
Think about it; how craven do you have to be to be a pastor and yet afraid to teach the Word of God for fear of offending someone? Every pastor who fails this test is obviously unfit to lead.
Note: In part two of this series I will offer a hypothetical method a pastor might use to regain frame in the situation Deti described. Those with game experience are free to suggest how they would respond if they were the pastor in that situation, and I may use one or more of the commenter’s suggestions in part two.
Slim Jim image from Pro-Lock
I guess this means that the pastors dont know the subject that they are teaching to the degree that their own study has had the effect of transforming them. It is the blind leading the blind. When someone really has knowledge he would never dream of diluting his teaching and most often he will not even look for students (since sincere students are almost, and some say more, hard to find as masters). There is a Zen story of a master who would serve his (live in) students a bowl of soup every day, but he would use the same amount of ingredients no matter the number of students. Only the sincere students would stay and the rest would leave.
A pastor who passes the test will set a good example for the men in his congregation. Many of them probably could use one.
Interestingly, there is (scattered) anecdotal evidence of Western women in Europe, the UK and to a lesser extent in the US falling for orthodox Muslim men, wearing the veil, going to mosques, etc. and some of what they say is along the lines of “These Muslims are real men.” Islam is inherently more masculine than Christianity anyway, even if you could make modern Christianity somehow less feminized, its internal issues would still be a problem.
Here’s a good technical point for most people:
A crisis of “Leadership” is *after* something has failed to be accomplished. Goals were set and those goals were missed.
A challenge to “Authority” is when a set of Goals are set or some underlying structure is directly attacked.
When “Leadership” is challenged, Logic can be used to defend the decisions.
When “Authority” is challenged, Logic has little place in defending. You must assert and hold to your precepts, enforcing them at whatever cost is necessary. Once Authority has been called into question, there is *no* way to come out cleanly. You simply must take the consequences to enforcing the boundaries. (You can mitigate some by inter-personal skills, but you have to weather them)
Most don’t like to think of them as challenges to Authority *because* it means someone will be losing in the situation.
[D: Extremely well put.]
My Pastor recently gave a two week sermon series about what men need, then what women need. He was really really nice to the ladies about what men need and how to go about it: Companionship, Sex, Honor. I didn’t disagree with those but his tone was very soft towards the women. He used the submission passages from Ephesians 5 but literally danced around them….appeared fearful, and ended up teaching that both partners must be submissive. I really had no idea what the point was for women to be doing or how to show honor. The funny thing was he said for men, sex was #1 desire and for women #25. I almost wrote him an email about that great fallacy in the church. The men have groups for porn addiction but where are the support groups for the single women with handsome masculine non-Christian men initiating constantly at their door?
I know that last sentence could seem harsh – “handsome” (groomed), “masculine” (appears and has mannerisms that are male rather than feminine), and “initiating” (not orbiting, believes he is worthy of the female’s attention, does not ask out in back-door manners, i.e. email). Given the understanding you have of female attraction, I’m sure you can identify why sexual polarity does not exist much among single men/women of the church. The very feminine women cannot be attracted to what appears to be a feminized version of a man who “lays down his life” with $100 dinners and constant texts and hour long phonecalls, although she recognizes his excellent character. Meanwhile, alot of the women are more masculine anyway…..and those are the ones competing for the most masculine single men.
You may not agree with me, but I go to a church with >500 single men and women and this is what I see happening in my city as well.
Woof says:
November 12, 2011 at 12:11 pm
“A pastor who passes the test will set a good example for the men in his congregation. Many of them probably could use one.”
The trouble is, so many have already left in disgust. As more and more men leave, the feminized pastors double-down on their gender betrayal leading to even greater contempt from those men still extant. This is a VERY vicious circle.
Feminist: “How dare you say I ought to submit/obey/moderate/follow the commands of God?”
PastorPimp: [wise, knowing look] “If you are having a crisis of faith, I am happy to help you.”
Reframe it completely in one go. Feminst, at this point, will most likely choose between repeating her question, criticizing the pastor directly, arguing with the Word of God, or complaining about her husband. If the latter, I’m not sure what to do – he would need to upbraid her without making the husband look beta, but I don’t quite see how to do that without consulting with the husband privately and helping him learn the basics (which many churchgoing betas will not accept). Otherwise:
PastorPimp: “[Your complaint] is a test of your faith. You have the chance now to live up to that faith and live by the Word of God in trying circumstances. He would expect no less of His congregation, as would I.”
Challenge her, and imply that to be part of the herd/flock/popular kids, she must conform. Indirectly, put the onus on her. In effect, respond to the fitness test by acting as though she put it on herself, and make clear that your approval, and the approval of those who follow you, will be on the line. Now, if she does not comply, she will most likely complain about her feeeeeeelings and/or threaten to leave the congregation. The correct response is not to even acknowledge that a challenge exists, simply blow past it. If she’s complaining about her feeeeeelings, I would know how to deal with a girlfriend, but not with a congregation member, so someone else will have to fill that one in.
PastorPimp: [If she threatens to leave] “That is up to you, and may God bless.” Wave hand dismissively, return to work.
One problem most pastors will run into, is the desire to think of it like a logical question about theology. They’ll normally be 2-3 steps into a Theology discussion before they realize what’s actually going on. At that point, it’s rough to switch gears, even if it needs to be done.
“Teaching the Bible as it is” says Dalrock. So what, precisely – I need to be brought up to speed – is the going rate for selling your daughter into slavery these days? No, please don’t rush and explain how I have entirely misunderstood the passage – I am sure I have.
I am reminded of the diemma in Plato’s Euthyphro. Is the good good because God says it is, or is the good good because it is good? The Bible clearly needs some interpretation – and the Catholics, who never had any truck with the old testament, perhaps wisely decided it was best for that decision to be left to their theologians and not to the congregation.
I am also reminded when I was Stateside, attending some lecture where a female pastor proudly referred to some male-centric hymn which she explained had been feminised by a considerate male member (read beta) of the congregation. Never forgot that, yet that was a quarter of a century ago. This problem therefore has deep roots.
You use phrases such as “feminist thought” and “displease women” and other variations throughout this Post.You,at first, imply that feminists and women are two different groups.Then,you repeatedly point out instances where women( not feminsts) are prompting inappropriate behavior amongst preachers and other churchy types.What is the difference between women and feminists?In church,or otherwise?I assume you are aware of the phrase “sin of omission”? Are you aware of the concept of “woman-pedalization [by] omission”?
More Old Testament, not less, would surely help what ails modern Christianity. Assuming we can leave out stonings for violating the Sabbath, and what not.
As one of those who left in disgust, many years ago, I can attest to this. The rot goes all the way through. Many pastors need to have their authority challenged, and if they are leading the congregation off a cliff then they need to be put in their place.
My sister’s church is an excellent example of this. A couple of years ago the minister himself went through a very public divorce from his wife who was also a minster – of a different church. It was not one of those Evangelical churches where he could use that to his advantage and stand up in front of the congregation weeping crocodile tears like Jimmy Swaggert did while intoning “Ah have sinned!!!!”
How in the world can any leader of a “flock” stand up in front of his congregation and say “Well, I have no idea of how to keep my own marriage together, but here are a few Oprah-isms which might help you…” and be anything more than God’s little social-secretary to the congregation.
And, that congregation is dying. More than 50% of the congregation is over 65 – many of them over 75-80. The last time I was there – because my great niece had a part in the service – I saw maybe 5 men between late teens and late 50s out of an attendance of a couple of hundred. It was mostly women, a few old men, and a few kids up to college age.
“..permit it to pass over and through you..” This is a quote from ‘Dune’ ,a series of sci-fi books by Frank Herbert. All references to ‘Dune’ should be respectfully noted. Except the books after the first three. Like ‘The Godfather III’, they don’t really count.
[D: Roissy is clearly inspired by the litany against fear, but the quote is from Roissy, not Herbert.]
I agree with the premise and think this is a great post.
However, the challenges, when you are dealing with traditional Christians, are extremely formidable.
For a very recent example, see here: http://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/more-on-mens-rights/#comment-5115
Yet again, basic lessons learned in Game theory about female sexuality are denied, denied, denied. This is what you are up against. It’s quite formidable denial, really.
What region or subculture in the United States is likely to have good churches for men, with old school non-feminized pastors? My very few data point ls include an evangelical artistic (sic) community I met in rural GA. Another one I thought were Duggars, who live in NW AR.
[D: Good question. From what I can tell they are exceedingly rare to nonexistent.]
Traditional Catholics (the ones who like the old Latin Mass).
“..the quote is from Roissy..” You’re right. I should have stated that Roissy was using a quote from a character in ‘Dune’. Four ‘Dune’ references in one Post/Comment !
“More Old Testament, not less, would surely help what ails modern Christianity.”
———————————————————-
The Old Testament, or the Jewish Tanakh is a book to promote jewish ethnic identity and nationalism. Israeli archaeologists have acknowledged it isn’t a 100% historically accurate book.
What ails European American christians is simply forgetting the knowledge and common sense of our own European ancestsors. Europeans have tens of thousands of years of our own history to examine. There are lots of their own historical books that Europeans can look to. Anyways, Europeans have been christians for only a little over 1% of our existence.
Well, I hope there is someone like that out there.
Thanks, Dalrock for getting this one off the ground. Did not realize you had already got started on this one before the thread in which I piped up.
An interesting offshoot of this discussion would be how would a Christian/Catholic man use game to fulfill his spiritual leadership role at home. Again the basic principle would hold: the man has to keep his frame, but I imagine that the privacy of the marriage could sure open up the possibilities as to what could be said and how testing might be responded to.
The point is, the moral teaching of the Gospels uncut can be enfeebling. That’s why for a long time Europe (and America) supplemented it with Classical literature, pagan epics, etc. And there’s a lot more to the OT than just Jewish ethnic nationalism. “Not 100% accurate” makes me lulz. So, what, 99%? 98%? Anyway, even if it’s all made up, there’s some good stuff in there. I don’t believe a word of the Odyssey but I (we) sure can profit from it.
@Odds
Outstanding. Thanks. I would not have made it so elegant and simple.
This also fits with Looking Glass’ point:
Men tend to assume a challenge from women is a challenge in logic, despite obvious cues that it isn’t. I’m not sure why we do that, but it ties us up and trips us at the worst possible moments. Game gives us the tools to spot these issues and practice for these scenarios ahead of time.
[white knight]I’m just curious what the consensus here is on female rationality. Is that that women are inherently irrational? Is that they are capable of reason but that other aspects of their being often override/overwhelm their reason? How great do people think is the difference between male and female rationality? Men are a little more rational on average or vastly so? Does all this apply to most women or just the ones in the right tail of the bell curve? To most women most of the time or just when they are hormonally challenged?[/white knight]
@Opus
It is a fair question. I’ll defer to those reading who know the answer to this. I’m no more a pastor than I am a pickup artist. I’m attempting to show how one could benefit from the insight of the other. What I will say is if the pastor believes the text is relevant and shies away because he fears the weeping and/or disapproval of women, he really is being craven. This of course still opens the door for some rationalization on his part.
Interestingly game could also inform him that the points in question really are still relevant, based on the understanding of human nature. These points are being denied in a false claim of pragmatism; now we know better. But game tells us that those who thought they knew better were in error. I think the idea of using game to establish doctrine is extremely problematic, so I have focused on how a pastor could use game to feel free to preach the doctrine he truly believes in. What game can do is allow the pastor to understand where others have discarded doctrine in error based on a false sense of scientific truth and pragmatism. To what degree and how a pastor should come to such determinations based on pragmatism in the first place is beyond my own area of expertise.
Don’t look for equity and equal treatment from religious figures. They have been nagged to death over the decades and have an incentive to keep the peace rather than do what’s right.
D, there is no “answer” to Opus’ question. Living absolutley according to Biblical teaching is impossible, both because it is contradictory and because so many of the things it teaches are either morally repugnant (stone those who skip the Sabbath) to us today or else enfeebling (turn the other cheek). So, the “solution” in years past was to come up with elaborate rationalizations/interpretations of those passages that allowed us not to follow them to the letter. It worked out OK for a while but the frontal assault in Biblical religion that began ~500 years ago eventually bore significant fruit once it was coupled with the (inevitable) descent of modern philosophy into anything-goes nihilism
You seem to want a return to all the good points of the Bible without the bad, and you think modern Christians have de-fanged it far beyond what was actually necessary. Hey, so do I. The problem is, once you start picking and choosing you’ve set a precedent. Also, it’s actually counterproductive to make any of this explicit for obvious reasons and once the veil is lifted it’s well nigh impossible to replace.
I have no solution for any of this, FWIW.
Good post but the illusion of power never contradicts real power.
Vox just posted what real power does to women,
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/11/dont-talk-just-kill.html
Wow, anger is flowing freely here. Two points to consider – 1) the full image of God is represented in men and women together (Genesis 1). So women, though many of you seem to truly dislike them, represent a significant part of the image of God. 2) Jesus, rising above the culture of his time, always treated women with respect. Always.
In answer to a previous question, many women are able to think and act rationally. But I doubt that anyone here will acknowledge that fact.
I’ve come to believe that Paul really understood the differences between men and women. He told men to “love your wives” and women “respect your husbands”. To really understand this passage and the use of the words “love” and “respect” in these contexts requires knowledge of the nature of men and women. When understood that way, it is easy to see that this passage is not in conflict with game. Game for men is about living in contexts that command respect from women; once a man has earned that respect from his wife, it’s not so hard for her to act in ways that earn his love for her. The two are complementary ways of taking the nature of men and women into account.
Such knowledge used to be passed down through our families and our culture, and served as the basis for marriage 1.0 in which both men and women put their basic biology of sexual mores under control for the greater good of society. In the lack of such knowledge today, it shouldn’t be surprising that pastors preaching around this will often be poorly received. First century commentary on the male-female dynamic that is still relevant, who woulda thunk it? Well the “submission” stuff will have to be tackled, but that verse is a good start for our understanding.
@CG
I love how you argue that women are rational while using emotion and shaming language in lieu of an actual argument.
With that said, I do believe women can act rationally. It is a core assumption of mine. This doesn’t change the fact that men shouldn’t respond to emotion with a rational argument.
Dalrock. this is off topic, but a worry… Bloomberg is giving consumer advice as to where to divorced.
http://www.bloomberg.com/money-gallery/2011-11-10/best-and-worst-states-for-getting-divorced.html
@Dalrock
I, of course, had my tongue in my cheek. It would of course be unfair, even for a heathen such as myself to attempt to dismiss a set of books as large and as influential as The Bible by picking up on one of its less, how shall I say, comprehensible passages. (British English remains steeped in the language of the King James – and Shakespeare). As someone said of me (I forget who) on the previous thread, Opus lives in England, and, he continued, it is very different there: Indeed it is. Nominally most people are CofE but they rarely attend Church save for Births, Weddings and Funerals. Church going on a Sunday tends to be a very sober and middle-class affair and I cannot imagine English women influencing their Vicars in the way American women seem able to dominate their Pastors – and my telling of the story about the re-written Hymn was perhaps the first clear indication that I came across of what I now see as the bid-for-power and domination which is Feminism. You will note that the Hymn was re-written by a man to placate or ingratiate himself with (as it happened) a rather cute female – she either couldn’t or wouldn’t do it herself: So much for female empowerment.
Actually, I don’t see the danger in responding to an emotion with a rational argument. The danger is in expecting the rational argument to be persuasive to your audience. To the extent that anyone harbors that expectation, he is himself being irrational.
[D: Fair point.]
I think it is a good general principle to ignore any comments that begin with “Wow”.
Random Angeleno, agreed.
I did make a rational argument – the Bible says that women are part of the image of God and Jesus treated women with respect – which seemed valid in a discussion of women and the church. Although I will admit to emotional language too, as some of the comments about women in this thread (and on this site) rile me a bit, because they seem to direct so much anger toward women.
“Where is your condemnation of women who laugh when a man is castrated?”
Wait, what?
@CG:
Dalrock gives you too much credit. You’re not even discussing the topic at hand. You could have said “Fluffy bunnies are cute” and been just as on topic.
As to “Game” and Christianity, you really cannot read 1 Corinthians outside of the context of the nature of males & females. After going back and rereading it, after time in this neck of the internet, it just makes so much more sense. Who’d have thought the commands would be to cover the hardest things to do in a relationship? It’s like Paul had great insight or something. No way he could be the most influential writer in human history.
zed says “And, that congregation is dying. More than 50% of the congregation is over 65 – many of them over 75-80. ”
Maybe, internet dating helps them: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060502/Widowed-millionairess-abandoned-Gambian-husband-wants-fortune.html
In some ways, Game for pastors is like Game for good-looking men—or other men who already possess significant alpha cred. The Game toolbox is quite extensive and designed, in part, to build attraction by communicating a man’s alpha-ness—but to the extent that a man already possesses any combination of certain alpha characteristics (i.e., good-looks, fame, wealth, high status, etc) he doesn’t need to avail himself of all the tools. Just a few basics, depending on how alpha he is.
With this in mind, the idea of frame control is the most important advice given here. It is, in my experience, the best bit of Game advice for men who already have alpha cred. It is very rare that I have to neg a girl or AMOG a guy and I don’t always pass shit tests with flying colors—but I cannot remember the last time I lost control of the frame. I think this probably also goes for pastors. They already have built-in alpha cred because of their leadership—maintaining the frame is probably 90 percent of the battle here.
Additionally, controlling the frame is key because it signals strength to the people in the congregation who support the pastor, as well as his feminist adversaries. A preacher who confronts feminism will have a many detractors, but also many people in the church who will rally around him. People prefer to back a strong horse over a weak one—the churchified are no different.
@ Odds
Didn’t see your comment at first—but it’s fantastic:
An excellent example of the alpha subtly but firmly dictating the terms of the conversation. This is a textbook example of reframing.
I just now fully appreciated the irony in CG reading the following and responding the way she did:
All I can say is I swear she isn’t a sock puppet (at least by me). I’m not smart enough to make this kind of stuff up.
Far too idealistic. A church is a business like any other, and requires paying patrons to subside. Taking idealistic positions in the name of God is all well and good, but the ensuing squalor is unavoidable. Incentives matter, and biological incentives matter the most. History has proven that women cannot be convinced to deny their nature, regardless of how masterfully we propose our philosophical frameworks. An ideology without law is a dog without fangs. Women as a whole will never vote themselves less power, whether it be in the family, government, or the economy. Once the entitlements have been granted, it becomes very difficult to take them away. Modern females live in a literal utopia, where they can act upon every base instinct with little consequence. We cannot fight such a base desire with reasoned argument, much as we cannot convince a baby to avoid electrical sockets. Both are drives compelled by nature, free of the burden of risk analysis and consequential reflection till the damage is done. Alas, experience is the best teacher.
Dalrock, I am curious of your opinion regarding how a traditional Christian marriage can be re-instituted in the current political and cultural environment. Do you sincerely believe this can be achieved voluntarily, when every institution hangs Damocles’ sword over men’s heads?
It is all about holding frame. Which is ironic, because most feminists worship their therapists — and therapy (trust me on this, I’m in the field) is 95% holding frame and being consistent. Flicking the responsibility back while still being in the same room.
Of course, the men who invented Therapy, (Freud and Jung) were pick up artists.
I posed a number of points and questions to various readers here 2 days ago and have since become swamped with work so I was unable to keep up if anyone had responded. I also failed to save in favorites the comments I had last left off on, so if anyone did respond and wants me to see your comments, please link to them here for me. THANKS!
“Game for Pastors” – at first I thought you would be writing about pastors poaching on their congregation women – wives, baby mamas and otherwise. That is, afterall, what “pastor game” means in the Black Church, if any of you are familiar with it. They got more than just good sangin’ and dancin’ throwin’ down Sunday. LOL!
Between this and the last blog about the carousel and the previous ones about infidelity, porn, divorce, etc, I can tell you Dalrock, that no matter how well meaning you are, and I believe that you are, NONE of this is going to change the fundamental makeup of the population that you are directing this towards.
Individualism and freedom (code words for “feewings”) are just too important to Americans. More important than family building, and CERTAINLY more important than staying married for the sake of the kids, at the expense of their own personal happiness. And that goes for both sexes.
Family and community just does not matter. Not one iota. Sex and porn are more important. And that goes for both sexes.
I appreciate what you are all doing, but all this “alpha beta sex value etc.” analysis gives me a headache
Stand firm against the Rationalization Hamster… it’s been trouble before, you know.
Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” –Genesis 3:13
“Escoffier says:
I’m just curious what the consensus here is on female rationality.
…”
I’m not a consensus, but here are my thoughts to add to your survey:
I think Simon Baron Cohen is onto a good explanation. A simple explanation is available here:
http://eqsq.com/eq-sq-theory/
Basically, there a a number of different metrics on which we could measure people, and people will form some sort of a curve on any of those metrics. Different population samples will tend to form different curves.
Humans, in general, are capable of rational thought (though rational action often eludes even the best), but not all people are equally capable. Imagine a bell curve of sorts.
If we looked at only men, they would be on a bell curve – let’s imagine that it is centred on a ‘6’ (out of 10). If we looked at only women, they too would be on a bell curve – but that curve is not going to be the same curve as for men. It might be centred on a ‘4’, for example.
So rational women exist, and irrational men definitely exist, In fact, I’d argue that due to a lack of selecting for it, teaching it, or encouraging it in our society, the ability to process logically and make rational decisions is fairly low in general. But the male curve would be shifted more to the rational than the female curve. More men have those sorts of abilities – as evidenced by aptitudes for math/science/engineering/problem solving more often seen in men.
I think many other traits could be explained the same way. If I grab a man and a woman off the street, they may both be pretty irrational, or they may both be ASD. But if I had to guess, I’d put my money on the man being more rational than the women, since that is more common in the population as a whole.
I definitely think rational women exist. But I’ve known far fewer women with the basic aptitude to process formal logic than men, and I’ve known very few women with any ability to see her own issues and thought processes with any rationality.
I understand where many people simply give up and decide that women in general are irrational.
“TFH says:
But where is even a *small* organization of women opposing the stream of misinformation fed to women about how divorce will improve their lives, or that their ability to get pregnant at age 40 is still high? This propaganda outright harms women, but where are even the *small* groups of women organized to combat this misinformation?”
Maybe the more rational are just not the loud voices or the revolutionaries?
I, for one, had a bit of a crusading phase in my youth, but found it a not very useful way to reach people. I have instead retreated to living on my own terms, and being clear about it. If a topic comes up, I am happy to give my views, but I tend not to bother bringing them up on my own.
In part, I’m just not much of a shepherd. I’m fairly libertarian, and I don’t feel a moral urge to save people from their own stupidity. Especially when it comes to women making choices that will hurt them, I think the truth is out there pretty obviously for anyone with the brain to look at it. If anyone I know asks my advice, or brings up such a topic, I will speak out and give them the clear truth.
But I’m not going to start a women’s group to save stupid women from their own choices. I guess I just don’t care enough.
I’m not much of an organizer in general, but I am a lot more likely to go out of my way to stop people from harming others (infants, children, women who hurt men).
I definitely think that any woman who couldn’t get around to prioritizing children until she’s too old for them is probably better off not procreating. I don’t care how empty she feels later on – I’m glad that she doesn’t have kids to screw up.
@Kai:
There’s also a self-control aspect to rationality. Training, discipline and education of control play into it very much. At least in the context of that training.
You see it with military or hunting types. Their basic intelligence can be quite varied, but put in the arena where their training takes hold, they’re imminently rational about what is needed. (Better known as why it’s always good to have a survivalist on a camping trip)
So, there’s a good bit of training involved in it. But, on distribution, the “average” man will likely be more rational about a topic. The ability to subsume desire to necessity, though, is a different and more complex question.
Yes. I generally think that many things are trainable, but everyone starts at a different level of aptitude.
In some areas, you need the top performers – in others you just need a threshold.
It depends on what sort of rationality we need. In the context of general daily life, I think more men have a higher aptitude, plus they tend to have less emotional tendencies (which can overpower a rationality-capable mind), plus they tend to have better self control (in large part today because society has much higher expectations for men, and they are forced to train it).
When social security money runs out, you can try this ol geezer’s route;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/11/03/83-year-old-man-arrested-for-prostitution.html
“But the male curve would be shifted more to the rational than the female curve. More men have those sorts of abilities – as evidenced by aptitudes for math/science/engineering/problem solving more often seen in men.”
Being good at math does not mean one has emotional intelligence. Many, many, many otherwise “smart” people get suckered into irrational relationships out of naivety and being far too trusting. The relationship allows them to finally express their feewings (or finally get laid, another type of feewing) and they lose all sense of perspective. I’ve seen this happen to otherwise intelligent guys. Only direct experience or learning through the mistakes of others can enable one to use rationality in the otherwise irrational sexual marketplace.
The problem is that pastors with that level of game and dominance end up banging the adoring ladies of the congregation. Donn Moomaw says “Hi!”
“The problem is that pastors with that level of game and dominance end up banging the adoring ladies of the congregation. Donn Moomaw says “Hi!”
Very common in the Black Church. Exactly what I thought this particular blog was going to be about, because in the Black Church, hell yeah pastors got game. And some of them be hot as hell too! Chipotle and chocolate. Yum!
“I definitely think that any woman who couldn’t get around to prioritizing children until she’s too old for them is probably better off not procreating. I don’t care how empty she feels later on – I’m glad that she doesn’t have kids to screw up.”
Agreed. Especially that this desire to have kids and a family lasts for such a short window of time and then poof! its gone. During one’s 20s and early 30s when one is twittering (literally) in and out of relationships the desire to have kids strikes because one’s emotions and hormones are running high. One gets starry eyed thinking how cozy and comfy a marriage and family might be, but then once they get married and have the kids, they don’t want it anymore, they end up divorcing and then their kids become cock blocks to their new dating life, so why bother in the first place?
A few days ago I thought issueing licenses for childbearing after taking an extensive parenting course was the way to go. However I just watched about 50 youtube videos of news clips about parents abusing and killing their own kids so today my opinion is that NOBODY should be allowed to have kids in this country. That’s right, make it illegal.
Adult humans make me sick.
“Aqua Net says:
Being good at math does not mean one has emotional intelligence. ”
Of course not – where on earth would you get that idea? They are two very very different and unrelated scales.
As I mentioned, you could draw up a graph for all kinds of different traits in different populations. On some, the average woman would score higher than men, and on others it would be the opposite.
I make no claim about an all-around superiority of any group – just that the ability to process mathematical logic definitely has a gender bias.
Do not cast your logic before emotion; it will turn and rend you.
Opus-
You misapprehend the intent of the passage, even though the words are clear. If you truly want to understand the more incomprehensible aspects of some of these laws, I will be glad to oblige.
But your question is framed in a way that I daresay has more than a bit of “shit-test” about it. I see no need to dance to your tune if it is not an honest one. Snark is cheap.
Triumvar-
By crushing the white knights. One white knight is as dangerous as a dozen women.
The wimminz are what they are. And they will always make excuses for themselves and each other.
Balance will only be returned by destroying white-knighting.
Men should not bother appealing to womens’ logic to change things. Even though women can be VERY rational, they are not likely to be rational about relationships. You may as well try to train jungle cats to be vegetarians.
Accept the wild female nature for what it is. And destroy the white knights. Try to win them over to masculinity, if possible. But if they insist on being apostates to manhood, then fry those heretics!
How? Ridicule. Judgment. Shaming. Ostracization. AMOG-ing. Clearly, these are the weapons that women have used to secure the help of the manginas. The tools that coerce them in one direction can coerce them in another.
Treat no man as a man unless he is worthy of the title. Otherwise, treat him as the supplicating panty-piddler he is.
Force manginas to CHOOSE – approval from women, or approval from men. But not both. Sooner or later, being ostracized will have its effect. The mangina is TEN TIMES the enemy that any woman is.
“Being good at math does not mean one has emotional intelligence. ”
“Of course not – where on earth would you get that idea? They are two very very different and unrelated scales.”
Kai, you were talking about rationality. Emotional intelligence is rational. I see many irrational choices being made by men wrt women. You have to understand that many (most?) Americans approach relationships purely from a hormonal/emotional perspective. Perhaps nerdy math and engineering majors even moreso than the rest of us. Their feewings take over and they are goners!
“Pastors have to walk tightropes with their congregations. I’ve seen this happen so many times: some pastor says something which calls out women in general, or which criticizes women in general. And predictably, the women are up in arms. Letters are written. Names are called. Threats and recriminations are exchanged, privately and publicly. Meetings are held. Women show up to weep, wail, complain and gnash their teeth at the pastor, his supporters, his detractors, the church’s men. The pastor and the men are called sexist, incompetent, pigs, uncaring, unfeeling, heartless, and “incapable of showing Jesus’ love and understanding” to the less fortunate of the flock. Women threaten to leave the church.”
— I always thought men and women should have gender segregated churches, or differently religions altogether.
“You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.”
— He’s plagarizing David Deida now?
“D, there is no “answer” to Opus’ question. Living absolutley according to Biblical teaching is impossible, both because it is contradictory and because so many of the things it teaches are either morally repugnant (stone those who skip the Sabbath) to us today or else enfeebling (turn the other cheek). So, the “solution” in years past was to come up with elaborate rationalizations/interpretations of those passages that allowed us not to follow them to the letter. It worked out OK for a while but the frontal assault in Biblical religion that began ~500 years ago eventually bore significant fruit once it was coupled with the (inevitable) descent of modern philosophy into anything-goes nihilism.”
I have never read the Bible, but according to that desciption it seems to be sloppily written compared to same age works of philosophy, drama and poetry, discussing human nature, the human condition, spirituality, morality and so on (which I have not read in full either, but which at least are not open to the same easy criticism).
As Jack has taken me to task, (though I will not take up his kind offer of a correct understanding of that passage in, I think, Genesis) I feel compelled to elucidate further my first message, and specifically the reference to Plato. “Is the good good because God says it is good or is the good good because good is good?” No doubt Aquinas, or that subtle Doctor, Duns Scotus has an answer, however, I set it out the way Plato does:
If you say that the good is good because God says it is good then you must accept that if God said (e.g.) that Torture was good, then as a true xtian you would be a supporter of Torture. You cannot get out of that conundrum by saying that God would never be a supporter of Torture, for that would be to comit a Pettitio Pincipi (that is to say, a begging of the question). You must therefore accept that good is good because good is good, which means that every time you are faced with a decision in life you must make a moral judgement and that God is therefore not the source of good or of your judgement.
To take an example: Commandment 6 (or is it 7) enjoins us not to commit murder. No one disagrees with this proposition, yet people are frequently killed, say in war, or judicially, or in motor accidents or even on the operating-theater and then what about killing other animals? and so it goes on – yet the most literal reading of 6 would forbid these things; thus when the Pastor rails against women for Serial Monogomy, to their discomfort, they can surely find endless ‘wiggle room’ to justify their actions. One might just as easily have a commandment ‘Thou shalt kill’ and then find the exceptions.
Protestantism after all (and by the way the CofE is not, strictly speaking, a Protestant Church) is a response originating from Erasmus and Martin Luther; men who believed that the Catholics were not correctly interpreting the Bible (and I suppose the also the writings of ‘The Church Fathers’) and not taking the Bible sufficiently literally. For what it is worth I tend to the view that as between Protestants and Catholics, the Protestants have the better of the argument as they are the more consistent in taking by literal view of The Bible, yet inevitably they come off looking the more absurd.
Aqua Net wrote: ‘– I always thought men and women should have gender segregated churches, or differently religions altogether.’
It’s been heading that way for some time: Islam for men, Christianity for women.
@ Opus
Regarding the 6th Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” there is some historical evidence that the original Hebrew might translate better as, “Thouh shalt not murder,” which is a specific type of killing. There is also some evidence that the Commandment was originally, “Thou shalt not murder thy family members,” but I’m not a huge fan of that one. If the Bible is the revealed Word of God, it does present a bit of a dilemma for we the faithful that it can be translated improperly. Not going to get into that, but I do have a couple of thoughts to share.
When looking at the Bible and the many times God commanded one person or group to kill another person or group, there are some exceptions, but it is clear that “Obeying God” is itself Good, even when the specific command seems wrong to modern, mortal eyes. We have only the limited, imperfect perspective of morality, after all. Still, I’m reminded of the quote from Dogma, by the angel serving as the Voice of God (played by Alan Rickman): “Anyone who though they were speaking to God was actually speaking to me. Or, well, they were crazy, one or the other.” Makes for a bit of a dilemma for the honest faithful.
Personally, I see the Bible largely as a treatise on human nature – and human nature is inherently contradictory, sinful, and petty. That we have the capacity to rise above our nature does not change the base materials we’re working with. It’s only natural the Bible would reflect our nature, whether it was penned by God or not. Not going to get into a huge religious discussion here, simply because there are so many stories whose interpretation is best done as active discourse than as back-and-forth multi-page posts, and because I’m not out to convert anyone.
Speaking of translations: going back to the original point, with the Pastor, it helps to translate the feminist’s words into emotions, then address the emotion rather than the words.
“How dare you teach that we ought to submit/obey/etc…” should be heard as, “I feel threatened by change and challenges to my worldview.” Hence the response, “If you’re having a crisis of faith…”
“My husband needs to love me more before I’ll submit to him!” should be heard as, “I am afraid of submitting to an unworthy man, and do not know how to articulate the difference between ‘not feeling loved enough’ and ‘not feeling loved by an alpha.'” I briefly considered whether a woman married to an alpha might actually be afraid of appearing weak, but have to dismiss that possibility because most women readily submit to an alpha without a second thought. If she is asking this, she is framing the question as if the husband were a beta, so the response is to change that assumption and build up the husband. “Your husband is worthy of submission and respect [says the socially-proofed pastor], I think you will be surprised at the love and happiness you find.” It would help to follow up with the husband and help him out a bit, but even acting as though the husband is an alpha is a good start.
“To take an example: Commandment 6 (or is it 7) enjoins us not to commit murder. No one disagrees with this proposition, yet people are frequently killed, say in war, ”
‘Murder’ is not generally defined as equivalent to ‘kill’, but rather as a subset. Not all who kill murder. The commandment to not commit murder is not a wholesale prohibition against killing (given, especially, the amount of god-supported killing done at the time of the commandments).
“Especially that this desire to have kids and a family lasts for such a short window of time and then poof! its gone. During one’s 20s and early 30s when one is twittering (literally) in and out of relationships the desire to have kids strikes because one’s emotions and hormones are running high. One gets starry eyed thinking how cozy and comfy a marriage and family might be, but then once they get married and have the kids, they don’t want it anymore, they end up divorcing and then their kids become cock blocks to their new dating life, so why bother in the first place?”
I don’t agree with your timescale. People who don’t really want kids might have some starry thoughts about it that go away after time, but the same doesn’t run for everyone. Many women who don’t have kids in their 20-30s find themselves desperate for them in their 40s (hence the massive industry).
Unless it’s just that people’s desire for kids is ruined by the reality of having those kids, at whatever age. I think this is true for some, but not for all.
I think that anyone who wants kids should work with children for a while – spend 40hours a week in a daycare for a month or two, and if you still want them, by all means, go.
I think there are a number of women, and some men who really truly want children, and whose lives would be meaningless without them. And if they also have the skills to raise them well, that’s great.
I think the problem is with people who love the idea of kids more than the reality (often seen in those who’ve never really worked with children and learned the downsides). Those people get themselves all worked about about the awesomeness, and then are brought back to cruel reality when the difficult parts come up.
The fact that all women are expected to want kids, and the major baby-rabies going on in society right now seems to convince some women that they must want children, even if they’ve never really thought about it.
If there’s no pressure to procreate, and both men and women are given a realistic view of what parenthood entails, the people who do feel the great pull should go for it and do their best.
The wafflers should stay out of the game. It’s okay to regret not having kids – it’s only your own problem. But people should try to avoid the possibility of regretting having kids.
“I think that anyone who wants kids should work with children for a while –spend 40hours a week in a daycare for a month or two, and if you still want them, by all means, go.”
Verily, spoken like a man who had no kids. No worries though, this was my attitude through most of my life, as I started having children late, in my late 30s (my wife is significantly younger than me).
I had a large number if nieces and nephews before though, and lots of kids in my extended family. It is fun to throw the ball around with your nephew, maybe one degree more satisfying than doing that with neighborhood boys, due to kinship. But certainly nothing that would persuade me to reorder my priorities.
When I had my first child, it was a feeling like nothing comparable. When you have your own eyes looking back at you, nothing can prepare you for this. Trust me. “Being around kids to gauge your interest in having one” is a waste of time because the two are not comparable.
PA: Yeah, I also find most other kids than my own boring. And I cant imagine it is the fault of those kids.
I’m not sure what has caused the atheists to swarm this thread whining like little girls.
Is it that Dalrock is actually trying to do something constructive for religious people, and he isn’t allowed to do that?
Cause, you know, only atheists/blacks/women/rich people/wealthy immigrants and other disadvantaged people are allowed to organize.
I guess we all need to remember that “religious” people go in the same category as “white” and “male”.
“PA says:
When I had my first child, it was a feeling like nothing comparable. When you have your own eyes looking back at you, nothing can prepare you for this. Trust me. “Being around kids to gauge your interest in having one” is a waste of time because the two are not comparable.”
It’s not that I think any old kid is the same as your own kid. But I’ve heard a few too many people who hate children rationalize that it will be *completely* different when it’s their own – and from what I’ve seen, it sure isn’t. Those people definitely love their children, but they don’t seem to like them a lot.
If you don’t much feel like parenting, I’d just suggest not. I don’t mean it as a gauge your interest. I just think that never having changed a diaper or held a screaming teething child until it is your own is a recipe for getting in WAY over your head.
I think people should experience the downsides of children before the romanticize their ‘ideal child’ parenting experience in their head. If you still want kids when aware of the difficulties, I think you’ll be much better prepared to handle the tough spots when they are your own. The love of having your own child is different, but that doesn’t make teething, colic, and the twos go away.
“I don’t agree with your timescale. People who don’t really want kids might have some starry thoughts about it that go away after time, but the same doesn’t run for everyone. Many women who don’t have kids in their 20-30s find themselves desperate for them in their 40s (hence the massive industry).”
Anyone who REALLY wants to have children, and who, for whatever reason, doesn’t have them by the time they are 40, and then STILL really wants them, and has them, I suspect they will be a very good parent.
The pattern I’m seeing in most people is that they think they want kids in their 20s or early 30s, have them, and then later really regret it because the kids get in the way of their freedom. Or, they just have them by mistake, with no planning or preparation, and then they really regret it.
I can guarantee you that many of these divorced people you talk about here wish they never had kids with their ex-spouse. Now they are out in the dating world and little Junior is acting as a cock block.
Having read the Bible once and the Master and the Margarita thrice (which is where I take my nom de plum) I believe the archetypical model for evil throughout Christendom is based on a simple power struggle. While the struggle in the good book is between God and Satan, the metaphor is apt to everyone and can be translated quite easily into an everyday context. God is the almighty and creator. Satan, the second most powerful, is ultimately a mere shadow whose power was given by God and can be taken by him at whim. Satan’s only power lies in corrupting what God has done and since what God has created is good, Satan’s work to counter this is bad.
Now convert this into today’s struggles (which are really not that different from yesterday’s struggles). There are many functions and tasks which ultimately, can really only be done by man. Much of the infrastructure of modern society has been invented, built and maintained by men. Much of what we attribute to women’s accomplishments is really just bastardization or co-opting of men’s accomplishments. Even having children still takes two parents let alone raising them in spite of feminist dogma. Strip away the modern welfare state including affirmative action, government benefits, social transfers and women are far less independent than what we are led to believe. For many women their sole source of sustenance is what they can take from men through hook or crook.
While I don’t want to imply that all men are good and all women evil, the fundamental truth is that each sex has its own sphere on influence. The peril of poaching on each others turf leads to a zero sum game where the only way to win is for the other side to lose. I think the feminist impulse to kill off masculinity everywhere, including in church is a poison that mirrors the rest of their struggle to pull down men at all costs.
“While I don’t want to imply that all men are good and all women evil, the fundamental truth is that each sex has its own sphere on influence. The peril of poaching on each others turf leads to a zero sum game where the only way to win is for the other side to lose. I think the feminist impulse to kill off masculinity everywhere, including in church is a poison that mirrors the rest of their struggle to pull down men at all costs.”
Women need to fund and found their own churches/religions. There is no reason why either men or women should be funding and supporting with their presence a hostile environment.
Separate, but equal.
I think people should experience the downsides of children before the romanticize their ‘ideal child’ parenting experience in their head. If you still want kids when aware of the difficulties, I think you’ll be much better prepared to handle the tough spots when they are your own. The love of having your own child is different, but that doesn’t make teething, colic, and the twos go away.
I have to say, I agree with PA on this one. Nothing prepares you for being a parent. I think a lot of people deceive themselves by doing what you are suggesting and assuming since they can deal with that that they want to be a parent. Other people’s kids are a fundamentally different thing from your *own* kids. I can perfectly reconcile finding most other people’s kids to be annoying brats yet not seeing that in my own. Totally fine with that, really, and it’s often how I feel. Parenting is one of those things you can’t really anticipate by proxy. The best gauge about whether you are capable of being a good parent is whether you are fundamentally selfish or not (being honest with oneself rather than judgmental — selfishness is in, after all). That’s the key quality, really, and if you can’t get past that, you may end up as a poor parent. Otherwise, it’s something you learn by doing.
Yes, there is teething and the twos and so on, but it’s a very temporary stage of their lives. Having kids is a singular experience that, in my opinion, defines what it means to be a human being.
Brendan says:
November 13, 2011 at 6:04 pm
What you are overlooking is how kids nearly always try to not listen to their parents. For example, DO NOT coach you own kid in any sport. Of course the thousands of youth sports teams across the USA would then have no coaches. Simply make sure their are 2 coaches to every team and you agree with the other coach that we leave our own kid to be couched by the other.
Kids do seem to listen to other adults better. Not all kids of course. Yet they still listen to us parents and show it best when we are not around. Hearing someone compliment your kid to you for something they rarely do with you is sweet, if frustrating.
Aww jeez. Game works in the context of romantic relationships because women want, at some unconscious level, to be dominated by an alpha male. That’s the theory, anyway. Why in the world would anyone think that you can just “apply” that, willy-nilly, to other social situations? Do women in non romantic settings actually want (but just don’t know it) a “dominant” man, with “authority” to defy their expressed preferences, to call them out on their demands and to lay down the law to them?
Pastors in Protestant churches “walk a tightrope” because they are either the direct employees of the congregants, or the congregants can easily “vote with their feet” and join a church of the same demonination in a neighboring community or of a different denomination in the same commuity. If getting tough, or preaching the “real” Word of God leads to pissing off the congregants, the pastor is out of a job. Preach “against” women and the women won’t like it. And then they will kick you out or dump the church. Or they will get enough men to join them and together they will kick you out or dump the chuch.
The quoted material says it all:
“Pastors have to walk tightropes with their congregations. I’ve seen this happen so many times: some pastor says something which calls out women in general, or which criticizes women in general. And predictably, the women are up in arms. Letters are written. Names are called. Threats and recriminations are exchanged, privately and publicly. Meetings are held. Women show up to weep, wail, complain and gnash their teeth at the pastor, his supporters, his detractors, the church’s men. The pastor and the men are called sexist, incompetent, pigs, uncaring, unfeeling, heartless, and “incapable of showing Jesus’ love and understanding” to the less fortunate of the flock. Women threaten to leave the church. Men (prompted by their harridan wives) also meekly say they’ll leave if things don’t improve right away. Families get in the pastor’s face, demanding things change or by golly, they’ll stop writing those tithe checks. And inevitably a few families leave.”
Which leads me to think that women don’t actually want to be “Gamed,” at any level, conscious or unconscious, in the context of going to church. A PUA does his thing with a woman, but she does NOT get up in arms. She does NOT write letters or call names or theaten or recriminate or weep and wail, complain or gnash her teeth. She does not call the PUA a sexist pig. Rather, she likes it. But in church it doesn’t seem to go that way. Is that because all the preachers who are not manginas don’t have their Game together, or because, just maybe, what works in one social situation doesn’t work in another?
Frankly, I think Game in marriage is ridiculous, Athol notwithstanding, becuase the power dynamic is completey different in the context of marriage from what it is in the singles bar. But leave that aside. Let’s just assume that “Game” works in any romantic relationship situation. Does that mean it will automatically work in all social situations involving women, even ones without a romantic dimension? Do women really “want,” but don’t know it, to be “Gamed” at work too? Do they want to be “Gamed” when they go to the bank, or to a parent-teacher conference or town hall meeting?
“A pastor who knew game however would understand that this isn’t a test of his leadership, it is a challenge of his authority. It is testing to see if he is fit to be a pastor and lead the congregation. This is what is called in game a ‘fitness test’, or in more coarse parlance a ‘shit test.’ This is a test to see if the man will bend as a leader (he ‘passes’ by not doing so). It is a test of his strength. Will he leave his frame (this is the bible and it is the word of God) to placate their emotions? Or will he maintain his authority as the pastor of the congregation. Roissy’s 15th commandment applies perfectly here:…You are an oak tree…”
The way I see it, a pastor who tells the women in the congregation that they must submit to their husbands and so on will simply be shouted down. Sure, sure, he can pretend to be an “oak tree,” but so what? Why would that deter the women? He can be clever, as some have suggested here, and say that it is the woman who has the problem if she does not accept the Word of God, and that she is having a “crises in faith” and should “conform” to the “flock,” or that if she submitted she would find love and happiness and so on and so forth. But what makes you think that would work? Women don’t actually want to submit to their husbands, particularly if their husbands are not alpha. Women do not actually want to be silent in church, as Paul said they should be, and no amount of acting like a tree or trying to turn the issue around (into one of some failing on her part) will change their minds or emotions. In addition, a pastor is not a prospective lover, husband or father of children. So why would women be applying “fitness” or “shit” tests to him? Women are not actually looking for alpha in their pastor, they are looking for someone to cater to their wishes. Just as, in most non romantic situations, they are looking for agreeable and pliant men. Roissey’s “commandments” do NOT apply “perfectly;” they don’t apply at all.
Moreover, there is plenty of supposed Christian theology out there to back up their claims. Basically, all of the so called “mainline” Protestant establishment churches, and the Catholics too, have “read out” these passages, and ones like them, from the Bible. They have been interpreted to death, so that, according to the approved theology, they don’t mean what they seem to say. And the women will point to that in their arguments. OK, some old school churches might still teach the unadulterated patriarchal truth. But not many.
And women are under no obligation to stick with them. Women church goers are more like women consumers generally than they are like women acting out there role in the mating dance. Women consumers like to be catered to, to be flattered, to be told how smart they are and so on. A church that tells them to shut up and listen to their husbands is no more likely to win their favor than a lingerie store that told them that.
Really, the claims being made for Game are getting more and more outrageous and far fetched. Game is a tool for scoring chicks, like a slim jim is a tool for jacking cars. Yes, there might be some “legitimate” use for Game, just as there is some legitimate use for slim jims. But a slim jim can’t change a tire or charge a battery or do most things when it comes to dealing with cars. Similarly, Game can’t be used in most situations that happen to have women in them.
What is interesting to me is the type of people who dismiss the existence of God because God’s supposed rulebook goes contrary to one or more of their own personal principles.
This is not the real reason, however, because even if I were to craft a specific form of deism that perfectly correlated to their preferences, they would still probably reject the notion of God.
Therefore, their belief or non-belief in God is really based on other reasons. Even if EVERY world religion preached a set of “commandments” that they agreed with, they would still likely remain atheistic.
So I think that it is intellectually dishonest for atheists to pretend that their rejection of God’s existence is based on disagreement with the principles of various religions. I’m sure that these atheists would disagree with most of my opinions, yet I do not see them denying my existence.
Or my favorite: “I don’t believe in God because of all the suffering in the world”. All they are saying is that since they disagree with God’s methods, God must therefore not exist.
I have more respect for people who maintain their atheist without having to rely on such flimsy rationalizations to defend it. Relying on such facile arguments makes it difficult to see their atheism as anything other than just shit-testing God.
But God is way too alpha to get drawn out with such tests.
Ruddyturnstone, that is well put, but I have a slightly different perspective.
In the Catholic Church women cannot vote out their priests and they have Tradition to contend with. The latter is consistent – wives are to obey their husbands. This has been the consistent Papal teaching for two thousand years. St Peter said it and popes have repeated the teaching since.
I agree that Game is not a panacea, but it has made a real difference for the better in my marriage. I don’t try to game other women, but a few times I have done Game-like things with random women and had some very positive reactions. These were all in one-on-one situations. With shopgirls, female friends, and so on. I was not trying to gain sexual favours. It is just behaviour that trips female circuits.
“Ruddyturnstone, that is well put”
Thanks! 🙂
“but I have a slightly different perspective”
OK
“In the Catholic Church women cannot vote out their priests and they have Tradition to contend with. The latter is consistent – wives are to obey their husbands. This has been the consistent Papal teaching for two thousand years. St Peter said it and popes have repeated the teaching since.”
Certainly, Catholic women, and Catholic men, for that matter, can’t outvote their priests. And while it may be true that the notion that wives are to obey their husbands is official papal teaching, and has been for centuries, if you are suggesting that this idea is emphasized much in Catholic churches, at least in the US, I would strongly disagree. The passages that suggest such things don’t seem to come up much in the readings, and when they do they are usually sugar coated beyond recognition. Yes, the wife is to obey the husband, but the husband’s range of choice, the scope of his actual leadership, decisionmaking power is strictly cabined. No sooner is it announced that the husband is to be obeyed than the caveats start flying. Of course, nothing the husband can say can overrule what God has said. Fair enough. Or what the Church says. OK. But then it is quickly added that the husband should not be a “dictator” either. And that he should take counsel from his wife. That he should not be a “tyrant,” nor should he be “unreasonable” and so on and so forth. By the time they’re done, the priests have made the husband more of a figure head, like the King or Queen of England, than a real ruler.
I agree that Game is not a panacea, but it has made a real difference for the better in my marriage”
I really don’t want to get into that here, as it has been argued to death. But my view is that this is only so to the extent that your wife wants it to be so. She enjoys your “Gaming.” Should she cease to enjoy it, or should she find someone with more or better Game, or someone so alpha that he doesn’t need Game, then all bets are off. Legallly and socially, women hold all the power in Marriage 2.0. A wife may enjoy the Gaming efforts of her husband, but he is still at her mercy. And she knows this. I also think it is unfair for men to HAVE to Game their wives simply to stay out of divorce court. And that unfairness stems from the power inbalance.
.”I don’t try to game other women, but a few times I have done Game-like things with random women and had some very positive reactions. These were all in one-on-one situations. With shopgirls, female friends, and so on. I was not trying to gain sexual favours. It is just behaviour that trips female circuits”
In other words, you use Game to engage in some harmless flirting with random women. That’s fine, and I don’t doubt that it works, but that is not the same thing as thinking that Game can or will get a woman to accept the clearly intended and annunciated patriarchal view put forth in the Old and New Testaments. What you are doing with these ladies is NOT something separate from the mating dance. A shopgirl or friend interacting with you may have her circuit tripped, because she sees what you are doing as flirting, which is clearly part of the mating game (even if you were not seeking any specific sexual response). And I’m not denying that preacher or any other guy a woman comes in contact with (her boss, a clerk in a store, an automechanic, etc) can push her buttons by using Game. But.that is a far cry from saying that a preacher can use Game to get a woman to agree with patriarchal notions of a woman’s role in marriage or in the church. Indeed, the sexy, lady’s man, well dressed, quick witted preacher is kind of a stereotype, and women often have “a thing” for such preachers. But that means they want
(at some level) to screw them, not that they would agree with their patriarchal interpretation of the scriptures.
A simple analogy….Roissy can Game a feminist into dropping her trousers, but he can’t Game her into dropping her support for VAWA. Similarly, a Game-savvy preacher can Game one of his feminist congregants into dropping her trousers, but he can’t Game her into dropping her non patriarchal interpretation of the Bible.
Ruddyturnstone
I am an Australian and things are better, apparently, for men here. The marriage law provides for joint custody of children following divorce, for example.
I think once a husband is in situ, he has a natural advantage with his wife. I don’t have to Game her too much. I am however aware of the alpha and beta I am putting in the mix. Without being too crude, I was also her “first” and, as she always “complains”, in those days I was a real “dick” (asshole, as they say so charmingly in America). So I got lucky and pushed the right buttons right from the start.
In Australian Catholic churches, Ephesians gets read out, but there is rarely a sermon. The Latin Mass priests sometimes say something, and I have never seen a bad female reaction or heard it sugarcoated. But of course that is not a typical congregation.
I have seen a video of an imam responding to a female in an audience who asked about women in Islamic families by his referencing St Paul. Some people claimed the woman was charmed and visibly turned on.
I should add that I was not flirting. I don’t flirt. I just noticed that on the rare occasions I am less than polite to women, I get a paradoxical reaction. Usually positive.
So, here are some thoughts, which may not be interesting or relevant. But this post got me thinking about that verse again and my own experience.
This verse is two closely intertwined halves.
In order for a woman to submit, she has to have something to submit to.
It is the purpose that the man brings to family life that provides this for her. Once she has it, she feels secure, and ultimately loves and respects him. Once he has this respect and love from her, his love grows, and the purpose becomes more clear, consistent, reliable, and considerate, and then the whole thing creates a dynamic synergy that just builds and builds and builds.
I have experienced this in my own marriage, and people (mostly divorced women) have expressed that i’m a real “work horse” for my husband. When we are ‘on purpose’ for our family, i have no problem doing the work required as we (together in a captain/first-mate way) discern is the right course of action. I feel that the decision making itself is 50% of the work — because of what must be considered, weighed, determined, etc — and therefore I put in the “sweat equity” so to speak of “make it so.”
Looking to an entirely different cosmology, in the vedic tradition there is a lot of chatter about shiva-shakti. Shiva is this energy (obviously depicted as a male god) who is, in most ways, an “idea” man. INfinitely creative at the idea stuff. In order to bring his ideas into manifestation or fruition, he needs the help of shakti — who is a goddess and the energy of materiality, a sort of “primordial ooze” from which everything that Shiva considers worthy of coming into being can be brought into being.
This, to me, identifies how this christian verse functions in a marriage. The man has a purpose, goals for himself and his family. He guides and directs and tends to that process — observing, making decisions — and then the woman “makes it so” or essentially brings that into manifestation.
Or, so I have experienced it in my life.
Sweet As
Good. I have seen something similar in our marriage. I try to “set the tone” and establish ground rules. My wife often “puts in the hard yards” as we say here. I earn the bulk of the money, but I have never liked the kind of marriage in which the wife then rules the home.
To be fair, women aren’t necessarily ruling homes because it is what they prefer. I think that — because of many factors — they feel that they must, and in some cases, they actually must. Some men do not know how to “set the tone” or have a purpose and act on it, and so on. There can be any number of reasons for this.
So, I guess what I think I’m getting at is that this verse isn’t just “wives, submit to your husbands” but in a way it’s “husbands, give something for your wife to submit to” which is — in essence — loving the wife.
And it has to be worthwhile. No one wants to submit to a goal that is not worthwhile.
And men submit, btw, all the time at the office — with enthusiasm when the common goal is seen to have value. Women are the same in the home.
I don’t see it as the big ‘freak out’ that so many people seem to.
I think men have a tendency towards sloth. Unless they have an incentive, they, we, can just abdicate responsibility. I have seen men do this. They become like a paying lodger in the home. This negative example has fueled my desire to not be that kind of weak husband. Ephesians seems to imply that the husband has to work towards his wife’s salvation, like a priest almost. I do indeed “observe” my wife a lot and try to puzzle out what is best for her. Where a lot of husbands go wrong is in being too “hands off” and in basically just “blessing” her mood of the moment. In my view, most men “under-husband” these days.
I am not sure the last pope got the tone right himself in this area, but as a Catholic I have thought hard about what he wrote and said. I thought his remark that a father “should work towards the harmonious development of all the members of the family” was well stated.
Dalrock, what you say about women testing the men with “fitness tests” is exactly what a certain cult leader of a certain cult I used to be in said about women. (See: http://www.angelfire.com/nm/cobu/wiki3.html). She will test you in every way to see what you are made of and if you pass all of her tests, she will be able to relax and trust that you truly care for her – and they will test you all the time. Naturally he said that we flunkies (the rank and file, young kids in our teens and twenties) were woefully inadequate in this area and could not handle women – and that the women knew it too and that they could run circles around us and manipulate us at will. In a pre-internet era, before PUA sites existed, the guy had game, albeit of the lockpicker type you mention and not for the good of society. He had a circle of young devoted female followers whom he always stood up to (when they tried their “games” in order to be “in control”) and never gave in and always stood his ground. And they could not get enough of him.
“In Australian Catholic churches, Ephesians gets read out, but there is rarely a sermon. The Latin Mass priests sometimes say something, and I have never seen a bad female reaction or heard it sugarcoated. But of course that is not a typical congregation.”
OK, but if it is rarely sermonized, then it is unlikely to get a reaction, and, at that, the partticular congregation has a conservative slant. My point is that in the much more typical feminist “Christian” dominated congregations (again, at least in the USA and including Catholic ones) DO have bad reactions to “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord” and that this message is, therefore, sugarcoated. And that Game on the part of the pastor or priest is not going to make that bad reaction go away.
“I have seen a video of an imam responding to a female in an audience who asked about women in Islamic families by his referencing St Paul. Some people claimed the woman was charmed and visibly turned on.”
“Some people” claim that one particular woman was “charmed and turned on” by a reference to Paul when it comes to family relations. Again, fine. But that hardly means that women in general are going to go along with Paul’s various injunctions against women speaking in church, exercizing leadership (or even equalit) at home, etc, etc. Theere are wives even in the USA who are “turned on” at being “subject” to their husband’s authority, But that is a distinctly minority view and not one, as I see it, likely to become more prevalent based on the Game ability of priests or pastors.
“CL
I did make a rational argument – the Bible says that women are part of the image of God and Jesus treated women with respect – which seemed valid in a discussion of women and the church. Although I will admit to emotional language too, as some of the comments about women in this thread (and on this site) rile me a bit, because they seem to direct so much anger toward women.”
I just want to point out as well that Jesus is God yet he submited to him. Something along the lines of “remove this cup from me but not my will but yours”. How do you reconcile that?
I had to respond to this: “Jesus, rising above the culture of his time, always treated women with respect. Always.”
Totally false. In fact, Jesus invented Game, displaying dominance of females throughout, including straight-up negs that shade into high-assholery.
http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/origins-of-game-jesus.html
@ruddyturnstone
I think you are overly limiting the power of game in this kind of interaction. Even if the pastor is only able to stop the women from working against him, this is a huge victory. If Roissy were the head of an organization I have no doubt he would know how to manage the women there. Additionally, this isn’t a group of feminists discussing VAWA. This is a group of married Christian women discussing the bible. The pastor doesn’t have to take them as far.
I think you are assuming women are basically just men who sit to pee, and projecting onto them how you as a man would respond in the same situation. Women can have a very different set of motivations than men, often subconscious. If this were paired with husbands who were strong enough to stand fast, there would be a very marked change in the church. Some of the most ball-busting feminists might leave pulling their cowed husbands in tow, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Other women would be intrigued by the idea of a church full of husbands so strong their wives couldn’t help but submit, although they might loudly complain about how primitive it was. There would be a sort of status of having a stronger husband than other women, and an associated (subtle) bragging right. The pastor could then play on this, and reinforce it by rewarding the compliant wives with higher status positions in the congregation.
This is snarky and I guess it is meant to be but if Roissy is so bad-ass, so able to command anyone in any situation, why is he (apparently) a mid-level bureaucrat at FINRA? Nothing against FINRA or bureaucrats (some of them are necessary and some are even decent) but the disconnect between what “alpha” and “game” supposedly promise and actual results often make me smile. Except for all that pussy, accounts of which are all hearsay (though I suppose I may as well believe them), results seem to be: not much.
Xenophon’s Anabasis used to be one of the most widely taught books in the American education system. It’s the story of a natural alpha who acquires an education from that hopeless beta Socrates and puts it to good use in the field. That’s a leader of man and a man who really accomplishes something, though he fails at the one thing that he most desires and that would give him the most glory.
In that vein, D, your post on the guy who kills crocs with is bare hands being beta I thought was genius.
“I should add that I was not flirting. I don’t flirt. I just noticed that on the rare occasions I am less than polite to women, I get a paradoxical reaction. Usually positive.”
The point, as I mentioned before, is that they, the women, saw it as flirting, not that you did. You were Gaming them, and they responded. That is not surprizing, nor does it go the question we are discussing here.
“I think you are overly limiting the power of game in this kind of interaction. Even if the pastor is only able to stop the women from working against him, this is a huge victory. If Roissy were the head of an organization I have no doubt he would know how to manage the women there. Additionally, this isn’t a group of feminists discussing VAWA. This is a group of married Christian women discussing the bible. The pastor doesn’t have to take them as far.”
Please, as has been mentioned, Roissy, IRL, is a mid level bureacrat, not some great leader. And then there are “Christian women” and there are “Christian women.” Those who accept the patriarchal teachings of the Bible don’t have to be “taken” anywhere. But those that don’t, who form the vast majority of at least nominally “Christian” women, have to be taken a long, long way. Much farther than they are willing to go. Let’s face it, whether they admit or not, most women are feminists. And that goes for “Christian” women too. Most “Christian” women think VAWA is a fine thing. So there is no great distinction to be made there And, even among those women who are not feminists, the idea of total subjection to a man, as if he was “the Lord,” seems a pretty extreme one. A woman need not beleive in total gender equality, much less feminist gynocentrism, to have a problem accepting that. So, no,even a Gaming preacher will not be able to stop women from working against him if he intends to preach consistently, persistently and vigorously the patriarchal order of things as set forth in the Bible.
“I think you are assuming women are basically just men who sit to pee, and projecting onto them how you as a man would respond in the same situation. Women can have a very different set of motivations than men, often subconscious.”
This seems to have become a standard response to anyone who questions the efficacy of Game in a given situation. Yes, women are different from men. Yes, they have a different subconscious from men. But, no, they are not some alien creatures that you can simply run a few “techniques” on and thereby magically change their political, social, and moral views into ones more in line with what you would like. Their subconscious, to the extent it is affected by Game, may determine who they sleep with and who they don’t, and who they want to sleep with and who they don’t. But the notion that their subconscious, as tickled by Game, is going to get them to accpet the notion that their husband is “like the Lord” is, frankly, preposterous.
“If this were paired with husbands who were strong enough to stand fast, there would be a very marked change in the church”
There are already preachers who preach that old time religion, and husbands who stand fast And yet, most women don’t want and won’t accept the patriarchal teachings of Paul. Even among Evangelicals and “Born Agains” and such lot, women are very, very reluctant to buy into this worldview.
.”Some of the most ball-busting feminists might leave pulling their cowed husbands in tow, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.”
Right. You can have a “purer” church if you stick to your guns. But then it will be a smaller church too. And that means that those women who leave have not been succesfully Gamed.
“Other women would be intrigued by the idea of a church full of husbands so strong their wives couldn’t help but submit, although they might loudly complain about how primitive it was. There would be a sort of status of having a stronger husband than other women, and an associated (subtle) bragging right. The pastor could then play on this, and reinforce it by rewarding the compliant wives with higher status positions in the congregation.”
Pure fantasy. And, in any event, now you are conflating two different things. A husband may be able to Game his wife, but that is quite different from a pastor being able to do so.
Game can get you laid. Maybe it can stop your wife from divorcing you. But it is not going to change the church, the law or society.
I’ve been reading a little Athol Kay (who seems like a very decent man, BTW, doing great work and helping a lot of people) and I’m not sure the extent to which what he’s selling amounts to “gaming” your wife. What it comes down to, it seems to me so far, is making yourself a better person. Well, that’s good advice for anyone, no? There is a game aspect to his captain-first mate concept but that is one part of the red pill I readily accept. Women clearly don’t want to be with a man whom on some level they think is inferior to themselves; they rather eagerly want someone they perceive as better than themselves. And men are the reverse. Usual caveat applies, there are exceptions, etc.
Anyway, is that really “game”?
Random Angeleno writes: “I’ve come to believe that Paul really understood the differences between men and women. He told men to “love your wives” and women “respect your husbands”. To really understand this passage and the use of the words “love” and “respect” in these contexts requires knowledge of the nature of men and women. When understood that way, it is easy to see that this passage is not in conflict with game. Game for men is about living in contexts that command respect from women; once a man has earned that respect from his wife, it’s not so hard for her to act in ways that earn his love for her. The two are complementary ways of taking the nature of men and women into account.”
My mother once told me, “A marriage can survive without love but it cannot survive without respect.” Her feminine observation made little sense to me before I learned basic principles of Game. Now I understand exactly what she was getting at.
“I am an Australian and things are better, apparently, for men here. The marriage law provides for joint custody of children following divorce, for example.”
The marriage law in US also provides for this and there are plenty of joint custody situations here.
“I had to respond to this: “Jesus, rising above the culture of his time, always treated women with respect. Always.”
Whose to say the culture of the time didn’t respect women? We assume because we are so advanced that women are more respected in 2011 US than they were in 100 BCE thereabouts in Palestine, but how do we know how life played out on a day to day basis then and there for women?
“Jesus invented Game” Are you sure it was Jesus and not Krishna before him? How about Rama before Krishna?
“My mother once told me, “A marriage can survive without love but it cannot survive without respect.”
Some cultures still teach that a mutual respect for each other and above all, a respect for the concept of FAMILY, is what holds a marriage together, not crazy ideas of wild sex and romance.
Who knew?
@ ruddyturnstone
The argument is that over the long-run, this is to the advantage of the true believers.
Sure, initially the church will shrink in size…but this is happening to the churches now. The most liberal denominations (ie, Espicopalians, etc) are losing members with more conservative denominations still growing. The conservative and ultra-patriarchal Mormom church is currently the fastest growing religion in America. You can look to other religions for examples of this as well. Reform & Conservative Jews simply can’t compete with the numbers of their Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox brethren.
The church will shrink initially, but the churches are probably better off with a smaller cadre of true believers than a large glut of cafeteria Christians. As men see a church that, while much diminished in size, has thrown off the crushing weight of its gynocentrism they will be more likely to attend these churches. And the churches will, in time, grow. The handwringing about the feminization of the church is really only a feature of more liberalised denominations, The most Orthodox Jewish and conservative Christian denominations are evenly split between the genders—this in a world where feminism is the supreme ideology.
The point isn’t to change society—at least not immediately. The point is take the actual words of the religious text seriously. The point is to actually follow the word of God and to establish at least one institution, however small, as an pro-male outpost in this sea of misandry. This can’t be done without a struggle—and I don’t think it will ever actually happen. But it is possible, and Game is one of tools that men can deploy. Which is all it ever was.
As I no longer attend services, you may of course want to take my words with a healthy heaping of salt.
@Sweet As:
I think you’re on the right line of thinking and why Paul was pointing it out directly. I’ll use an example from my childhood to enlighten the problem a lot of women run into. My mother, aside from normal chores, would ask us kids to do some task. If it was something that could wait a few minutes, we’d get to it in a few minutes. But, if we did wait a few minutes, we’d find my mother was doing/had done the task. It became a self-reinforcing issue over the years, as we just generally didn’t trust she was asking us to do something, when it wasn’t time critical. (And, let’s be honest, as kids you can learn to abuse this) While we were a pack of good kids and generally did the tasks, you were left with these questions about what she was actually asking.
Now, apply that thought to a marriage. If something busts, say a light, but it isn’t really critical at the moment, the husband will “get to it”. Well, if it’s an hour later when the husband gets to it but the wife had already changed the light, the husband just thanks her and goes about his business. The problem, after the fact, is that the wife stops respecting the husband’s leadership for two separate reasons. First, he didn’t chide her for asking him then doing the task. (This is, oddly enough, a Fitness Test, which he’s now failed) Second, she’ll use it as a reference point for him not “loving” her by doing what she’s asked. It’s a double whammy and it adds up, over time.
“Obey” and “Respect” both come down to “Trust”. You have to trust your Husband, and if you trust him, you’ll obey and respect him. But you can’t build that “Trust” when the Wife is constantly trying to undermine it. (i.e. Fitness Testing the Husband)
Similarly it’s really hard to “Love” a Wife that’s constantly making a fuss about everything and not listening to you. So, if you’re keeping your frame (and not getting angry about it), the hardest issue is to keep “loving” your wife.
As I’ve said other places, rereading 1 Corinthians after being in this neck of the Internet for several months, it’s extremely obvious Paul got how people worked and how they’d work in relationships.
@ruddyturnstone:
“Game” is best understood as confidence. If you’re confident in your understanding of Scripture and the way you read it, you won’t really have a lot of problems. Sure, when you hit someone square in the eyes they normally aren’t too happy, but that just comes down to skilled rhetoric. Most people, these days, don’t respond well to bashing concepts into them (they’re too used it from the rest of life), so the skill is treating it like a knife. It actually hits harder and you don’t get out of it.
And if a pastor is confident in his place and his authority is called into question, well, here’s a really important point about leadership: Leadership means to make decisions that will cause people to leave. It *is* making hard decisions and sticking to them. If you lose the weakly Christian, that, in the end, isn’t your problem. And if you stick up for your doctrine, you can generally attract younger men. That gets you younger women and keeps your church growing.
If a pastor isn’t willing to stick to their doctrine, they shouldn’t be a pastor. They have no ability to be a leader and should find a new line of work. It’s as simple as that.
ruddyturnstone: I think you’re right to say that maybe Game won’t work in all situations. Considering the topic, why don’t we just Game all women into stopping sinning? Turn all of them into dutiful submissive wives? Make them thrifty and responsible? Etc.
There are bigger forces at work than mere biology. The human heart has reasons that reason cannot understand, and Game cannot plumb depths deeper than biology.
What kind of Game would a pastor need to have to tame a Jezebel in his flock? He needs a gun, not game.
@dragnet:
The collapse of the drifting/politicized denominations has been swift and brutal. Almost all of the “old line” churches will cease to exist in the next 30 years. Denominations around since before the US Revolution will simply cease to be, as they’ve become little more than an extension of Progressive politics. (Actually, they’re *where* Progressive Politics started, but that’s another discussion) But, it’s going to be ugly. Very ugly.
At the same time, actual church attendance has been on an upswing since the 1990s, at least it was the last time I looked at the numbers. It’s very interesting, from a sociological point of view. Though, it makes since from a logical point of view: why would you “follow” something that requires nothing of you?
“wife ruling the home”…what seems to happen in a lot of cases is that the wife CARES a lot more about domestic matters, so the husband defers to her decision 100% of the time in things like furniture selection & arrangement, wallpaper choice, etc. But subconsciously, she develops an exposition that he will follow her lead in ALL matters, and when he finally takes a stand about something that really matters to him, there’s a big blow-up.
Folks:
I get it. A smaller, purer church is better than a bigger, more impure church. But that doesn’t show that Game can “work” for a pastor. It simply shows that those who want to hear the message of Biblical patriarchy want to hear it, and those that don’t, don’t. And, if you push it too much, the latter group will leave. Well, we already knew that, and we knew it without Game entering into it. Good riddance to the leavers? Fine. But they haven’t been Gamed. Nor have those who stayed. They stay because they agree with the message, not because they have been duped by Game techniques.
Escoffier, I believe, nails it again, when it comes to Athol and “married Game.” What Athol is really about is substantive self improvement. Naturally, an improved man is more attractive to his wife than an unimproved one. But that is not what most people think of as Game. To most guys, Game is a set of easy to learn, pain free, techniques that are useful for seducing women. But that’s not what Athol “teaches.” He teaches, instead, that you should lose weight, dress nice, have manly, interesting hobbies, play sports, work out, etc, etc. Well, duh, if you do those things you will be more attractive to women than if you don’t. Most of us kinda figured that out on our own, and don’t really need someone to wrap it up in the misleading package of “Game” and sell it to us in book form for a profit.
<>
If you think the goal of this exercise is to “tame” the feminists or hold steady the number of tithe-paying pew fillers, then you are missing the point entirely. The core objective is to demonstrate that there is, in fact, substantial daylight between feminist shibboleths and the actual teachings of Christ. Right now, feminist Christians benefit from the unchallenged supposition that their objections to patriarchy are valid in the eyes of God. Puncturing that myth is a necessary first step.
The departure of “Jezebel” from the church is an unalloyed good. Jesus didn’t “tame” the moneychangers who were defiling the church—he drove them out. Was the congregation a bit smaller after that? Sure it was…but he obviously thought it was worth it.
The only question is if you agree or not.
Ultimately, Odds has the winning response. This is ultimately a test of the pastor’s authority and whether he can stand up to a challenge to his authority.
The pastor must maintain frame. The frame is “this is what the Word says. You’re in a crisis of faith and I’m here to help. If you don’t believe what the Word says, or you believe the Word says something other than what it says, then I’m here to help with your crisis of faith. It’s a question of what you believe to be true and what you don’t believe. It’s a question of whether you will obey the Word or you will disobey it.”
Odds brought up the question of feelings. The pastor should frame this as one of faith also. “This isn’t really about your feelings. It’s about your pride being punctured because your belief system has been swept away. Truth is staring you right in the face, and you know it. You’re not hurt. That feeling you feel is discomfort and conviction.
“You can feel any way you want to feel. Feelings are not the truth. How you feel today is not how you’ll feel tomorrow. You’re a fool if you’re going to make decisions based on your feelings. And if your feelings are hurt? You’ll get over it.”
@ ruddyturnstone
Fair enough. But Game can help the message go down a bit easier and help for the preacher maintain control of the terms of the debate. These are important skills for a leader to have.
And I think that the effective use of Game can, in fact, help hold onto some members who haven’t gone full-metal don’t-judge-me-or-tell-me-what-to-do feminist. I think many women would be receptive to patriarchal ideas if they were framed in the right way. Instead of blaring that she’d better submit or face hellfire, a preacher with Game would (as Odds mentioned above) help her to confront her crisis of faith—which is exactly what her resistance is. He may also speak about the concommitant duties of husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church, etc.
The point is that the way these issues are presented matters a great deal and Game could help the message be more palatable to on-the-fence women without diluting the core requirements. But yes, the feminists who are hellbent on leaving won’t be persuaded anyways.
I’m not sure that “most guys” think this. But even if they do, the fact that “most guys” think this doesn’t mean that they’re right about what Game is.
They aren’t.
ruddy:
“It simply shows that those who want to hear the message of Biblical patriarchy want to hear it, and those that don’t, don’t. And, if you push it too much, the latter group will leave. Well, we already knew that, and we knew it without Game entering into it. Good riddance to the leavers? Fine. But they haven’t been Gamed.”
True, those who left weren’t Gamed. They weren’t going to be satisfied with anything anyone told them.
All this makes me take these female complaints to a logical extreme. Women walk away from men who aren’t attractive, or aren’t sufficiently . They walk away from churches or organizations that don’t cater to their every whim. Isn’t this why we keep reading stories and seeing news segments about this accomplished journalist or that female lawyer who’s in her mid to late 30s, never married/no kids, and now wants to get married but can’t find a husband? One wonders when women will learn they can’t get everything we want, and how to love what they have instead of pining away for what they cannot have and never had in the first place.
That, to me, is really the root of the problem — some women will never be happy with what they have.
” The problem, after the fact, is that the wife stops respecting the husband’s leadership for two separate reasons. First, he didn’t chide her for asking him then doing the task. (This is, oddly enough, a Fitness Test, which he’s now failed) ”
You’ve got it backwards. PUAs and MRAs will say he indeed passed the test because he didn’t jump to when the woman asked him to.
BTW, I don’t mean to denigrate Kay, who as I said seems like a good guy and who is genuinely helping people. And, clearly, some people DO need to hear the message/read the bood. That’s another aspect of the red pill that I accept: society, and men especially, have been fed a PC lie about sex and women and that lie is very hard for them to overcome on their own. To the extent that Kay helps men overcome that lie AND stay together with their wives AND be happy, he is a hero.
What to me is most important about Kay’s message gets to something I’ve posted about elsewhere: the gap between the appearance and substance of “alpha.” Game blogs are all about the former sometimes to the extent they deny the importance or even the reality of the latter. Kay is perfectly willing to teach men game “tricks” to use for good ends. But those are for him second-order. His fundamental teaching is, if you don’t have the substance of alpha now, ACQUIRE IT through effort. Don’t just play the game, BECOME the reality.
And not “reality” in the tautological sense of “alpha = who get the pussy” but reality in the sense of a man whom women look up to and are attracted to because of genuine accomplishments and qualities on his part. And, yes, some of those are masculine traits that produce the tingle, like being fit and knowing how to handle yourself in a fight.
I wonder: what are Roissy’s or Roosh’s accomplishments beyond their notch counts?
‘If you think the goal of this exercise is to “tame” the feminists or hold steady the number of tithe-paying pew fillers, then you are missing the point entirely. The core objective is to demonstrate that there is, in fact, substantial daylight between feminist shibboleths and the actual teachings of Christ. Right now, feminist Christians benefit from the unchallenged supposition that their objections to patriarchy are valid in the eyes of God. Puncturing that myth is a necessary first step.”
OK, but what does Game have to do with it? To repeat, there are old school patriarchy-preaching pastors out there already. But most women, including Christian women, don’t seem to want that. Certainly, a given minister can join these pastors and preach the patriarchal Word of God without sugar coating. But then a good portion of his flock will desert him and he will simply be one more preacher added to that small minority of pastors preaching to a small minority of congregants. And, meanwhile, those misguided feminist “Christians” can go on their merry way, in a different church that caters to what they want to hear. No one’s been Gamed, on either side of the fence
“The departure of “Jezebel” from the church is an unalloyed good.”
Again, fine, but Game has nothing to do with it.
‘Jesus didn’t “tame” the moneychangers who were defiling the church—he drove them out. Was the congregation a bit smaller after that? Sure it was…but he obviously thought it was worth it.’
That’s actually a fairly bad analogy. The money changers were operating on the outskirts of the Temple of Jerusalem, a Jewish place of worship, not a “church,” And they were not really part of the congregation at all, nor were they “deflining” anything. What they were businessmen performing a necessary function. The Temple only took payment in a certain coingage, while pilgrims coming from all over the Roman world were arriving with all different kinds of specie. The moneychangers provided a service necessary for proper worship.
“The point isn’t to change society—at least not immediately. The point is take the actual words of the religious text seriously. The point is to actually follow the word of God and to establish at least one institution, however small, as an pro-male outpost in this sea of misandry. This can’t be done without a struggle—and I don’t think it will ever actually happen. But it is possible, and Game is one of tools that men can deploy. Which is all it ever was.”
It seems to me that what you are calling for can be done without Game at all. Preach the Word of God as you see it. Full stop. Those who buy it will buy it and those who don’t won’t. But what do seduction techniques have to do with it?
Either there is some gross equivacation/conflation going on with the use of the term “Game” or else people are calling for the use of seduction techniques in an arena where they couldn’t be more inappropriate. If Game means merely “be a strong leader, stick to your guns, and be a good and clever speaker,” then, sure, Game is a good thing for a preacher to have, whatever message he is trying to get across. But if Game means, as it usually heard to mean, a set of seduction techniques shown to be successful in dealing with women in romantic situations, then it has no place in preaching, and won’t work anyway.
“To most guys, Game is a set of easy to learn, pain free, techniques that are useful for seducing women. But that’s not what Athol “teaches.” He teaches, instead, that you should lose weight, dress nice, have manly, interesting hobbies, play sports, work out, etc, etc. Well, duh, if you do those things you will be more attractive to women than if you don’t. Most of us kinda figured that out on our own, and don’t really need someone to wrap it up in the misleading package of “Game” and sell it to us in book form for a profit.”
Well, learning Game isn’t really easy to learn, nor is it pain free. And most men who came of age in the 1980s and 90s were not learning these things to be attractive to women. We were not taught any of these things.
I was taught there are absolutely no differences whatsoever between women and men wrt thought patterns, perceptions, the way they experience events, the way they process information, or their feelings. I was taught that any man who pursues women aggressively or goes after what he wants is a pig, a chauvinist, a possible rapist, and probably a criminal. I was taught that women find soft, caring, good-hearted, kind, and nice men attractive. I was taught never, never, NEVER to escalate sexually without express permission, and that doing otherwise would subject me to possible criminal prosecution.
I was taught that a woman’s thought processes are never to be challenged. I was taught that a woman’s feelings are paramount and that you must do everything possible to “make your woman happy”. I was taught that any man who challenges a woman is an aggressor, is probably physically violent, and is overbearing and domineering. I was taught that if my woman was unhappy it was because I was not being “nice” enough to her; I was not “doing enough” for her; and/or I was not being “sensitive enough to her needs/wants/feelings”.
I disagree that men “figured out on their own” that losing weight, dressing nice, playing sports and being interesting were attractive. I had to come here to learn that.
“To most guys, Game is a set of easy to learn, pain free, techniques that are useful for seducing women.”
“I’m not sure that “most guys” think this. But even if they do, the fact that “most guys” think this doesn’t mean that they’re right about what Game is.They aren’t.”
Sigh. Hence the conflation, confusion, equivocation. The notion that to “most guys,” Game is NOT about picking up and seducing women is, sorry to be blunt, complete bullshit. That’s what they think of when they hear “Game.” So and so has Game? That means So and So can, and does, score lots of hot chicks. And, in the end, usage calls the tune. A term, in the end, means what most people use it to mean.
So when people same “Game your wife,” when they really mean improve yourself they are not speaking clearly. They are hiding the ball. Their listeners hear one message (ie, “there is a set of easy to learn techniques I can readily employ without a lot of effort and without making any fundatmental changes in my life that will keep my wife happy and thereby keep me out of divorce court”) when the actual message is quite different (ie “you can improve yourself, through lots of hard work and effort, and fundamentally change who you are, so that your wife will be happy and you can keep out of divorce court”).
I think a similar thing is going on here. Game your flock? Does that mean employ seduction techniques on it, or does it mean be a strong leader, don’t give in to what the majority wants, stick to your guns even if your whole flock, or most of it, deserts you? Because while the latter is surely a good thing (at least from the perspective that seems to predominate here), I fail to see what Game has to do with it.
More and more, it seems that anything valid or useful or forceful or good in any way is simply labelled as Game. Then, when Game sceptics object, they are told that they don’t know what Game “really” means, and that, of course, anything useful, valid, etc is nothing but Game.
“Well, learning Game isn’t really easy to learn, nor is it pain free.”
It certainly is easier than the things Athol recommends…write a book, get a black belt in karate, lose weight, work out, design your own video games, etc, etc. Basically, what Athol says that it is not enough for a guy to work his job and support his SAHM wife and kids. No, when he gets home he has to do things that will make him seem “sexy” to his wife. And those things are NOT the simple conversational gambits and nuances and gestures that most PUA guys teach. They are substantive, life changing programs of self improvement.
“And most men who came of age in the 1980s and 90s were not learning these things to be attractive to women. We were not taught any of these things. I was taught there are absolutely no differences whatsoever between women and men wrt thought patterns [etc, etc].”
I’m sorry you were so misinformed, but I don’t see how that goes to whether what Athol teaches is Game or not.
‘I disagree that men “figured out on their own” that losing weight, dressing nice, playing sports and being interesting were attractive. I had to come here to learn that.’
Seriously? You thought that women like fat guys who were couch potatoes, and who, besides being physically average at best or repulsive at worst, were mentally uninteresting as well? You had to come here to learn that wasn’t so?
@ ruddyturnstone
Of course Game as we discuss it in the manosphere is largely about seducing women. My point was that I don’t know that most guys think it’s easy or pain-free, and that if they do they are wrong.
Reading Roosh’s blog it obvious that his journey has been anything but easy or pain-free. I really don’t think most guys think it’s going to easy. But I could be wrong.
And you haven’t addressed by other point so I’ll restate it here:
This is the value of Game, in this particular context. Use of reframing and an understanding of female psychology to help in the tranmission of the message.
I would totally be on board with putting the run on all the feminists–female and male–who honeycomb the church. Run ’em out on a rail.
What we really is a “How to Purge your Church of Feminism” thread, not “Game for Pastors.” The latter always gets tangled up with sex and Roissy and Roosh and all that.
In regards to fitness testing, I don’t think it’s as bad as it is characterized. This is just my experience, though.
Yes, it can be frustrating, no question. And, I think it can be difficult to love the person who is chronically fitness testing you. So, definitely those points are valid in spades.
But in my experience, there are benefits to the process. Since I own my own business, this play of masculine/feminine (energy/behavior/whatever), I usually play the masculine role. I have a global perspective of the business, a strong sense of purpose, and a clear process of attaining those goals. Everyone else — usually — plays the feminine role. There’s lots of testing.
When fitness testing, those who work for and with me are figuring out or refining what I expect and want from them. They experiment to see where I’m going to “give” vs where I’m going to be “firm.” This is particularly true when we devise a new “policy” about how things are going to go so that we can reach our goals.
The truth is that the testing never ends, even though people have been with me for a couple of years now. I’ve been consistent and conscientious. Some have left, others have come and gone, some have stayed, and others have joined us.
What fitness testing in this context has done is galvanized me to the goals and purpose. It’s made me more clear in my actions, more decisive, and more constructive. Things do not happen on anyone else’s timelines, but on the timelines that make sense for the business.
Likewise, some have slowed on fitness testing, as they have learned to trust my process — even though human, flawed, and whatever else.
I think the same happens in relationships. IF the man has an unclear purpose and gives in to a woman’s complaints or what have you (as in the above pastor bit), then he didn’t have a purpose. He had an idea with no guts behind it, no back bone. So, she was right to test it. If he has an unclear purpose, and she tests it and he’s able to firm it up, then she’ll test to see where all of the parameters are, and whether or not she can go with it (or needs to move on with her life, as that is an option in this modern era).
In many ways, what I have done in my marriage is both test AND submit when it was apparent that he was clear in his purpose. Because there have been times when I submitted and he was unclear, i put in the effort to make it so, and then when we got there, he realized it wasn’t’ what he wanted, or didn’t serve the purpose, and then it comes to the undoing the work I did.
And moving is a big example of this. For years (from 2007 until 2010) my husband said that he wanted to move. He wanted to move from this country to that country. And I said “ok, do whatever you need to do to make that happen” and it mostly went no where. Then, an idea occurred to me that would make it possible. I did the research, did some planning, and then we made a trip to “make sure” that he wanted to move there. I orchestrated all of this stuff, and ultimately, he decided that he did want to move, but he had a lot of doubts. I wasn’t going to direct the process (the move is a huge risk), but I would follow his lead.
I tested and tested and tested. Because moving to the other side of the planet is a BIG DEAL. and if we got here and he discovered “oh no!” . . . well, then we were screwed.
So, the value of fitness testing *exists* in helping galvanize to the purpose and bring security in that the work that I would do would push forward that purpose, and that the decision made and action done, that it did serve the purpose.
Without testing, it can be too willy-nilly.
But this is about big issues, not light bulbs. And sometimes, I simply need help with housework or whatever. Invoicing time of the month and then carrying the stick to get the money into our bank account from others is a very stressful and difficult time for me. It’s usually two, 3-day periods a month. During those days, I ask (respectfully) that my husband carry a bit more of the housework. He willingly does, because we are a team. And he knows that 3 days later, I’m back to the normal process, until it’s time to do again. And, he also knows that I do my best to NOT ask him to help, unless I absolutely have to, because I don’t want to knock him off purpose (his own work and the needs therein).
Because I know he has one, and I respect that.
I don’t know if that makes any sense, but there you go.
I’ve made this point before and everyone always ignores me but …
There is an extent to which Christianity is inherently effeminate. It used to be supplemented by other matter, e.g., clasical literature, that was more “manly” but all that fell out of favor. Christianity was then to some extent free to revert more to its natural state and also the opening left by the departure of that other stuff was filled by feminism.
‘I disagree that men “figured out on their own” that losing weight, dressing nice, playing sports and being interesting were attractive. I had to come here to learn that.’
Seriously? You thought that women like fat guys who were couch potatoes, and who, besides being physically average at best or repulsive at worst, were mentally uninteresting as well? You had to come here to learn that wasn’t so?”
Ruddy, leaving aside the false dichotomy fallacy, yes. I and many other men I know were told that our physical attributes and lack of interesting characteristics were not important to women. We were told that what they wanted were sensitive, caring, good hearted workhorses, and if I did those things, I would have a wife who would love me forever. My parents, teachers, grandmothers, pastors and other authority figures in my life expressly told me this as a young man growing up.
I have to believe many, many other men came of age hearing the same messages. If not, there would be no need for Game, there would be no such thing as a seduction community, and the divorce meatgrinder would be a figment of one’s imagination.
ruddy:
OK, we get it. If Game is a useless fraud, what do you propose to help a man whose marriage is stagnant or foundering? Should he simply continue supporting his ingrate of a SAHM wife and kids with no hope of improvement? Should he just drop 40 lbs and start dressing snappier and expect that to do the trick? Should he just make himself over with no attitude adjustment and no education about women’s true natures?
What’s your solution?
[D: I’ve come to the conclusion that often Ruddy just wants to argue. Sometimes he has good points, sometimes not. His insistence that the good ol boys club was unfairly keeping old ladies from leading anti riot squads comes to mind.]
“Seriously? You thought that women like fat guys who were couch potatoes, and who, besides being physically average at best or repulsive at worst, were mentally uninteresting as well? You had to come here to learn that wasn’t so?”
LOL. Now you know what state the manosphere is in.
@Escoffier
As for Islam being inherently more masculine than Christianity, I call BS. The Muslim men I know in the US are in many ways like American women. They are obsessed with status. They have to live in the best neighborhood, drive the most expensive car with all of the latest options, have the best name brands. They despise working with their hands.
Outside the US, look at how Muslims handle matters of war. They cry and beg others to stop the big bad meanies from being mean to them. They focus on using deceit and then stab the enemy in the back after pretending to be a friend. All groups will use deception from time to time in warfare, but with Muslims it is the go to method. This pony doesn’t have another trick. There are a billion of them and they have some of the most valuable natural resources in the world, yet they can’t stand an army up to defeat their enemies; they are too busy bickering amongst themselves to band together. They bear grudges forever. Which gender does this sound like?
“But in my experience, there are benefits to the process. Since I own my own business, this play of masculine/feminine (energy/behavior/whatever), I usually play the masculine role. I have a global perspective of the business, a strong sense of purpose, and a clear process of attaining those goals. Everyone else — usually — plays the feminine role. ”
Business is gender neutral. Having a global perspective, a strong sense of purpose and a clear process are not “masculine” qualities, they are the qualities of an adult human. Except for possibly the global perspective. One can be a mature adult and still not have a global perspective. Most peoples’ perspective is local unless they are well travelled or concerned about the state of the world outside their own boundaries, which I don’t think most people particularly are.
“As for Islam being inherently more masculine than Christianity, I call BS. The Muslim men I know in the US are in many ways like American women. They are obsessed with status. They have to live in the best neighborhood, drive the most expensive car with all of the latest options, have the best name brands. They despise working with their hands. ”
This is a class issue. Throughout the East there is cheap labor so even lower middle class people hire domestic help to do the stuff they don’t want to do. That’s why there you will find it rare for a middle-upper class person to know how to do simple fix it jobs around the house. It has nothing to do with religion as this crosses religious demographics. Its a class and cultural thing. Many of them even have drivers to drive their cars.
The Muslims who were born and raised here in the US such as our own homegrown Black Muslims or Euro descent Muslims would not be like that, nor would Muslims from the East from the lower classes unless they were trying to show of “new money”.
I can only say that Game has been difficult to apply in my marriage but it has helped hugely and my wife seems happier, and I am happier. It is partly about setting barriers.
I grew up without most of the be a nice guy rhetoric. I think I got that line once, from a priest who taught at my school. But I have never been one to pedestalise women, and I learned a few painful lessons before I actually chose a wife.
I sent a link to an OK Cupid (?) discussion on men who married girls with slutty pasts but perhaps it got stuck in a spam filter. What it showed is the deep unhappiness of men in this situation. Feminism has its limits too, and the numerous men whose lives are being ruined by it are starting to testify to their desperation.
This is a real trope now. The wife who had hot sex with exciting men, then Christians up and marries a sap. I know men can be dumb and women can be clever, and no doubt such women are influencing their churches and pastors, probably in a liberal direction, but even the dumbest of men must eventually wise up and realise they are being screwed by the system.
[D: It was on another thread, and was flagged as spam for some reason. I freed it up a while back.]
Muslim armies used to be very effective and earned the deep respect of thinkers such as Machiavelli. You are certainly right that they can’t today unite or put a disciplined army in the field though as we get weaker, and they gain confidence, the pendulum could swing back. But they do very well with the disadvantages they face, look at how Hezbollah schooled the Israelis in 2006. Some of this of course arises from Western self-restraint. In Iraq and Afghanistant, the US has been more manly in the Christian sense but look what good that did us. The twin principles of war in any case are force and fraud so being tricky isn’t necessarily unmanly.
Anyway, my comment was more on relations between the sexes. Muslim men have “game” as defined here and elsewhere. They dominate their women and their women like it, or claim to. Examples of voluntary subjugation among Muslim women and converts range from veil wearing at the light end to accepting polygamy and honor killing at the harsher end. And, Muslim divorce laws definitely favor dudes!
“I wonder: what are Roissy’s or Roosh’s accomplishments beyond their notch counts?”
Roosh bases himself out of his dad and step-mom’s basement. He babysits their kids and writes online books like BANG, stacks the money from the 2 and then travels to various countries to rack up notch counts.
If Muslims were such pushovers than why have we been in Afghanistan for so long? By now the entire country should look like one big American suburb with a Mickey D’s and Taco Bell on every corner.
Apologies for the length of this post, it started off as a short post, & im pretty sure i still havent covered all the points i wanted to cover … i hope you enjoy ….
Oh great, ruddy the raging mangina from walshs site, pays dalrock a visit … usual mangina hilarity ensues …
Oh btw Dalrock Christianity doesnt preach monogamy, Traditional Christianity is based on polygamy, not monogamy
I kind of find it funny why Dalrock doesnt realise what the correct biological state of a relationship really is
The correct definition of monogamy, is as an economically failed marriage, where the male is unable to provide for a nuclear family, in traditional christian cultures & tribal traditions monogamy has always been viewed as an economic failure
This is in keeping with the advertisement & promotion of skinny women, an abnormally slim woman is a sign of infertility
Monogamy & infertility are the driving factors in a western based culture, where infertility & the resulting dysfunctional hypersexuality of the infertile woman is worshipped
A monogamous relationship is based on the relationship of an infertile woman, a man in a monogamous relationship is forced to spend most of his life with an infertile woman
This is the TRUE tragedy of a monogamous relationship, a male forced into a relationship with an infertile woman
In a polygamous culture, the infertile woman would step down as the main wife, allowing the man to continue to take advantage of his larger window of fertility into his 70’s
In fact Traditional Christian family values are based on polygamy, not monogamy, which is why the vast majority of christians have been polygamists,
Up until the rise of social engineers like the vatican church, working in hand with pagan occults like the sun cult, created monogamy to destroy the natural state of relationships, in order to create a centrally controlled powerstructure, capitalism or as its correctly referred to as fascism, creating the wage slave
A relationship is simply the function of biology, where the natural window of fertility determines the correct state of marriage
Polygamy is also the main reason why women are divorcing their men in hordes
As women delay marriage into the 30’s their fertility rate plummets, in a polygamous marriage an infertile 35+ yr old woman, instinctively steps down as the man mates with a younger female, as she knows men have a longer window of fertility then women
This is WHY women are divorcing men in hordes, they’re instinctively following their natural polygamous drive, basically they know they’re infertile as they reach their late 30’s, & want the men to impregnate a younger fertile woman
A womans ridiculously short window of feritility makes her function best in a harem or a polygamous, where as she becomes infertile in her 30’s, she goes onto become an elder or a gatekeeper for her daughters & the younger women in her social network
A mans larger window of fertility, as the woman becomes infertile, he instinctively goes onto find a younger fertile woman
Women ride the carousel because instinctively their natural instinct is polygamy
Hypergamy is also a function of polygamy, not monogamy
Polygamy is THE DOMINANT form of marriage on the planet, it is also the oldest & the most common form of marriage
Men & women have been naturally polygamists for thousands of years, which is why a mans natural instinct is to sleep with as many women as possible, ie polyamorous, while women are hypergamous, ie the guy with most amount of resources
Polygamy is also the main reason why women prefer pre-selection
Polygamy is also the main reason why women prefer alphas & bad boys, as they practise or give the appearance of polygnists, which is what PUA’s & gamers learn to emulate
Women dont care if you’re a nice guy, or able to hold down a steady job, because of their natural polygamist instincts, all a woman cares about is your ability to provide for & control multiple women., ie pre-selection
History & anthropology proves polygamy is the natural state of man
Biology & tribal & traditional cultures everywhere prove polygamy is the natural state of man
PUA & gaming techniques known to work on women all point to polygamy is the natural state of man
What we have today is the natural biological polygamous state of men & women, ridiculously trying to conform to artificial states of monogamy
Basically all of the Old Testament is filled with polygamy, while the new testament even has jesus pointing out how to divorce a wife in a polygamous marriage
Christians like to point to adam & eve, while ignoring the fact literally everyone else in the bible practises polygamy, ie moses, david, solomon etc., hell even jesus is descended from a polygamist david …
Polygamy & i think its polygyny, are one of the oldest & few traditional cultures
In fact ALL Traditional cultures are based on polygamy, monogamy is purely an economical function, monogamy has nothing to do tradition
Women ride the carousel, not because of feminism, feminism merely popuralised the dissatisfaction women were voicing for years with being stayathome moms & the technological decrease of status for common working man, rendered him invisible to hypergamy
@The Muslim Way of War:
Islam is very Arab and the Arabs are incapable of fighting wars, except among themselves. The only effective Muslim armies were the Moors and the Turks, and that didn’t last very long. And those armies came about during the expansion of Islam itself, so they were sort of freshly Muslim. This is important, as the biggest difference between Islam and Christianity comes down to 1 thing:
In Islam, there is no questioning leadership. In Christianity, you can question leadership to your hearts content. This is really important, as the most effective economic system (capitalism) doesn’t work too well by dictates of some authority. This is why the Arabs never had a problem with the Soviets, they’re very amiable to the leadership style (just not the Atheism).
Islam is also extremely status conscious. After conquering an area, you’re allowed to leave the Christians & Jews alive, as second-class citizens, if they pay a fee for being that. It makes Islam a “high status” Religion and one that simply does not work well as a minority Religion. (Part of the reason, along with Saudi exports of their form, that the 2nd & 3rd generation Muslims in Europe are so radical) The contrast is with Christianity’s innate asceticism. You really don’t get more stark.
And don’t try to buy the media narrative of the 2006 Hezbollah war with Israel. It was a complete defeat for Hezbollah. The only way they “won” is that they weren’t annihilated. If that’s “winning”, I’d hate to see losing. Hezbollah just banked on the one thing every Arab does when dealing with Israel: they won’t slaughter you in the streets. Which is why they play the games. If Israel ever “snaps”, they’ll be 50 million dead Arabs and the 3rd strongest Army in the world on the march. But they won’t, which is why the World will keep playing games.
The problems with Iraq & Afghanistan come down to a matter of 20th century lessons: if you don’t rebuild the place, it comes back worse the next time. Even then, Iraq simply won’t be a problem in the future and Afghanistan will only be part of one.
@Rmaxd:
Monogamy breaks out when the men of the society become roughly equal. This is why the Kings/Princes sleeping around was frowned upon but allowed to happen. Monogamy is a binding on the top status men in a society from taking all of the top women. It’s why the Magna Carta, the founding document to British rights, was an agreement between the King and the Barons. The Barons had enough power to limit the King. Think of that write society wide. 95% of the men can gang up on the 5% of the men that would normally capitalize all of the women.
But, yes, in a Hobbesian “Statue of Nature”, polygamy will definitely break out. I’d just rather not see that happen again. Because that’s going to mean a whole lot of killing.
Polygamy is also the main reason why women are divorcing their men in hordes
As women delay marriage into the 30′s their fertility rate plummets, in a polygamous marriage an infertile 35+ yr old woman, instinctively steps down as the man mates with a younger female, as she knows men have a longer window of fertility then women
This is WHY women are divorcing men in hordes, they’re instinctively following their natural polygamous drive, basically they know they’re infertile as they reach their late 30′s, & want the men to impregnate a younger fertile woman
Oh really/ man ,and i thought they where being just a bunch of selfish cunts. So lets get this straight. My wife takes off with the kids says i’m raping my son and i get an order to never even look at them. And pay her say 1800 a month for the next 10 years she is actually hooking me up huh. She is giving up her husband and making room so he can get some young pussy. I guess we’re both married to a couple of sorry bitches Dalrock. I guess i also need to go tell Welmer over at the Spearhead that his ex is the most wonderful woman amerika has ever produced
I don’t condone violence from either side, but the Palestinians were kicked out of their homes to make way for…………… Europeans. Are you kidding me? Let’s face it. Jews are smart and do well wherever they are. There was no reason for them to migrate en masse to a dry, barren, hot as hell desert region when they were living throughout Europe and the Americas. OK, even if there was some reason for the very first wave, there’s no reason that NOW Europeans should be moving there. For what exactly? They sure aren’t moving there to practice their religion seriously in the “holy land”. Ever been to Israel? Its just as debauched a culture as the US, if not MORE so.
Dal,
I’m on internet hiatus, but have some inside knowledge on this topic you may find useful (I’m a former mainline pastor and very active in my current church). We can communicate via e-mail or phone, your preference.
[D: Thanks! I’ll send you an email.]
The MRAsphere wants to institute Sexual Marxism:
From each according to her ability, to each according to his need.
Aqua Net says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:12 pm
You want to play that way? Fine.
Palestians are not even human. Try to find any references to ‘Palestinians’ prior to 1965. It is not there. They may be a new group of things, but they are not human. We humans protect and nuture our young. The Palestinians teach their children to kill themselves while murdering others. Humans teach our children it is wrong to murder. They gain status from the number of their ‘children’ that die in this degenerate way. There is nothing of humanity in them and are so depraved the world should only exterminate such foul things.
Why did the surviving European Jews head to Israel, oh yah, the Germans tried to murder all of them. The US is debauched? Compared to what indutrialized culture? The yobs in London? The pedophiles in Czech republic? I can’t imagine the depravity of the culture that developed you.
Go to hell you anti-semite.
Legion,
Go to hell you anti-goyite. The jewish religion says that Jesus is boiling in feces in hell and that Mary, mother of jesus, had sex with a roman soldier. Don’t you christians just love that?
That long standing jewish hatred of christianity expressed itself when jewish communists and their ideology took over russia in 1917. Thousands and thousands of priests were murdered and tortured. Churches were closed and/or burned down. Christianity in Russia was almost destroyed by jewish communism. Take your jewish supremacism elsewhere, hate-monger.
I think legion is an atheist, good sir.
That said, I’m not quite sure I like where this thread is going…
Phil says:
November 15, 2011 at 12:09 am
Let me guess where you get your information, the updated edition of “The Protocols of the Elder Zions”? If not from there I’m sure you’ll make up some stupid thing..
I hate the Palestinians like I’m an Arab. I don’t want the ones living in my country owning land or businesses. Even Jordanians thew them all out. Nice pack of deginerates you decided to white knight, or is your anti-semitism so great you don’t care what you defend.
I do like how my one sentence regarding jews recieved a 2 paragraph attack from you against me and the jews. Go stew in your hatred.
I personaly am enjoying mine. The Palestinians earn it every time they murder another child, whether its theirs or others.
Thanks hurpadurp for listening.
You guys shouldn’t have let that silly chick push this in this direction. Don’t take a whole lot women say too damn serious.
I guess this stupid digression was my fauly, sry man.
Escoffier says:
November 15, 2011 at 7:56 am
Well, now we know who to blame.
Not you in this case though. A discussion of Arab / Moslem culture is not an anti-semitic diatrabe
Wow…where to start?
I shouldn’t have to preface with this but I will any way–I do not claim to be perfect, all-knowing, or absolutely right all the time, but I DO think I can shed some light here.
First off, something that will probably surprise you but a church isn’t like a business in the sense that it needs to make money it is a house of worship and a place of learning. A pastor of a church pandering to a segment of the congregation in hopes of keeping the lights on completely misses the point. Worse, it changes the building into a brothel with the pastor playing both madam and whore to a room full of johns.
If the church refuses to accept the pastor’s authority and the pastor is unable to preach the word of God there, that church SHOULD close its doors. It has ALREADY failed. A tragedy but what good is a lamp that has run out of oil and cannot give light in a dark room? It is worthless unless someone replace the oil and relight its wick until that is done it is completely unfit for its purpose.
Secondly, it does no good to run out the Jezebels. The Jezebel is not a person or group of persons, it is a spirit. You may drive one out for awhile, but after a time the spirit will get tired of the dry places and will return and infest some other person in the congregation! What you do is mark the person and seek to lead them to repentance. Then keep an eye out for where the spirit tries to enter in again, while seeking to keep the people in the church vigilant enough that the spirit not find a way back in.
Finally the bottom line is that either the bible is true or it isn’t. Women who want to argue, try to split the church or ‘starve it of funds’ are practicing witchcraft. (Look it up, manipulation is as the sin of witchcraft.) It is very clear what spirit that comes from and that spirit is NOT of God. What tree brings forth the fruit of strife, envy, bitterness, etc? And what are we supposed to know the true spiritual state of others by, but their fruit?
–happy one
@looking glass
“Monogamy breaks out when the men of the society become roughly equal. This is why the Kings/Princes sleeping around was frowned upon but allowed to happen. Monogamy is a binding on the top status men in a society from taking all of the top women.”
Erm no, this is a vastly simplified view of monogamy
Monogamy was basically forced onto nobility, ie forced to stay with a woman past her ability to bear children, as the first ever form of birth control, as a man can only procreate for a SHORT period of time married to a single woman
Whereas a man in a polygamous marriage, which is the current norm today, not monogamy, can procreate for as long as he wants
Monogamy was introduced initially to high status men, to prevent them from reproducing, which then spread to lower class men
It was clearly an attempt at population control
Dalrock–
Very true. Excellent points throughout.
I think where you literally talk about Pastors using game on their flock esp. their female flock you are probably bringing along a good percentage of the religious and social cons to look at game in a new light and consider learning something about it.
Pingback: She felt unloved. | Dalrock
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Homage to Quiplinks Edition « Patriactionary
Pingback: - A reader teaches some aspects of “game” to men in his church and now faces possible expulsion. Please pray for him. | The Woman and the Dragon
The fitness test is nothing more than Eve’s curse in Genesis 3.16
To the woman HE said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
YOUR DESIRE WILL BE FOR YOUR HUSBAND,
BUT HE WILL RULE OVER YOU.”
At first, the text seems to say that the woman will have passion for her husband,
but in Genesis 4.7 we see the identical frase “…If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, SIN is crouching at your door; IT DESIRE WILL BE FOR YOU, but you must rule over it”.
Is GOD telling Cain, that sin loves him!?!?!
NO! GOD is saying, sin desire is to OVERTAKE you and you must not allow it to rule over you,
instead you must rule over it.
Eve’s curse is her natural rebellion to Adam’s headship
the curse is women’s desire to usurpe men’s authority.
Women will always try to overtake/usurpe men’s authority
but men should exert their authority.
The curse is not men’s headship, the curse is the clash (fitness test), the natural rebellion to the headship of man.