Baby mamas of the world rejoice! Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family thinks you are a hero!
They are largely single moms, I mean very few kids are being raised in dad only homes. It’s typically mom doing that heroic work of raising the kids by herself.
…single moms know that, they know that “my kids are facing a tougher time”, that they themselves are facing a tougher time as a single parent because for some reason dad is not around.
On the odd chance that Mr. Stanton notices this post while searching on his own name (or notices a spike in traffic from my readers clicking on the link to his blog above), I’d like to unravel the mystery for him. Our culture has created an epidemic of fatherless children by paying cash incentives to unwed mothers and lionizing them as heroes instead of shaming them. Furthermore, Christians have a hair trigger for wife initiated divorce and are looking for any excuse to blame the husband/father the wife kicks out. I hope this clears that otherwise murky matter up for him.
He goes on to suggest that single mothers can teach their sons and daughters about the difference between good and bad men by watching TV and movies with them and telling them what qualities about men she likes and dislikes:
Use it as a time to have conversations about what are those qualities about men that she as a woman yearns for, looks for, appreciates, and what are those qualities that she doesn’t like as much. In those conversations she can teach her kids really in wonderful ways, ok this is what a good man looks like, this is what a good guy looks like. And so the boy starts to learn, “mom seems to like that kind of guy, I want to be that kind of guy. Mom doesn’t like that kind of guy with that kind of attitude, you know what I don’t want to be that”. The little girl learns that by saying “thats the kind of man I should be looking for”.
The absolute foolishness of Christian leaders is breathtaking. He closes with a call to action. Not a call for women to stop having children out of wedlock or stop kicking the husband/father out of the house. No, that would be absurd. He closes with a call to action to men to fill in the gap in the child’s life caused almost universally by the poor choices of the mother:
I would encourage men out there that as you look around within your community, your church body, and you see young boys being raised and dad gone because of his death or because of his desertion or because of a divorce or maybe he just never was on the scene, you’ve got to be considerate to the mother, but try to be a good example to those boys and try to encourage them….
Mothers can do that, women can do that, but there is nobody like a man telling a young boy “You know what, I was really proud of how you did that”…
Note how fatherless children are either nobody’s fault or the father’s fault, but never the mother’s fault. Start at 50 seconds in to skip past the book plug and the number to call in for the radio show:
The only thing I’ve read from Glenn Stanton in the past is how proud he is that devout Christians divorce 38% of the time. I was curious if this show was an anomaly, and maybe he has held unwed mothers accountable in the past. I did some searching on this, and while I couldn’t find any instances of him holding them accountable for their choices I did find this strange passage from his book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons:
Jackie and I try to watch the movie As Good as It Gets once a year.
I’ve never seen the chick flick in question, so I looked up the plot on wikipedia. According to wiki, it is a movie about how the wisdom of a gay man and the love of a single mother redeem a man.
Somewhat off-topic, but the post on churchs’s being addicted to grooms got me thinking: what is the business model of these Christian leaders and their “blame men first” approach?
I get why TV and especially TV ads are this way – women are the big TV watchers and spenders. Do women provide most of the contributions and support in modern Christianity? If so, this would explain why the church is addicted to grooms – the grooms are the bait they use to lure in thier key supporters (women).
For all its faults, “As Good as it Gets” has one great quote:
Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin (played by Jack Nicholson): I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
Zing!
The stark reality of the assorted bums, and other detritus, singles mothers bring home and have sex with are far more instructive examples, to her children, than “make-believe” TV characters and relationships.
Children are neither blind nor stupid.
Do women provide most of the contributions and support in modern Christianity? If so, this would explain why the church is addicted to grooms – the grooms are the bait they use to lure in thier key supporters (women).
Yes, as the book from Leon Podles linked in that long comment thread points out, the churches are largely (and in some cases overwhelmingly) female in composition — between 60% and 90%+. So, yes, it’s *exactly* like television in that the clergy/speakers/writers know their audience. As Podles points out, however, this trend is not exactly “new”. What is different now is that the media being used by the clergy/writers/speakers is more expansive and far-reaching, and therefore the not new white-knight messages are being broadcast more effectively than they would be otherwise.
BAM! Dalrock, you barely made it onto the first page of Google results for ‘glenn stanton.’
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/543/stanton.png/
Though it’s possible that the results have been personalized, pushing your page up in my results but not others’ results.
[D: Thanks! I just checked and it is the same for me. Having his name in the title can’t have hurt. I’m guessing this will go higher over time too.]
Glenn Stanton – “I would encourage men out there that as you look around within your community, your church body, and you see young boys being raised and dad gone because of his death or because of his desertion or because of a divorce or maybe he just never was on the scene, you’ve got to be considerate to the mother, but try to be a good example to those boys and try to encourage them.”
I read this, and I immediately wonder, what guy is going to just go up to some boy and talk to him – let alone try to get to the sort of intimate (and I don’t mean in a sexual way) level with him so as to actually be able to impart some sort of “fatherly” advice?
Given the way society (and Churchianity, perhaps even more so) looks down on men with t jaundice eye, most any reasonable and intelligent man is going to understand that doing so will end up with him being perceived as an unwelcome interloper (a busy-body, inserting himself into a situation wherein he has no business) at best, and, even more likely, as some sort of pedophile pervert.
The reality is that the only way a man can get at all close to a boy is to develop a relationship with that boys mother. Which I would guess is actually the underlying intent of the message of Glenn Stanton and FOTF.
I actually noticed a bit of a perverse “match-making” going on during my years in Churchianity, wherein certain (solid beta, with lower SMP values, but higher MMP values, owing to their being somewhat financially established) men were encouraged to selectively pursue “relationships” with single mothers in the church. I had always thought it to be a matter of the parents of attractive young women simply wishing to ensure that these “dorks” wouldn’t be sniffing around their little princesses.
But, after a few years of slowly swallowing that Red Pill, I now wonder if it really wasn’t just an effort at securing those grooms for all those (and, there always seemed to be quite a few) for-what-ever-reason unwed mothers. Most of them seemed to be perpetually “down on their luck” and struggling to get by (always seemed a weird “fit” given that the particular churches I attended tended to be more upper-middle income in composition).
Where I once viewed it as Chivalrous, and even some what heroic, to imagine such a woman being saved from her situation by a good guy, I now see it through a much more jaded lens – beta “suckers” being sold the idea of being White-Knight heroes to damsels in distress.
More proof (as if we needed any) that traditionalists are utterly worthless and harmful by perpetuating the status quo.
I view this as a symptom of a larger problem in the church and society as a whole. I have to believe that FotF and other Christian organizations like this are pandering to women because the majority of their audience, members and tithers are female.
THis is not a problem because of their genders. It is a problem because Christian doctrine says women are to submit to their husbands and are not to be church leaders. With all due respect to women, this is what happens when women become the major decisionmakers and powerbrokers within Christian organizations. And I submit women are in that position because they control most of the money given to churches and Christian organizations. Judgment is discarded in favor of examining everyone’s feelings. Reason is tossed out so that everyone can just feel good about where they are in their lives and so they can be “true to themselves”.
Most churchgoers are female. In many families I know, the women lead all church activities. The wife decides where the family will attend. The husband attends if at all only because she wants him to. In many churches, the women are in leadership, give most of the tithes and gifts, and “run” the church. Women are approached from a position of virtue and deference. Men are viewed as louts, lazy, lustful, full of vice, neglectful and workaholics.
In today’s modern Christian church, men are viewed as having all the responsibility and accountability, and are presumed to be neglecting their marital duties if there is unhappiness or dysfunction. Women are almost never told they have marital obligations, and are never exhorted to examine their own roles in marital dysfunction. They are never told what marital obligations they have (regular sexual contact with their husbands, childrearing, caring for a home). There is no instruction from churches to women on how to be wives. Instead, they are told that once they marry, they are the queens of their households, that they can do anything they want, and their husbands are lucky to have their awesomely awesome selves.
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.
Dalrock, I really appreciate you shining a light on this. I had never considered this before, and I am a believer and churchgoer. This is a real problem in the modern American Christian church.
Whereas I completely agree with the thrust of Dalrock’s argument, I personally would love to see more “Red Pill” men get involved in the lives of fatherless boys in their churches. Like it or not, the kids already exist and are with us, and who better to influence future men to contend against a feminized culture nd church?
@ slwerner:
Good points. I’ve also noticed churches are full of damaged people (I am one myself). But too many churches don’t help them figure out what did the damage and remove it from their lives. Instead many of these church bodies just accept them in their damaged states and let them stay there. So these damaged people continue with their destructive mindsets and behaviors, looking to others to save them from their own conduct.
So now we have Glenn Stanton exhorting church men to talk to sons of single moms. The intent is to save the moms from their own poor decisions with no examination of how that situation came to be. The men once again are expected to ride to the rescue, with no obligation or responsibility placed on the single mom who created the unfavorable situation in the first place.
I’ll try and do better today (living, as I now realise, in a Church-Free land).
I have noticed on Twitter, many women who beside their photo (with a very big grin) in their brief decription, describe themselves as a ‘Working Mom’. The intention is surely heroic; yet as one reads the Tweets one reads a catalogue of disasters and complaints, with the occasional hunky handyman coming to the rescue (who seeks nothing in return – see, there are still some good men out there). I cannot but reflect that their problems are surely self-inflicted.
Men are viewed as louts, lazy, lustful, full of vice, neglectful and workaholics.
Lout = tells the truth, and therefore is judged as “lacking social graces”
Lazy = dog-tired because he spends most of his waking hours at work, paying her bills.
Lustful = wants to have sex with his wife more than once a month.
Full of Vice = wants to have sex with his wife more than once a month.
Neglectful = unable to coddle his wife’s random emotional dramas, since he spends most of his waking hours at work, paying her bills.
Workaholic = spends most of his waking hours at work, paying her bills.
@deti
In the previous discussion thread I mentioned that a pastor who understood game would know they didn’t have to fear hurting women’s feelings. Your description is perfect, and shows how this would work. This is a classic fitness test. A pastor with game could ace that test in a heartbeat where today’s cowering pastors fail.
Hollenhund said: “More proof (as if we needed any) that traditionalists are utterly worthless and harmful by perpetuating the status quo.”
I was a traditionalist. But sadly, I’ve examined the evidence, and reluctantly, slowly, come to agree with you. Meaning, I’ve surveyed the landscape and reached the same conclusion as you based on the overwhelming evidence. Social conservatism in its current national political form is cut from the same cloth. Its only real value is opposition to abortion, in my view.
In the end, tradcon doesn’t work because it ignores the realities of the culture and the SMP on the ground. Socon no longer works in today’s culture, and because it has bowed to feminism’s demands and coopted too many of its core tenets. The modern Church has bowed to feminism as well.
Sad, really. The church which led me to faith uncompromisingly preached the Trinity, man’s brokenness, the reality of sin and hell, that all have fallen short, the need for salvation, and the availability of redemption. Now it views itself as little more than a social service organization with a scriptural overlay.
I personally would love to see more “Red Pill” men get involved in the lives of fatherless boys in their churches. Like it or not, the kids already exist and are with us, and who better to influence future men
Agreed. But if you try to do this in an unstructured way, you risk all kinds of suspicions.
The best thing to do is start a CubScout/BoyScout troop at your church and make sure that there’s plenty of fathers involved. The Scouts do all kinds of background checks and have rules (2-deep leadership, etc) to prevent real perverts from taking advantage of the organization, and also to protect innocent adults from possible false accusations. Frankly, the Scouts are just about the only context in which I’m even WILLING to associate with anyone else’s kids.
Focus on the Family is a Protestant organization. If it is Protestant churches and organizations that are being written about, I think it would be appropriate to identify them as Protestant. Especially American Protestant churches. Christian is a general term that applies to many different kinds of christian churches all around the world.
[D: If Catholics or other denominations are fundamentally different on this, please share links so I can show who is doing it right. To my knowledge there is no fundamental difference regarding the issues I’m bringing up.]
I agree. Women need to do everything in their power to keep their man. That includes being kind and joyful around them and not arguing with them. Most women are continually angry with their husbands. THAT does not win the love and affection of your man, ladies. Look at all their good qualities and ignore their bad. Guess what, you’re not perfect either!
Keep it up, D. Keep exposing all these so-called Christian voices who are not just joining in the whispers of pro-divorce, but are actually promoting it from the pulpit of the mass media.
I left my Church when I was a teen, and I ‘aint never going back.
The corruption of modern day feminism has made most Christian denominations, pedestalizing Goddess worshipers.
My comments are directed to mainline Protestant evangelical denominations and their local affiliated conngregations operating in the United States. However, it’s my understanding that while Roman Catholic doctrine is uniform, its adherents are not uniformly observant of all RCC doctrines at all times. I’ve known many RCCs who described themselves as “cafeteria Catholics”: RCC women who used the Pill, had premarital sex, had extramarital affairs, and did not attend Mass regularly. I’ve known many RCC men who were Catholic in name only: they were divorced and remarried, continued to insist on being administered the Eucharist, etc. That’s not a criticism; just an observation.
I have stopped going to church for a few reasons, one of them is that everytime I show up, someone is trying to marry me off to the next divorced or semi eligible woman(lady has to be earned), so I had to quit. I have no illusions as to why I might be a catch, kids are grown, career is secure and perfect, on the face of it, money does not seem to be a problem, and stupidly, my manners are impeccable. Trust me, this gets me into more trouble than you can imagine. My mom was abandoned by my father(not dad), and she raised us, with no boyfriend of the month club around. I have taken her devotion to her two small children to heart. Single mothers of their own design are a disaster, those of necessity are the strongest women I know.
Can’t believe that so many of the problems I saw in my church days can be traced back to the issues discussed on this blog.
A church I used to have had a “Single Mothers Ministry.” I get it, wanting to reach out, but they are not heroes. The mothers who chose to bear the children of a good man, and to respect him enough to submit to him, those are the heroes..
[D: If Catholics or other denominations are fundamentally different on this, please share links so I can show who is doing it right. To my knowledge there is no fundamental difference regarding the issues I’m bringing up.]
It’s more or less the same in Catholicism and Orthodoxy (in the US, not in the Orthodox world). The church in the US in particular is very feminized. Podles wrote the book on the feminization of the church and its priorities, and he’s a Catholic and spent as much time in his book focusing on the issues the Catholics have as he did on the issues in American Protestantism.
Dalrock said: “In the previous discussion thread I mentioned that a pastor who understood game would know they didn’t have to fear hurting women’s feelings. Your description is perfect, and shows how this would work. This is a classic fitness test. A pastor with game could ace that test in a heartbeat where today’s cowering pastors fail.”
Yes. And here’s how that pastor would pass the test:
Female Parishioner: “How dare you preach that we women have to submit to a husband and that we women are not submitting properly! Sexist pig!”
Pastor: “Are you a Christian?”
Female: “Yes, of course.”
P: “Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?”
F: “Yes, yes.”
P. “Here’s what the Bible says about it. (Reads verbatim the passage on women’s submission to husbands, and the concomitant obligation for husbands to love their wives, and cites chapter and verse)
F. It also says he’s supposed to love me. He’s got to do it first!”
P. No it doesn’t say he has to love you first. It just says you’re to submit and your husband is to love. I didn’t write this, I just preached it. This is not about your feelings, or about who’s to do what first. This is also not about what you want, or about larger political or social issues. You either believe this or you don’t. You’re either going to obey God or you’re going to disobey God. I have nothing to do with it. So your problem is with God, not me. I suggest you take it up with Him.”
[D: This is very good, but I was thinking of what someone like Gorbachev or Doug1 would say. Either of those two would crush a test like this. The more emotional and upset the woman got, the more she would love and admire him as the leader when it was done.]
Joe, any male who attempts to work with fatherless kids in his church would be much improved by becoming an idiot. The risks are infinite, the benefits are null, and your lack of knowledge of this, well, words fail me. Don’t do it, men. Someone pointed out here that to work with those boys must involve you with his mother, who has proven she is living contrary to teachings of the church, and can result in many bad things.
I think the difference with Catholicism is that for many, it is a cultural identity rather than a belief system. I grew up Catholic, and it was simply something you were, on level with race, gender, and nationality. Infant baptism and teenage confirmation plus a tendency to teach people what they should do, rather than encouragement to question and wonder and figure things out lead to more identity than personal belief.
I knew many Catholics who had a solid personal identity as ‘Catholic’ but went to church on Christmas, maybe Easter, and didn’t really think about it the rest of their lives.
Oh, Dalrock, you’re going to love this bit. I can confirm most of the gory details of this post from direct interaction with these situations.
As the son of a Widow (my father died before I hit age 2), the first part of the advice is actually fairly good. My mother didn’t date around and my brother & I came out surprisingly like my father. Or at least everyone that knew my father implies this of both of us, so I’ll tend to believe them.
But, it only works for Widows (or near-Widows, like the husband being in a coma for several years) and only if they don’t date around. If they do date around, then you read their actions. Which is the problem with single mothers by choice. When you don’t have any men coming around, your only place for advice is your mother’s words, not her actions.
Now, the other thing is that, yes, the Church is actually attempting to hook up the single men and the single mothers. Though it’s normally not direct. It’s more like a case of Biblical White Knighting mixed with social Nuclear Family theory. My mother tried to get a Single Mother ministry off the ground a few times, went no where. No one really wanted to put any effort into it. The undercurrent was always: “they really should be married”. Problem is getting a church to go further than that is pretty hard.
I’ve mentioned I’m at what I’d call a really good church these days. (Hard as hell to find, mind you!) They’ve taken the Single Mothers outreach and split it in two ways: “triage” ministries, as part of normal community outreach and “divorce recovery” in the recovery ministries. [Side note: a Recovery Ministry is a very good marker for a good Church, assuming they prompt it and acknowledge it exists] There’s still a natural inclination to attach couples together, but it’s far less in this church than it used to be.
Oh, and sort of to Deti’s point about the Love/Obey issue in sermons. Seen that directly addressed in full sermons twice, actually, at this church. No bombast that I know of. And it’s really not a hard message to preach. (You both have duties and responsibilities, even if that upsets people) Actually, the one sermon recently that did get a bit of an uproar going (before being given, lol) was a “what we believe” series, done via questions from the Church body, on homosexuality. It’s amazing how much you can defuse a subject by just going over the passages. It’s really not that hard. (It’s a sin, it’s not uniquely sinful and, no, it doesn’t mean you’re condemned to Hell just because you are/have been. You’re condemned to Hell if you don’t repent, regardless of the sin. 🙂 ) But that subjected is really charged, so he took a while leading into it. And he needed to fill 20 minutes when 5 would have covered it.
But it’s pretty scary that Focus on the Family has gotten that far off the rails. That’s just bad. Though I think he wants to give solid advice to Widows and then he’s extending it to sound nicer. Which is really the problem.
@Kai:
“Culturally Catholic” is what they’re normally called.
The risks are infinite, the benefits are null, and your lack of knowledge of this, well, words fail me.
I teach high school. I understand the risks of working with young people very well — and how to safeguard yourself against false accusations and the like.
And the benefits are not guaranteed, but they certainly are not null. You can’t complain about a feminized culture and then stand by while another generation of Nice Guys, manginas, and the like are produced in the near-absence of a counter-narrative.
Dalrock writes: “In the previous discussion thread I mentioned that a pastor who understood game would know they didn’t have to fear hurting women’s feelings. Your description is perfect, and shows how this would work. This is a classic fitness test. A pastor with game could ace that test in a heartbeat where today’s cowering pastors fail.”
I recall a singles ministry I visited in my bachelor years, where the pastor quoted from the Scriptures the command for wives to submit to their husbands. The woman literally growled at him. He looked afraid and confused. I shouted, “Amen!” as loud as I could. The room fell silent. No one reacted. Nobody spoke to me. The pastor went on as if nothing happened. I didn’t know what a “shit test” was in those days, but in a way I passed it. The problem was, I wasn’t the guy being tested. Even back then (nearly 20 years ago), I was furious and astounded at the gutlessness and helplessness of the clergy in the face of feminism. It was evident that grrl power would give no quarter in the church, and equally evident that it should be shown none.
good piece and commentary, esp by deti
america’s full of false “pastors” and “ministers” who serve collective female will, not god — they’re part of the synagogue of satan that christ condemns in revelation, and will judge
boys in male-less “families” DESPERATELY want, and need, relationships with men, but it’s almost impossible to achieve — not because of the men, but because of the anti-male bias of the u.s. matriarchy, and the behaviors of the single women themselves
modern women are frozen in serial-romance mode, and when the thrill of a new guy (sexual relationship or not) wears off, the women are on to the Next Guy (or more frequently, nobody)
the boys are then heartbroken that the relationship they’ve established with a man suddenly disappears — the boys want it, the men want it, but Massa Mammy doesn’t . . . she’s busy looking for “new tingles,” desperate for validation that she’s still Got It — even in her forties! (yikes)
under the current gyno-systems in church and state, trying to fill the gap in the lives of these (often wonderful) boys does more harm than good, adding another layer of trauma on top of the missing-father wound
To those who have found a church strong in these areas, what denomination, and what approximate geographic region?
And the series of hammer blows continues—another great post calling these people on the carpet. I haven’t been to church since I was 18 (about 10 years ago) and stuff like this is a core reason why. It isn’t enough that women are kicking fathers out of their children’s lives—now the Church wants to shame other men to take up for the fathers who were kicked out.
They really only want men around in small, discrete, controlled doses. The gynocentrism is apalling.
@TFH
I agree, but keep in mind I’m only pointing to concrete examples of what we already knew was there. This isn’t that different than graphing out divorce rates or showing how biased the child support system is with stats.
I liked the discussion of how pastors/priests with game could pass shit tests around the preaching of the critical passages in the New Testament. I envision it done with flying colors, perhaps with humor and still staying on the basic Christian/Catholic message. Alas, it has been too brief so far.
Sure hope someone takes that on as a separate post. Even if said discussion tidbits never make it into a Sunday sermon, they may still help us Christian/Catholic men to defuse the testing in our own relationships.
[D: If you see one of the alpha guys like Gorbachev or Doug1 commenting elsewhere in the manosphere, would you ask them to take a swing at how to pass that test if they were a pastor? I’d be happy to do a post featuring it. I’m just not the alpha to show how to crush it, and that would make for a much better post than me passing with a C.]
I think it was Lenin who said that “Religion is the opium of the people”.
Religions, all of them, are essentially bad. And they must be rejected. They must be criminalized.
I threw religion to the garbage many years ago (religion itself being garbage): my life has been much better ever since.
Take the red pill. Kick religions out of your life and be free. Be the master of your life: don’t let anybody tell you what to do.
Rebel this is a christen blog you are not it’s major audience. You won’t find much common ground on the major points of discussion.
[D: I wouldn’t call this a Christian blog, but as you can tell the topic does come up. He is welcome here, but his comments could become off topic if he were to continue in the same direction.]
I’ve been raising my kids on my own for 7 years now, and they’re just turning 12 and 8 this week. As a man, I had to pay greatly for this privilege, despite the mom’s abuse, her arrest, the involvement of Children’s Aid, witness statements and a damning psychological evaluation (for her) that her own lawyer requested. And it was far from a sure bet. And I never asked for child support, not wanting to give her any financial incentive to keep going or re-open anything.
I am painfully aware of just how lavishly supported (here in Ontario, Canada) these ‘heroic moms’ are at public expense. And this support only goes in one direction; not only do I get nothing, I am actually both put in the position of having to be responsible to my kids while being attacked for it by the everyone from the judiciary on down. In fact, if I hadn’t fought so hard and had some luck, and it had been left it up arseholes like Stanton and our lovely judiciary, they would have been more than happy to have them live with their ‘heroic’ and abusive mom, no matter how many trips to the hospital that would have caused, because it would all have been my fault. Because, as one of the official representatives of our lovely provincial public health service told my mom, ‘women are not abusive, only men are, and in the even that a woman ever were to do something it would only be in response to something the man had done.’
Go straight to Hell, do not collect $200, Mr. Stanton.
I came to the conclusion that Focus on the Family was a chick-ministry a long time ago. We homeschool in our family, and I noticed that Dobson (in his writings–I couldn’t stand to listen, because he talks to women, not to men) would be positive about homeschool, but never really criticise people for sending their childen into Moloch’s jaws (that is, government schools). I decided that he didn’t want to alienate his hearers–women–because it’s how he makes a living. A man can stand being ripped for giving his children to Satan.
No surprise that FotF indulges American women in other ways. It’s a ministry for women.
Note–there are all sorts of men in the homeschool world running chick-ministries. It’s a weird effect post-Red-Pill. I went to a homeschoolers forum once to read about some controversy at a homeschool conference, and it’s a woman’s world, and I could see American Woman in full glory. And this is all supposedly “Christian.”
THis is not a problem because of their genders. It is a problem because Christian doctrine says women are to submit to their husbands and are not to be church leaders. With all due respect to women, this is what happens when women become the major decisionmakers and powerbrokers within Christian organizations.
This. Perhaps it would be better to focus on these facts rather than repeating the tired attack of an individual.
There is a reason why ANY religious institution, Abrahamic tradition or not, has a patriarchal structure. Across all faiths, the minute women get into positions of authority is when the problems start happening.
Scripturally, Christian women are commanded to not have spiritual authority over men. It is not wise to assume that this means women are allowed to “pastor” other women in the same way a man is a pastor over his congregation. Women are instructed to teach other women, but clearly this has to occur within a different context other than pastoring.
The absolute foolishness of Christian leaders is breathtaking. He closes with a call to action. Not a call for women to stop having children out of wedlock or stop kicking the husband/father out of the house. No, that would be absurd. He closes with a call to action to men to fill in the gap in the child’s life caused almost universally by the poor choices of the mother:
Indeed, it is. This foolishness stems from the fact that Christian leaders are too afraid to teach what the hierarchal roles are within marriage despite the fact that they are clearly outlined. The excuse is always the “we don’t want to offend anyone,” or even “men and women are equal a.k.a. the same.” My all-time favorite is, “we want to give everyone an ‘equal’ chance to do what they want.” Until more church authorities do what Houston did, this problem will continue to pervade all of Christendom.
@Houston:
The church raises “nice guys”. Trust me, know that one from experience. And I do believe that the women are being honest when they say they want “nice men”. They’re just not introspective. They don’t connect the bit of “I want a nice man, that I want to sleep with”.
@joeReformJoe:
It’s risky for a man to be involved with other children, given the state of society and the laws. But it *really* is appreciated. rayy is quite right what the guys go through when their mother dates a lot. (Mine didn’t date at all, but I knew guys that had mothers that did) It’s actually really, really rough growing up without a Father. At some point, I’ll type out the unique problems that come with it.
“Heroic unwed mothers” – well pro-lifers have to say that. They don’t want women aborting babies and they sure as hell don’t want to adopt those babies, now do they? Hence, they have to come up with something to encourage “life”. Although it could be argued that the type of “life” these kids will have ain’t all that to beginwith.
“You can’t complain about a feminized culture and then stand by while another generation of Nice Guys, manginas, and the like are produced in the near-absence of a counter-narrative.”
Ultimately, as things get worse, it will get much, much easier to bring the counter-narrative to eager listeners.
“Jackie and I try to watch the movie As Good as It Gets once a year.”
One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen in my life. The talent of all the key name actors are wasted in this film which virtually has no plot at all.
Please remove my name and the reference to TC. I do not represent them and I am no longer affiliated with that website.
@TFH
“Being a good example for a child of a single mother can make you eligible to pay child support for him, even if no one claims the man is the biological father.”
While I don’t doubt that this is happening (nothing is too insane for the USA), are there actual examples of this?
@Paul
Since you’re in Ontario but not getting child support, at least you don’t have to deal with the Family Responsibility Office.
“Because, as one of the official representatives of our lovely provincial public health service told my mom, ‘women are not abusive, only men are, and in the even that a woman ever were to do something it would only be in response to something the man had done.”
So the official rep’s position is that women have no control of their own actions. Great.
“rayy says:
under the current gyno-systems in church and state, trying to fill the gap in the lives of these (often wonderful) boys does more harm than good, adding another layer of trauma on top of the missing-father wound”
Why would that be? I could see it only in the context of dating their mothers. Being a stable non-family male figure in a boy’s life could help a lot – a boy scout leader, or a teacher, or something.
The suggestion given above to form a boy scout group with the involvement of as many fathers as you can get, plus boys without fathers would be extremely valuable for the boys with no fathers.
“The Continental Op says:
I came to the conclusion that Focus on the Family was a chick-ministry a long time ago. We homeschool in our family, and I noticed that Dobson (in his writings–I couldn’t stand to listen, because he talks to women, not to men) would be positive about homeschool, but never really criticise people for sending their childen into Moloch’s jaws (that is, government schools). I decided that he didn’t want to alienate his hearers–women–because it’s how he makes a living. A man can stand being ripped for giving his children to Satan.”
Or, you know, he might just not think that public school = satan. One could easily believe that homeschooling is great but public school is decent. It might be that he won’t say it because he doesn’t believe it – along with a majority of solid christians. You’re expecting a pretty extreme and rare standard here..
I don’t mean that in defense of anything he said or any idea promulgated by FotF. I’m just pointing out a bit of a logic flaw.
The reference to TC was merely incidental. Even if it was incorrect, I see no reason why your name should be removed. It seems to me that you should stand by your views, or retract them, rather than try to hide.
This is why Paul Elam’s register-her.com will be so effective as it grows. It seems that women do not like their words and deeds being exposed to scrutiny.
Oh, some parents, no matter how well meaning, simply can’t capable of homeschooling. It’s really a skill set unto itself.
So, there’s that too.
Argue facts with emotionally upset woman. Oh yeah, you is got it.
In fact, up the ante as you argue facts. In a directly confrontational manner.
Oh yeah. Good plan.
I retract my views.
Default mode is easy. The public school system is the primary vector for indoctrinating everyone into Feminism, which is one of the Pillars of our society.
If you send your kids there, you’re part of the problem.
And, yeah, I hear every single parent say, “But the schools in my area aren’t so bad.” Yeah, sure.
@ Dalrock
Awww look a christian woman(Morticia) whose feewings got hurt by Dalrock. I’m shocked.
“I retract my views.” ?? Which views?
“TFH says:
I agree with Eincrou. Morticia should be granted a lower level of accountability just for being a woman. She is a prime example of how female-centric religions have become.”
Why would that be a benefit? (Unless you’re already married to the woman and need to keep peace?)
At least in public spheres, why not hold women to the exact same standard, and let them deal with it? Worst consequence I see is that the women might leave.
In places where you have to be able to deal with whatever women you are granted, I understand why it’s necessary just to treat them however you must to get along with life.
PT:
This only works with Christian women, BTW. You have to keep that in mind. If a woman does not accept basic Christian doctrines as true, this won’t work. I’ve seen a pastor make this very point with a woman in exactly this way, to great effect. “You either believe it or you don’t. You’ll either obey or you won’t.” Purely from a Christian perspective, it’s really just that simple.
@ Morticia
Retracting what you said isn’t the same as changing what you think. Another way woman try to use a play on words.
(or was the ‘should’ supposed to be a ‘shouldn’t. In which case, I’m responding to the opposite of what you meant, and my post should be ignored.)
One point about most Seminaries:
They’re pretty much lost causes. And that’s not even getting into the Feminism problem.
They’re rife with sheer stupidity, horribly inconsistent theology and Political Correctness out the wahzoo. And that’s a *good* one. 😦
I was looking that direction at one point, and having a long chat with a well respected Religion professor. Finding a Theology program that isn’t to the Left of Chavez is a problem. There’s a few, but not a lot. You actually are better going to a normal, private university for that type of stuff. It’s *bad*. And that was a decade ago.
Now, I can’t say all of them are, but the ones on from the Midwest to the Northeast are pretty close to a wash, unless no one has ever heard of them (so finding them is hard in the first place).
I am an Australian Catholic. One thing my church has going for it, is that it has a structure that limits the hierarchical power and influence of women. Our main problem seems to be homosexuals in the hierarchy.
I have heard a few readings and the occasional remark on the marriage hierarchy. It is still, obviously, the traditional teaching although it is less emphasised these days. Most serious Catholics, including wives, do still seem to tacitly accept it. I think it affects my wife’s behaviour.
Catholics still look askance at divorce, so it is not facilitated, although I was shocked to hear of a case where members of a Catholic charity helped a woman move to enable her to separate and divorce.
Feminisation in the Catholic Church seems to be declining a bit. The introduction of altar girls, due to the weakness of John Paul II in ths regard, gave feminists hope, but the current pope seems to have a slightly more realistic attitude to women, and feminism in the Church has not grown much of late.
The views that are causing negative feeeeeeeelings right now which she can mention later when she needs them in a different arguement.
This comment section has certainly taken a nasty turn. A whole lot of heat, and not much light. I don’t think piling on to Morticia is going to further the cause.
[D: I’ve pulled the note at the bottom. I agree, no need to pile on at this point.]
Question – has anyone seen a “pink ghetto” turn around? If so, how did it happen?
Well this just floored me. I guess this just confirms focus on the family is an organisation (or at least employs spokesmen) that doesn’t give a crap about living up to its stated principles.
I guess if they immediatly fire this idiotic buffoon for these comments then perhaps they can still have some credbability but otherwise they now have none.
It is so idiotic _not_ to shame single mothers who are single mothers by choice (so small number of divorce cases and widows being the exception) given the statistical reality of what effect being raised by a single mother does to a childs prospects in life.
He actually had some good advice on Christian men stepping up and being a substitute father figure for many of these boys and girls as this may mitigate some of the harm being raised by a single mother will do, but to suggest there is something “glorious” about being a single mother and refusing to mention the elephant in the room is insane.
What has become of the church when it can’t simple say, “Single motherhood and divorce is a bad idea and if you love your kids you would never _choose_ it for them” and say, “Ok your in a bad spot/have made some bad choices come in we can help, but we can’t approve of your choices”. What ever happened to “love the sinner, hate the sin”? To often in the church it seems to have become, “To love the sinner, you must approve of their sin” and that is actually a profound act of hatred towards the person not love.
Jason
I doubt that the image embed code will work here, but including the following QR code image will allow someone to scan it with their smart phone and be taken to Dalrock’s site
http://qrcode.kaywa.com/img.php?s=8&d=http%3A%2F%2Fdalrock.wordpress.com%2F
[D: Wow. That is really slick!]
I’ve attempted to spread the word a little myself, such as over at Art of Manliness a couple of days ago when this series of posts on modern Christianity winking at divorce started. Just wanted to mention it at the ‘community’ section over there. I started by raising the issue kind of generally (no mention of this site yet or links, etc) just to gauge the attitudes of those folks. That was not the site to attempt that and I got shouted down pretty quickly. A female poster who’s on that site about 8 hours a day and her white knight type followers were on me real quick so I just deleted my post and retreated (not out of worry about offending them but because I don’t want to steal anyone’s thunder on this issue). She said this point of view is neither manly nor fair, and that she detected an undercurrent of misogyny. I’ll try again another time. I knew that AoM was heavy on the white knight/female pedestal/LDS stuff but I was suprised at their negativity in all honesty.
Feminisation in the Catholic Church seems to be declining a bit. The introduction of altar girls, due to the weakness of John Paul II in ths regard, gave feminists hope, but the current pope seems to have a slightly more realistic attitude to women, and feminism in the Church has not grown much of late.
In the U.S., this is largely dependent on the archdiocese. Even within an archdiocese, there are parishes that will not compromise on integrity, and go against the grain.
“TFH says:
*should NOT.
Morticia is asking for a fem-pass (i.e. a level of special treatment she expects for being a female). She should not be granted one.”
Yep, sorry. I entirely agree. I didn’t realize the likelihood that it was just a typo until after I posted.
Interesting on a blog which seems to be about keeping traditional Christian values. People (should I say women) like Morticia seem to get ‘picked on’ for the slightest comment. Whilst other people like TFH never get a comment (let alone part of a post) based on what they say. ‘Are you aware that pickup artists who go to church solely to sleep with a lot of the women there…are doing God’s work‘.
“TFH says:
The industries of education, healthcare, and public-sector employment are on the brink of experiencing exactly this.”
Health care? I’ve thought women were still solidly a minority in the higher positions (doctors, administrators), and only dominant in the ‘assistant’ roles (nurses, etc.). And I didn’t think there was ever a time in which men were often nurses.
Or do you mean health care in general in the sense of demands for benefits and wages for the lower tiers? (Or is that even an issue in the states?)
Lily,
Don’t bother. Moral arguments will get you nowhere on this blog.
TFH,
Dalrock did not refer to Morticia’s views, he referred to views he assumes that she has but that she has never claimed to hold. I have no idea why he included her in this post other than to gratify his rabid audience by providing them with another Christian woman they can chew on.
She’s come out numerous times against divorce, and she’s simply following Christ’s admonishment to initially give other Christians the benefit of the doubt, to allow them to explain themselves, and to correct them with love. She treats men the same way, which generally goes unrecognized around here because it doesn’t fit in with your pet political views. And when she comes on here to make peace because she’s simply tired of fighting with people she genuinely likes and respects (she’s not known for being a good judge of character, after all), even though she was the one who was wronged by having her views mischaracterized, she gets mocked.
You are not treating her like a man. You are not treating her as a woman or as an equal. You’re treating her like a piece of garbage. You are, in other words, projecting.
Laceagate, I was never much bothered by women lectors and even extraordinary ministers. I was a bit annoyed about the altar girl capitulation, because John Paul II basically changed his mind on them as a matter of discipline. He seemed to get a bit soft on feminism in his old age.
I usually attend Latin Masses – no women in the sanctuary – or an English mass that seems not to have altar girls although women still do readings.
As I said, I used not to be bothered by most of this but I now see it more clearly as a bad trend. However, I suspect John Paul II’s definitive teaching against women priests has broken the back of church feminism. Also, being a worldwide church, it covers cultures not much affected by feminism, which limits the power of Western feminists in the church.
MAN UP TFH! aren’t you a REAL MAN?
@Rebel
“I think it was Lenin who said that “Religion is the opium of the people”.”
It was Marx and what he said in context was
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo”
From Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
“Religions, all of them, are essentially bad. And they must be rejected. They must be criminalized.”
Quite the little totalitarian aren’t you. Your way has been tried, it resulted in over a hundred megadeaths. I’m guessing you don’t know a lot of history.
“Take the red pill. Kick religions out of your life and be free. Be the master of your life: don’t let anybody tell you what to do.”
Interesting that truth plays no part in your suggestion. I think this is a telling admission on your part. You don’t even realize the intellectual heritage you are a child of do you? It comes from the same root as the lunatic feminism that is so frequently critiqued on this blog.
Jason
The Spartan – ”While I don’t doubt that this is happening (nothing is too insane for the USA), are there actual examples of this?”
Most of the real world examples (to date) involve men who’ve either had a child living with them (along with their mother, of course) and have been financially and/or emotionally providing for that child for some amount of time; or, a few instance of men who had been, out of the goodness of their hearts, providing financially for the child.
In such cases, courts have managed to extend the pseudo-legal doctrine of “Best interest of the Child(s Mother)” to attach an on-going financial liability on that man to continue to support that child(s mother).
The “baby-sitter as surrogate dad” was, I’m sure, meant only as instructive hyperbole, an example of that principle carried to it’s logical extreme [given the tendency of courts to want to push the envelop, we may well get there before too long].
But, what is being suggested is basically true. Should a man take a boy under his wing and start mentoring him, and buying things that he wanted or needed for him, then he would place himself in jeopardy of some less scrupulous women taking legal action to force him to continue doing so. He if he can successfully avoid a legal judgment against him, it will likely cost him thousands, if not tens of thousands, to do so.
It’s an important point to make note of.
Still, I’d be much more worried for a nice guy who takes a strong interest in a boy or group of boys (outside of a formal organization, such as the scouts – as has been suggested) being perceived as a (possible) pervert.
If the Elusive Wapiti is about, I’m sure he’d be glad to recount his adventure as a father wishing to be helpful by volunteering to work in his churches nursery. He got the “all men are potential pedophile rapists – especially those who seek to be around children” treatment even worse from Churchian women than most men get in secular settings (well, except for those fathers and grandfathers who get reported to the police for being out in public with their children or grandchildren without a responsible women with them. As both a father, and as a grandfather, I know I’ve gotten some suspicious stares).
@ Lily
TFH is using sarcasm. Its a play on the fact that churches claim to be doing gods work while lining up men as sheep for the slaughter. Get it?
As far as Morticia getting picked on, holding someone accountable for their words is righteous. Your failed attempt at shaming language will not work.
@ alte— “Dalrock did not refer to Morticia’s views, he referred to views he assumes that she has but that she has never claimed to hold.”
Hes referring to this comment. where she tries to make another woman not responsible for what she says. Hmm seems to be a pattern.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/warn-men-beware-christian-marriage-doublespeak-and-hair-trigger-for-wife-initiated-divorce/#comment-19932
Joshua, based on what I’ve seen of TFH’s comments, he was not being sarcastic. His latest post does not seem to indicate that. Personally I have no truck in shaming or shaming language, but some around here do, so it would be good to have some consistency. And come on, ‘doing God’s work’? Please.
Alte – “You are not treating her like a man. You are not treating her as a woman or as an equal. You’re treating her like a piece of garbage. You are, in other words, projecting.”
Thought you were done with the mean-old-Manosphere?
But, I do agree with you about Morticia
[putting my White-Knight suit on, yet again]
Morticia is actually one of the better examples of a good women that one will find these days. She is a devoted wife (even in some trying circumstances) and a mother who certainly values her husband as father to their children. She’s taken her lumps here and place like the Spearhead (used to go by paige and PaigeU. I’ve often disagreed with her, but find that she remains civil and (at least somewhat) open-minded. I’d argue that she be given the benefit of the doubt, and I’d argue that whether she is right or wrong on a given issue, her heart is still in the right place. [WK suit off]
You’re being intentionally vague when you say “picked on.”
I was the first to respond to Morticia, so I am very glad to call your bluff and ask that you explain how my comment was picking on her.
Yeah, TFH never gets articles on him, the poor guy. Once again, stop being vague and explain what he says that should be challenged in an article.
Alte, pardon me for leaving a comment here when we’ve never interacted before (I don’t read your blog regularly), but have you ever thought of setting it to private or invite-only rather than simply giving up on it altogether? Allowing only a select few people you trust to view what you write would keep people who don’t like you (legitimately or not) from causing you the undue stress a perusal of your blog indicates you’re laboring under.
That said, as I implied above, I’m not very familiar with you or your co-bloggers so I see little point in either attacking or defending you folks. Just wonderin’ why you haven’t used an option I believe WordPress allows you to.
Morticia seems a good woman to me, who has stood by her man and borne his children. She doesn’t really approve of me, so I am not saying this out of some close friendship, but she is a good woman and should not be abused for no reason that I can see.
I’ll agree with slwerner’s assessment of Morticia. She’s not the enemy…no need to treat her like one.
“but she is a good woman and should not be abused for no reason that I can see.”
David, respectfully, you need to work on your definition of abuse.
@ slwerner
So in regards to Morticia because of all that you said were supposed to look past her incessant NAWALT. In the last couple of days she has tried to steer blame away from Sheila Gregoire which Dalrock himself swatted away like a true alpha batting as shit test. Then when she gets put into a post using her own words against her she gets short and prissy. I don’t care how many good things you do or how good you are as a person when you fuck up i call you on it. Thats righteous. She is more than welcome to defend herself, but you cant defend her based on what you think, when we attack her based on what she said.
@TFH
“Interesting that both Lily and Alte still seem entirely sure that they know what morality is, and that we do not.”
Oh hear we go. Did I even claim that? No. However, I don’t like to see people picked on.
“They *should* be angry at Glenn Stanton and Sheila Gregoire, if they were truly moral.”
No I ‘shouldn’t be’. I don’t know who they are. And I don’t understand the landscape. I stayed out of the previous discussions as I tend not to comment on things I don’t already know anything about or have the time to research/thought about. I appreciate that not everyone has that position.
And as Opus who is also in England says, it is very different. When I read some of the things, it is like a parallel universe.
@Eincrou
“I was the first to respond to Morticia, so I am very glad to call your bluff and ask that you explain how my comment was picking on her.”
I have no idea what you said to her and in fact don’t remember seeing you comment before. Must have scanned over without noticing, sorry.
I was talking about her being mentioned in this post. It’s not the first time she’s been spotlighted. I had thought that was water under the bridge but obviously not.
“Yeah, TFH never gets articles on him, the poor guy. Once again, stop being vague and explain what he says that should be challenged in an article.”
Well perhaps claiming that promoting promiscuity is doing God’s work. Just as one example.
It’s funny to see claims about women getting or expecting a free pass, because I see that happening to men on this blog.
A link to the comments from the Sheila Gregoire thread probably would have been more useful. I read the line originally and it didn’t quite compute. I’d forgotten about that interaction.
Joshua – “but you cant defend her based on what you think, when we attack her based on what she said”
I’m not trying to defend her. I (usually) disagree with her. I’m suggesting that you debate her rather than attack her.
“So in regards to Morticia because of all that you said were supposed to look past her incessant NAWALT.”
In regards to all women, actually. NAWALT is a reflex response of women, who whether they will admit it or just be offended by the mere mention of it, tend to instinctively play for “Team Woman”. The other side of the NAWALT coin is a tacit admission that Many (or Most) Woman Are (in fact) Like That (MWALT). So, take it with a grain of salt. They’re always going to say it, so don’t let it throw you off. The real issue and argument regarding them are much bigger than the minor point that there are some women who don’t fit the norm.
Pingback: Tidbits for Friday | QED
“I’ve attempted to spread the word a little myself, such as over at Art of Manliness a couple of days ago when this series of posts on modern Christianity winking at divorce started. Just wanted to mention it at the ‘community’ section over there. I started by raising the issue kind of generally (no mention of this site yet or links, etc) just to gauge the attitudes of those folks. That was not the site to attempt that and I got shouted down pretty quickly. A female poster who’s on that site about 8 hours a day and her white knight type followers were on me real quick so I just deleted my post and retreated (not out of worry about offending them but because I don’t want to steal anyone’s thunder on this issue). She said this point of view is neither manly nor fair, and that she detected an undercurrent of misogyny. I’ll try again another time. I knew that AoM was heavy on the white knight/female pedestal/LDS stuff but I was suprised at their negativity in all honesty.”
That’s what suspected about the audience for AoM; any confirmation that those who write for the website are like that as well?
Morticia seems to exhibit a lot of NAWALT. So what? Call her on it gracefully, you may get her to come around, and it serves as an example to the other posters of what NAWALT looks like. This is how you convince people who are on the margins of the worthiness of your cause.
The reason well-respected commenters like slwerner and Keoni Galt are chiming in is becuase the comments here on this post have turned into a dogpile. This will not convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. On outsider to the manoshpere reading this post and it’s comments is going to be stumped by the acrynmoms and insider shorthand, see the uncivil mess in the comments, and be more likely to reject the message.
Preaching to the choir does not grow the congregation, no matter how righteous the preaching.
Fine, but the opportunity for you to see it is not lost. Was my comment at 2:55pm picking on her, or was it fair?
This is dishonest to the max. TFH and PMAFT’s claim is that protecting men from women looking for providers they will eventually dump is “God’s Work.” They do not say promiscuity is God’s Work.
These women are “sexually liberated, modern” women anyway, so their promiscuity is redirected into the “Sunday Morning Nightclubber” rather than used to rope a vulnerable man into marriage.
Joe says:
November 10, 2011 at 11:12 am
Because a false pedophile charge is worse than a false rape charge and a false rape charge will devistate a man’s life. Men should walk in the opposite direction of children that aren’t theirs. Welcome to modern life.
Bad news – you don’t appear to be in the first page Google results.
I work in advertising, and thus I keep my work computer non-personalized for google searches (I only sell honest advertising).
Sorry. 😦
Wait a minute – page 2, link 4. That’s bloody amazing – good work, Dalrock!
(It occurred to me after posting that it’s entirely possible this changed over the past few hours).
Hey, google bot – look at this new comment! Bump this post up!
pb: I don’t think the writers for AoM are like that. I can’t be sure. I think basically the AoM community has been pretty solidly taken over by a few females and their followers of white knight types.
I’m not sure its the entire audience either, it seems diverse. I’ve seen so many guys go on there and leave a few comments about their wives, jobs, churches, etc. They get promptly shut down for saying anything that is not approved of by the ladies who dominate the community or these strange guys who support them. It’s weird because it’s otherwise a pretty solid site, if misguided in the sense of seeing women as these perfect creatures that men need to live up to.
What’s funny is every now and then someone there on the community will lash out at the white knighter guys and basically tell them off. But then that brave soul is either shut down or leaves, I don’t know. I wish it wasn’t like that.
TFH,
Not every thread needs to be sqeaky clean. But going overboard will *repulse* those at the margins we are trying to reach. This comments in this thread have reached that point.
slwerner – Thanks for clearing that up.
It seems that the courts have a check list of “fatherly duties”. If you happen to be doing them most of them, then to them you are now acting in the capacity of a father and are on the hook for everything that comes with it.
I wonder if it has ever come to pass that multiple men are on the hook for child support for a single child. With a rotating boy friend pool, I wonder if a single mom could get them each deemed a “father” and collect child support from all of them.
In a perverse way Stanton’s suggestions are completely rational.
He has come to the conclusion that in a laissez faire sexual market women are completely incapable of altruistically separating themselves from their biological impulses for the betterment of society, so there is no point in trying to persuade them otherwise. It is easier to beat on men because men can be swayed by a guilt complex due to their propensity for rational reasoning.
Like the economy, structural reform is hard, its just easier to tax the haves and dole it out to the have nots.
Johnycomelately – “Like the economy, structural reform is hard, its just easier to tax the haves and dole it out to the have nots.”
Indeed!
You make a good point. Churchianity is slowly, but certainly, working towards a complete surrender to evil.
@ slwerner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
A debate is adversarial, therefore an attack is not only accepted it is warranted. But notice all i have done is use her own words against her. How can we debate if the second we bring something up she has said, her actions are to be short and prissy with us? Id love a debate as im sure TFH and Dalrock would but she is acting like a child. ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT, AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME SHE IS ACTING LIKE A CHILD PUTTING HER FINGERS IN HER EAR AND SAYING “I CANT HEAR YOU”.
@TFH:
It should be noted you can get a little strident, but that’s an effect/rhetoric point. Truth is most people like their “blunt” in knife form. (Mixed metaphor alert!)
One point to Lily, Alte and others reading TFH’s comments and wondering why guys aren’t pushing back.
TFH is strident, sometimes very much so, but that’s a method of delivery for what he’s saying. Guys tend to appreciate it, though it can grate a bit, depending on the circumstance. But he generally isn’t attacking anyone. If he was attacking someone, it’d look like that guy “PA” from a little back that really was using a racist line but actually dressed up all nice and pretty. What he generally does is call people out. It’s your choice to agree, disagree or ignore him.
Which, when he gets rolling, I do a lot. I actually ignore a lot of comments. Probably just from practice. I’ve been actually slandered before, to the point of lawyers were about to get involved, so a lot of this stuff just rolls off. And some stuff just isn’t really worth arguing about.
Oh yeah, and one other little point: most of the guys that come here have had:
– Their hearts ripped to shreds
– Children taken from them
– Lost large chunks of their personal income
– Some combination of all of those
– Or narrowly avoided them
And almost all of these guys “played by the rules”. The “Red Pill” is harsh for a man because it removes a whole lot of illusions about the way things work. That’s why the Matrix Metaphor works.
As for the morality of the “Sunday Morning Nightclub”, if we define part of “morality” as “defending the innocent among us”, and taking into account a very large problem of “Christians in Name Only”, then they are technically correct. Those men would be defending other men from abuse and exploitation. Is it a “nice” or “Christian” thing to do? It’s nice for the men that don’t get exploited, but it isn’t the Christian thing to do. Granted, of the parties involved in the relationships, none of them are Christian, so a Religious argument won’t sway them.
Now, there is an argument for hurting children involved, if the man becomes involved with a single mother. Then there is potential harm to a 3rd party that had no choice in the matter.
I’ve always had the attitude that when it comes to women entering the “manosphere” blogs to debate, they should know what they are in for, and do not require White Knighting…the ones I respect are big girls and if they can’t take it, they shouldn’t bother commenting at places like this, the Spearhead, IMF, etc.
I’m trying to avoid white knighting here, but….
I’ve read a lot of the writings of Alte, Morticia, Elspeth and the other ladies associated with Traditional Christianity blog, and all I’m going to say is that based on my interactions with them and reading their writings in both articles and comments, they are equally harsh towards women as they are to men when it comes to the topic of divorce.
For example, these are hardly the sort who are excusing women who divorce husbands over porn viewing, and they are regularly pretty harsh against cafeteria Christianity.
WIth regards to the other thread about Sheila, I think Morticia’s questions helped develop a useful and informative debate, in which I thought Dalrock’s responses were excellent…and no personal attacks of Morticia were necessary.
This thread, however, turned into a dogpile that is not really justified, given her track record.
In short TFH, while there may certainly be a bit of “team woman” reflexive defense on their part (again, I agree with swlearner here about NAWALT), I believe it’s erroneous and egregious to try and afix the “hypocrite” label to the likes of Alte and Morticia. They are hardly the Churchianity hypocrites that Dalrock is exposing here, and trying to cast them in the same light as feminists and “feel good Churcianity” folks is just wrong.
Joshua – “A debate is adversarial”
And I would hope that you’ll be aggressively adversarial. But, I’d also hope that you keep your aggressive focus primarily on the issue, and ignore personalities.
I cannot say for certain what Morticia, Alte, Lily, nor any other women have in mind in coming here to make seemingly contrary comments; but I have seen many a good discussion derailed by women who were most certainly making inflammatory comments for the very purpose of that derailment.
What ever their reasons, best not to let them throw you off your game.
slwerner says:
November 10, 2011 at 4:39 pm
“You make a good point. Churchianity is slowly, but certainly, working towards a complete surrender to evil.”
And while it continues to have teachers in seminaries who are heretics, the newly trained clergy will be heretics who will lead their congregations into error and heresy unless the ordinary members take their Christianity seriously and do their own systematic Bible study. They need to leave churchianity behind.
hurpadurp,
I wasn’t upset about the blog being publicly viewable, but that I was interacting in the comment threads with people who weren’t arguing in good faith. I suppose I should have picked up on that, but I’m notoriously slow on the uptake.
Slwerner,
I wanted to take the chance to offer my congratulations on producing your Next Generation. There are fewer and fewer people who will ever have that honor, so may God continue to bless you and yours.
And God bless to the rest of you, I am starting my break now. Really. LOL Now. As of now…
One of the things I see happening these days should really be given some serious consideration by women regarding its medium to long term results.
The reason that “NAWALT” often gets such negative reactions from men is the way it has been used by women to stall any conversation about the problems for many years. Relevant to this particular thread – criticism of clearly morally bankrupt women would generally lead to both the NAWALT denial (indicating that if not every woman was guilty then it was not going to be permissible to discuss the issue at all) combined with excuse making for the woman or women involved.
This did lead to the development of perceptions among some men that most (if not all) women would defend anything any woman did regardless of its affects on anyone else. As the animosity between the sexes has built, the appearance of every woman cheering for any and all women, and celebrating any woman’s victory over any man, gave the appearance that any victory by any woman over any man was considered by most (if not all) women as a victory for Team Woman over Team Man.
Now, flipping this around to the viewpoint of the men whose defeat and misfortunes have been apparently cheered by members of Team Woman, you are starting to see men appear who view any defeat of any woman to be a loss for team woman – and provide some much needed counter influence to the way that TW has dominated the scoreboard during the first 4 decades of play.
Let me say that again, just to make the point clear – in response to women seeming to present such a united front against men, and to support any woman, no matter how immoral her actions, a lot of men are now starting to root against Team Woman, and every woman who loses is regarded as a loss for the entirety of Team Woman.
Astute women will see that as a process which will not benefit them if it goes too far.
Yeah, I want to second some of the comments here. I’ve read Dalrock for a few months now and it’s a great site. But some of it’s a little tedious at times (the charts and stuff to show that divorced women over 45 get less action, etc.). No offense, because most of it is great. But these recent posts are just top notch stuff. This stuff has bothered me for years, as someone who wants to help repair society and the men and women in it after decades of an intentional effort to ruin us all. I came from divorced parents and watched the effect it had on them and the whole family. Dalrock has really revealed something here to me that I hadn’t seen before. I think I knew that Christianity had more than its share of hypocrites, but the depth of the takeover within the churches is truly stunning.
Alte says:
November 10, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Moral view? What did Lily say that could be held upas moral. All I heard is we should hold a woman blameless and condemn a man. It’s the old women good, men bad. This was childish, not moral.
The subsequent arrival of Lily and Alte to circle the wagons around the imminent humpty-dumpty-like fall in the reputation of ‘conveniently Christian’ women
Alte and Moritcia are friends. I wouldn’t call Alte defending Morticia a simple case of circling the wagon for “team Christian Women”…and if there’s one thing I can say about both of them, is that they are most assuredly NOT “convenient” Christians.
Much of their discussions at TC are all about sucking it up and dealing with how hard it is to live up to the Biblical standards of Christianity and Patriarchy. That is one of the reasons why I link to that blog, why I read most of their articles, and why I sometimes participate in the comments over there.
They take the “Traditional” part of the blog title seriously, which is why I respect them. And….I’ve had more than a few vehement disagreements and debates with them as well. I don’t agree with everything they write about either (but then, that’s also why I still go there, echo chambers are boring)…but I do recognize that their hearts and minds fundamentally are in the right place and they are trying their best to live up to the standards of Christian Patriarchy while rejecting secular feminism.
Ok, that’s enough whiteknighting from me.
I should point out that, while I’m not sure how much Dalrock actually moderates/removes comments (I’ve not seen it personally), the moderating here is always pretty good.
Or maybe everyone is just not the swearing types, haha.
Oh, one side point to the “men helping children of single mothers” issue. The Big Brothers/Big Sisters groups are now pretty much “Big Sisters” only. It took all of 2-3 false sex abuse accusations (and no known real cases, that I’ve heard of) for men to completely steer clear of the program. A whole lot of men aren’t involved in the lives of single mothers because the risk is simply FAR too high for them. Remember, the accusation of Sexual Abuse of a Child is a life-sentence for a Man. Just the accusation alone, ignoring any criminal proceedings. And when you end up dealing with the unscrupulous (which non-widowed single mothers are), you simply have to take the risk premium as what they can legally get a way with, which is a lot.
Saint Mary of Egypt is an history handed down by oral tradition from the 4th century and put to pen in the 7th, it tells of an adulterous young girl and her trials.
Not one modern church could retell this story without women storming out of the church.
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/mary_egypt_ext.htm
Keoni regardless of how they blog elsewhere im merely reacting to comments here. here at Dalrock, Morticia does nothing with regard to calling woman out for the bad behavior related to the links posted in the OP by Dalrock, but she always has an excuse for why the woman acted that way. I call her out because of what she respresents. its like your parents telling you they’re punishing you cause they love you. I LOVE what she represents as far as holding woman accountable on the few blog posts of hers ive read. But almost EVERY TIME she posts here it is always NAWALT. Or as TFH has said circling the wagon for team woman. When you Love someone you dont give them a pass you hold them to a higher standard.
Perhaps you’re right, Joshua. While I read all of Dalrock’s posts, I don’t always read the comments (frequently it’s TL:DR and I don’t have the time to read comments that go into the hundreds), so I don’t know about that.
I’m only saying that based on my experiences debating with both, I wouldn’t label her nor Alte “Convenient Christians” nor “femininst” Christians.
@Keoni:
Would maybe what you were doing more “Black Knighting”? 🙂
@Celeste:
You asked a while ago, and I meant to respond.
We’ve found a good one in a Christian and Missionary Alliance church in the Northwest. But, like all things, it can depend a bit by the church. Some of them have real problems, but they work hard at fixing them. C&MA happens to have the wacky issue of only about 50% of the churches being in English. The rest are in Vietnamese, Chinese, Russian and Japanese (in that order, I believe). This probably has a lot to do with why it’s held onto a lot of the important details. It’s got a really heavy bent against drawn out arguments about extremely minute details and would rather focus on “what’s on the page, what’s it mean and how can I use it?”. That and missionary reports usually include car bombs, dodging bullets and diseases you’ve never heard of. (That’s not a joke, AT ALL)
But a really important sign for a church is what it’s doing in the places right next to where it’s sitting. A whole lot of churches ignore the people just across the street from them.
Spot on, once again, Dalrock!
Keep up the great work!
Still sifting through comments. Have to say, this is completely appalling.
What segment of Christianity is the FoF audience? I know someone said Protestant- is this more the Evangelicals (as in, the same ones who are embracing Mormons as Christians)??
To say “sit and watch tv with your mother to identify traits she likes/doesn’t like” is just absurdity; sheer folly, and obvious stupidity. Unless the mother is a widow, going off of traits she likes or doesn’t in characters on the screen is a self-perpetuating cycle. And ya, ’cause we know tv is real, right? Sheesh. That is probably one of the most dangerous things I have ever heard.
I don’t know much about FoF, but I will say that I’ll be paying more attention and steering people clear of this misguided idiocy….
TFH- you mentioned that, ” The laws on child support are such that if the mother cannot collect from the biological father, she can trap any man who has some relationship with the child. Even without anyone claiming he is the biological father.” !!!! Do you have a link/links I could read?
I’m generally in agreement with slwerner and Keoni Galt on Morticia. She is solidly pro marriage. I don’t ever recall seeing her waver on that, and from everything she has written I have no question that she is 100% fully committed to her marriage and her kids. I have nothing but respect for her in that regard.
In a previous thread she challenged me multiple times on why I called Sheila out on her statements. Her line of argument was that I shouldn’t call Sheila out, but instead whatever pastor had lead her astray. But Sheila isn’t preaching under someone else’s name. She calls her work a ministry, and even has a site dedicated to teaching other women how to be Christian leaders. This was what I was responding to with the note at the bottom, and the intent was more teasing than it clearly came out. Morticia asked that I remove the note and I did so once I saw the comment (I was away from the blog for several hours). She also withdrew her argument so I don’t see any need for anyone to challenge her further on it. I will however still defend my right to call out women and men on what they say. To do otherwise would be intellectual suicide.
We have a solid mismatch which personalities aside needs to be called out. Women are free to present themselves as leaders, including Christian leaders. They enter the debate on equal terms with men. But when someone calls them out, he is a bad man picking on a helpless girl! (see comments from Alte and Lily above).
BTW, best line in “As Good As It Get” (which, despite its PC-ness, was a decent enough flick), was when Jack Nicholson’s character, a writer, is asked how he writes women characters so well; he responds, “I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.”
I would place money on the guy who said that either being raised by a single mom, himself, or with a fundamentally absent dad. It is a phenomenon I have seen dozens of times – a young male with no older male to guide his masculine development internalizes the definition of a “good man” as – “someone who makes mom happy.”
As TikkTok says – this is a very dangerous idea.
First, it creates men with no substance – men who are focused on a woman and take their self-concept from whether she is happy or not.
Second, it creates men who feel compelled to lie – lacking substance, they will pursue the immediate gratification of pleasing his mistress. He will tell her whatever he thinks she wants to hear and will make her happy. Most men have had experiences with women which lead them to believe that women would much prefer to hear pretty lies than a not-so-pretty truth. Because he has no substance, his entire sense of himself evaporates when her approval of him vanishes.
And, perhaps most importantly, listening to a woman complain about their husbands (as many do) a young boy gets the impression that being a good man requires being as little like his “no good old man” as he can possibly be.
The grotesque result of this process is men like John Stoltenberg – author of such “enlightening” and “enlightened” works as “Refusing To Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice” and “The End of Manhood: A Book for Men of Conscience”.
He was Andrea Dworkin’s husband, and holds a degree in fine arts and a Master of Divinity from Union Theological Seminary.
Perhaps Glenn Stanton is also an alum of UTS.
OK, here are a couple of points from Team Catholic (Australian branch).
This Sheila sheila would not be a problem if she were a Catholic because she would not be setting herself up as some kind of Christian leader, if she is, and she would not be able to argue for divorce in any circumstance, especially not for something as comparatively minor as looking at porn, if she does indeed argue that.
And no, men should not look at porn, but if American Christian men are unable to require sex of their wives, unable to visit prostitutes, and then the Sheilas of this world threaten them with divorce if they look at nudie pics, then such American men have nowhere to go, except maybe to a saner country (ie. just about anywhere).
I remember some cases in the Northwest – Oregon or Washington state, but could not find a link yet. Here is one for Canada.
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090506085558AAaWiMq
Also, not directly related, but researching “Ontario, Bill 117” will provide documentation for some of the issues discussed here.
“Don’t hit me; I’m a girl!”
ok, comment disappeared – here it is again –
This one is for Canada. I remember the same thing happening in the Northwest USA – Oregon or Washington state, but can’t find a link for it.
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090506085558AAaWiMq
Also, have a look at “Ontario Bill 117” for some related issues.
Dalrock,
You have done such a great job recently exposing feminism and misandry amongst Christians that it got me thinking…there is a site called “Gay Christian Movement Watch” (gcmwatch.com) that exposes the subtle or not so subtle push of the gay movement within churches. I like their approach and thought perhaps a site dedicated purely to exposing feminism and misandry in churches may be helpful. I came up with this:
http://cfwatch.wordpress.com/
and reposted the last two posts I did on Christian Manning Up and your “wife initiated divorce post” (with your permission, I’d like to re-run others of yours that I feel expose Christian misandry). Despite that, not really sure the logistics yet and would like to get other authors or maybe use it solely as a re-posting site to act as a database for articles that expose Christian feminism and misandry for what it is. If anyone wants to post there they do not need to be Christian, just have an understanding of what the church should stand for and how it has become feminized. Just because one is Christian, doesn’t mean one gets it (as we are so quickly learning). Often the most insightful comments come from non-Christians or those who have been pushed out by Churchianity. Christians often can’t see the forest for all the trees and I think more of what is needed is an outsider view of the church.
Stephen’s comment also really jumped out at me:
“I’ve attempted to spread the word a little myself, such as over at Art of Manliness a couple of days ago when this series of posts on modern Christianity winking at divorce started. Just wanted to mention it at the ‘community’ section over there. I started by raising the issue kind of generally (no mention of this site yet or links, etc) just to gauge the attitudes of those folks. That was not the site to attempt that and I got shouted down pretty quickly. A female poster who’s on that site about 8 hours a day and her white knight type followers were on me real quick so I just deleted my post and retreated (not out of worry about offending them but because I don’t want to steal anyone’s thunder on this issue). She said this point of view is neither manly nor fair, and that she detected an undercurrent of misogyny. I’ll try again another time. I knew that AoM was heavy on the white knight/female pedestal/LDS stuff but I was suprised at their negativity in all honesty.”
This sort of attitude at AoM needs to be exposed and highlights how deep feminism cuts. In passing most probably don’t think twice about the white knighting (or whatever you want to call that kind of behavior) on those sorts of sites. It is so ingrained that it is just part of the Christian background now.
Anyway, just throwing this out there…it may totally not work out and I’ve had my hands full lately (which is why for now think I will keep this as a re-posting and discussion site), but there certainly needs to be a lot more of these sorts of articles cause as I mentioned previously I thought I knew about feminism in the church, but really I think I have only seen the tip of the iceberg. This find on Stanton is exactly the sort of stuff that needs exposure as at first glance it doesn’t seem shocking…you hear “Focus on the Family” and assume it must be Christian and wholesome.
@Laura Grace Robins
That is a fantastic idea! Count me in. I think you have my email address. Send me a list of the posts you want to republish ahead of time if you don’t mind, just so I know. Off the bat I’d suggest (and authorize) the one about addiction leading to seduction and abandonment. I think that one could have some punch if the right folks read it. Feel free to put up the Fireproof review as well.
One of my obvious limitations is while I am a believer I’m not in this as a “Christian blogger”. To my great fortune there is a wealth of specific knowledge in many of the regular commenters, which they share to great effect. Those who don’t want to change what they are doing will look for any excuse to disregard an argument which makes them uncomfortable. The site you are talking about would help bridge that gap some as well.
LOL @ TFH.
@ Laura Grace Robins: Excellent! Good for you, starting such a new blog! We need to have all misandry and support for those promoting it, however unwittingly, even amongst traditionalist Christians and Catholics, exposed, laid bare.
It does depend on what basis you are assessing people on.
I happen to fully believe that Not All Women Are Like any particular thing (excepting, perhaps birth-with-ovaries). But my own experience has lead me to agree that most women ARE like whatever latest unpleasant habit is up for discussion, and the outliers rarely matter to an issue. I don’t care for the loud ALLLLLLL women are ____ types who apparently don’t believe in statistical outliers as a concept, but I also don’t get my self-worth from internet discussion and don’t care enough to enage there.
I may be solidly opposed to the misandry I see in most institutions, but I make no claims of great activism. I speak out against wrongs I run into while going about my life, but I don’t go out of my way to get involved in all issues. I’ve never made an anti-misandrist outreach of any sort, and I make no claims to any great work. grep has a great blog which I hope reaches young women. I have nothing of the sort and no such plans. I merely value reality and rationality.
What happened here today with Morticia is what happens when men behave like men and stick to the truth and actually hold women accountable. Morticia is the same woman has the same desire and beliefs. Yet she will change her commenting and behavior on this blog to remain relevant. What will be interesting is if she is worthy of this blog if she remains profamily and embraces the truth or remains poisoned with feminism that instinctivly reacts to team women. She looks to being a woman getting the red pill. I hope she makes it the western world will need her when I’m done it
Dalrock,
I wasn’t pleased with you linking to our blog in order to associate us with this Glenn Stanton guy, whom I’ve never even heard of, but we were giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would clarify the link and argue the topic in good faith. I only stepped in after the thread degraded because I hate to see people pile up on someone like that even after they’ve recanted, rather than stick to the actual topic being discussed. I’ve defended men against bullying and defamation, as well, including TFH (who was accused of being a misogynist, which he isn’t), so the charge that I’m doing so purely because she’s a woman is clearly false and uncharitable.
I resent the accusation that we refuse to be treated equally. I am hardly incapable of holding my own in a debate. I am more than willing to debate any man on a topic I possess a general understanding of, as long as the debate is about the topic being discussed and not about irrelevant personal attacks and juvenile sniping meant to distract me from the topic and win the debate by creating chaos in the thread. If I thought such a high-quality debate would be available to me here, then I would be here more often. Instead, any woman here who doesn’t toe the line is met with the following mentality — not by all of the men, but by enough of them to disrupt any constructive conversation — “[She] should be granted a lower level of accountability just for being a woman.” So much for equal terms.
This is your blog and your show, so if that’s the mentality you want to foster then it’s your business. But then please refrain from claiming that we’re just playing DHMIAG and that we’re treated the same as men here. We’re not, and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise. I avoid this place for that reason, as it’s impossible to win an argument when the deck is stacked so high against you before you even begin the debate. I only showed up here today because you had linked to me and I was baffled about why.
Morticia is a good woman.
All women sometimes play on Team Woman. They are women. Most men play for Team Man. I do sometimes. And my wife plays for Team Woman in our discussions sometimes. But she is a pretty good wife nonetheless.
Laura, what an excellent idea. That could become big, and it is much needed. Brilliant … and I don’t often say that.
Dalrock, I’m with you on wanting to provide children with a stable two parent household which doesn’t see divorce and the breakup of the family, but I just don’t think that is going to happen, either in religious circles or out. Americans have always self-identified as “rugged individualists” and the extreme form of individualism and personal freedom that Americans are known for (and proud of) just does not blend well with family values or community values. You can’t have both. A choice must be made and Americans have already chosen.
Marriage and family is on its way out, not in.
[D: Marriage isn’t on its way out for the middle class. This is true by definition. Those who raise fatherless children will watch their children fall behind. If not in the first generation then in the second or third. We already see this.]
@David Collard
That was my intention when I wrote my Team Woman post. It was merely a general observation.
TFH
You are right about the PUA and MGTOW types doing the lords work. I have never written an article nor have i ventured out futher than making a few comments and leaving a few fliers one week end but I am going to push for a union of MRA’s and PUA to give the girls what they want. These articles posted by Dalrock and the responses and the so called religious conservatives are completely lost. And from what I see talking to women is hopeless for making any changes but them knowing and hearing the truth. Women just need to be told how to direct their childish selfish hypergamy. A women will submit and be sexually aroused and full of loyal duty to her beta man if that is the norm and only option to involutary childless spinsterhood. There are more details and I could word it better but I think you get the idea.
TFH
one of the goals, using a huge amout of spinster terror and game. Is to start a repeal of the laws of misandry. No woman will ever say sorry but laws will pass that at one time would not be considered.(no woman voted for it but it passed,the old not my fault thing) The preacher with game will have a television ministery LOL. The man up headlines will be “how can we ask men to marry with divorce laws the way they are?” Maybe in the end with enough inertia they will allow themselves to be denied the vote for there own good and the inhancement of hypergamy.
By poaching Christian women on Sunday mornings, you PUAs are actually ensuring that nice Christian betas will never, ever get laid.
“The preacher with game will have a television ministery LOL.”
Um, its called the Southern Black Baptist Church.
Alte
I avoid this place for that reason, as it’s impossible to win an argument when the deck is stacked so high against you before you even begin the debate.
Well, now you know how a lot of men feel when they go to their workplace, if they go to church, and sometimes even when they go home. You can avoid posting here, but a man can’t avoid the HR department at work, or its equivalent at home.
Something to bear in mind when you can’t understand why sometimes, in some places, some men seem so angry. It might not be personal, it might be that the words on the screen are just like the memo they got from HR, or the words screamed in their face night before last, or the words said behind their back in some public setting.
Women in this society get to say pretty much anything they want, anywhere they want, any time they want, to almost anyone. They don’t realize that for men it’s nearly the exact opposite: we hold in words at work, in public, at home on a routine basis. There’s very few places where a man can speak his mind. This is one of the few, and you should be thankful that the vast majority even here keep control of themselves.
Dalrock
This series of articles was the most awesome thing to come along in a long time. Hold on to what you have and always remember you have a local friend here. Looks like Alta is mad at you. No worries man I got your back. I also think I’m going to talk to my preacher at my church and ask him what he thinks when I show him this series.
Not one modern church could retell this story without women storming out of the church.
Johnnycomelately, I laughed when I read this because it’s so true. SMoE is my Patroness this year, and it took me several weeks to accept that she had something to teach me. You’re right, her story is one most women would reject.
greyghost:
“A women will submit and be sexually aroused and full of loyal duty to her beta man if that is the norm and only option to involutary childless spinsterhood.”
This is absolutely true, and I have said this several times in the blogosphere. The general downgrading of men’s status, including by the churches (and I have to admit, the last pope John Paul II had his pedestalising tendencies), will not work out well for anyone in the long run. If the ordinary husband is no longer her Christian head, but becomes a societal joke and punchline, the ordinary wife will lose interest in him. I remember reading years ago that aggressive and dominant women have fantasies of even more dominant and violent men. Train husbands to be wimps and wives to be bitches, and pretty soon women will only be interested in the most dominant of “alphas”.
Regardless of the motivations or consequences, fornication is not “the Lord’s work”. You can call it all sorts of things and argue that it’s beneficial for the decent men in a church, but calling sin “the Lord’s work” is abominable.
My ? to TFH is, if as you say, you are a non-Abrahamic, never been married Indian PUA, why are you so concerned about beta Christians? Women’s sexual liberation and freedom to do whatever they want works IN YOUR FAVOR, that is IF indeed you are a single, never been married PUA.
What’s your dog in this fight exactly?
David Collard
I see you agree. The next step is how to get there. Watching female nature i think the best way is involutary childless spinsterhood. The PUA and the MGTOW working together as a cultural norm for men will get it done. The maginas and the whiteknights will be the victims of the doubling down and the competition for a chump beta to collect CS from. The PUA will be the cocks for the cock carousel and the MGTOW will be there to make sure they stay single in their post child bearing years. The exciting time will be from 35 to 45. The PUA after screwing sluts and seeing woman and their lies for a decade or so become MGTOW. Along the way maybe some beta types working for women will make an artificial womb for old chicks to have a baby. And the nuclear bomb of death to feminism the male birth control pill.The inertia of the feminist doubling down will bring more men to the survival culture of the PUA and MGTOW. .
CAB
don’t play house it is about pleasing to god not keeping up appearances.The bible is full of armies hacking up cities of people and destroying kingdoms.Thems the breaks.
I basically agree with CAB, but the women concerned are probably serial fornicators anyway. If some guy is wasting their time pretending to be marriage material to get sex, the only extra element he brings to the equation is that it is uncharitable to mislead people.
On the other hand, you can’t cheat an honest man (or woman).
If the woman is presenting herself as purer in body and motive than she actually is, and is planning on giving a “beta” some sex to rope him into marriage, she is also guilty of deception as well as fornication.
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave …”
TFH, that’s where you have it wrong. Sin is SIN, and there are no “rankings” of what is worse than the other. Using that line of thinking provides many Christians as a way to rationalize their poor behavior.
Women who act irresponsibly should be held accountable for their behavior. End of story.
It doesn’t take all women and it won’t be all women. But the umber has to be big enough to panic the female herd.
People like grerp ,Dalrock,and the future “preacher with game” will be the teachers to direct where the panic herd can go for saftey and security. screw the church and those feminised wimps they can basicly go to hell. New churches will form will a solid basis of standing and the PUA will be there to keep the christian woman really christian a make sure a slut is treated like a slut nand amgtow will make sure she works to support herself until death will no children there to hold her hand. If that is not doing the lords work in this modern feminised world then what is.
Lacegate
where do we get this accountability for a woman that acts irresponsibly. It looks and sounds cruel but it is what needs to happen. It is already happening on it’s own.Look at the church now.You are standing up for something that does not exist any more and has been replace by pedistalized hypergamy.
Dalrock, Will, DC:
Thanks! Dalrock–As time allows, I will compile a list of articles to post on cfwatch. I don’t think I have your email though, you can send one to me–[redacted]. If anyone finds good articles elsewhere that expose Christian misandry, please send links and I may just do “link round up” sort of postings as well.
“One of my obvious limitations is while I am a believer I’m not in this as a “Christian blogger”
Actually, I would say this is me as well. I write and my views stem from a Christian worldview, but I would categorize myself as an “anti-feminist blogger” foremost. Hence why I redesigned my blog awhile back to highlight it being primarily about “unmasking” feminism, whether it be in a traditionalist or more liberal camp.
[D: Thanks. I’ll send you an email.]
AR,
I’m not objecting to the fact that men want to come on here and complain, and don’t want women here annoying them with dissent or whatever. You come here to vent and talk amongst yourselves, and not to debate a bunch of girls. Fine. I don’t even mind, as my own blog has me stressed out enough that I usually don’t even have time to comment anywhere else anymore, so I usually only “tweet” or “like” Dalrock’s posts.
I’m only addressing the point as Dalrock brought it up as a counterargument:
I am saying that his argument is false because it is based upon the assumption that:
1) I complained about Morticia’s treatment because she’s a girl, even though the more obvious explanation is that she’s my friend and I thought she was being treated unfairly.
2) That women “enter the debate on equal terms with men” here, which is I posit to be untrue.
That the DHMIAG meme is being used as an argument against me is especially ironic as it originates with me.
There is an old saying, All is Fair in Love and War. Women know this, and now men are learning it.
The greatest achievement of feminism, or one of them, is to convince most men that they have to marry girls who cannot honestly wear a white dress. Once that domino fell, all the others followed. Of course some of the dominoes are still falling and not necessarily to the advantage of the bulk of women.
Many Western women now come to the marriage bed with a sexual history that would have been unthinkable even a few decades ago.
I would say also that God delivers rough justice. And He sometimes uses the bluntest of human instruments. If women are being deceived by men they are attempting to deceive, perhaps they are simply reaping their just desserts.
I don’t believe that there will be much legislative change. Feminists are too scary to male politicians, they fight in an incredibly filthy way, and they know exactly how to lobby. The only solution for men is guerrilla action. Internet phenomena like Paul Elam’s “RegisterHer”, the MRA blogs and the PUA blogs, and the opportunity for ordinary men to comment on the stupidest MSM articles on sex relations are the best chance for men. Even Memebase does some good anti-feminist work.
If Focus on the Family has sunk to THAT low, then we’re done! I remember when I first became a Christian over 20 years ago how Focus USED to be a good, solid organization-no more.
Dalrock,
I would like to apologize for accusing you of scapegoating Morticia. I can’t actually know your intentions, and your actions since speak against that assumption. I sincerely apologize as that was uncharitable behavior on my part, and I spoke in anger.
[D: Thanks Alte. No harm, no foul!]
@Laceagate
And here I was, thinking there were Venial sins and Mortal sins. Sins that would hold you longer in Purgatory, and sins that would, if unforgiven, condemn you to hell (Lust is one of them.)
Do Protestants not recognize Venial sins?
Great essay Dalrock. But really isn’t this guy just playing to his main TV viewer demographic – women?
In a way reminds me of a recent airline commercial showing a (gorgeous, successful) single mom keeping in touch with her kid while on a business trip with their new in-flight internet service. Implication was that the chat connection with her kid was as good as being there in person.
@ElectricAngel : “Do Protestants not recognize Venial sins?”
Not afik. The Protestant Bible don’t also have Purgatory. Bear in mind that the Catholic Bible has extra chapters in the OT, too…..fwiw.
Alte
I’m not objecting to the fact that men want to come on here and complain, and don’t want women here annoying them with dissent or whatever. You come here to vent and talk amongst yourselves, and not to debate a bunch of girls.
That’s one or two strawman arguments. I pointed out some facts, and you proceeded to twist them into something like a passive-aggressive pretzel. Offhand, I’d say that you aren’t reading anything very carefully right now based on your misreading of my text. Might want to bear that in mind.
On Protestants:
Sin is Sin, there isn’t any rankings. The physical and earthly consequences are just different.
If you want to go the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Commandments route, murder is down at 6.
At the risk of starting a long and esoteric theology debate, something like Purgatory is there in the Protestant view, but without justification by Grace alone, you don’t “work your way out”. Think of it more like the place you go before the Rapture. (And let’s not get stuck too long on that issue, haha)
Let’s not forget a lot of Luther’s work was a result of the Papacy raising money by selling “Indulgences” in Poland & Germany. The Sistine Chapel wasn’t going to pay for itself. (An “Indulgence” is pretty much a Get Out of Hell Free card for rich people. It was basically an Anti-Hell Bond purchase, haha. Earliest known example of hedging a financial arrangement! 🙂 )
And the Indulgence industry still exists, insanely enough, though the Catholic Church stopped doing that ages ago. (Carbon Credits are hilarious in a historical context)
As for SMN (Sunday Morning Nightclub), it’s not “the Lord’s work”, for sure. It’s a reflection of there always being a market for people that deal in sin, so why would that change for Sunday Morning Christians? That’s really the sad commentary there.
Judging by Alte’s posts here, I might not want to visit her blog.
Also, openly making judgements about every feminist woman is an incredibly effective tool. You can tell by the visceral reaction to it. Usually, it’s best to do it to ones who do not hold authority over you, because they love to wield power in petty ways.
I’m starting to feel like the campus of UC-Berkley is a safer place for heterosexual men than the average christian church
TFH,
“Watching female nature i think the best way is involutary childless spinsterhood. The PUA and the MGTOW working together as a cultural norm for men will get it done.”
Being a voluntary childless spinster who has GHOW myself, I wholeheartedly agree. Along with my proposal that nobody be allowed to have kids unless and until they get a license to do so.
It all ties in together. My theory is that nobody really wants kids anymore, not in this society at least. If they did, they’d consider staying in a less than stellar marriage for the kids’ sake. Once they divorce then are all set to enter the single parent dating scene, which is WRONG. It is just plain wrong.
My conclusion then is that marriage and family does not come naturally to Americans because of our “rugged individualism” ethic, which flies directly in the face of family and community.
Therefore, I can’t speak for other nations, but in this country at least, nobody should be having kids. For the few that really, really want kids, and for whom its not a just a fleeting feewing, then they can undergo training and get licensed.
Oops, my above post was in response to someone else, not TFH. I wanted to alert TFH to this comment
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/glenn-stanton-of-focus-on-the-family-praises-heroic-unwed-mothers/#comment-20516
which is a question direct at him alone.
Alte is an intelligent and effective generally anti-feminist blogger.
She is not perfect, but who is?
I think she tires of the manosphere tone sometimes. I think she needs a break. We all do sometimes.
[D: Removed.]
As a Catholic (and therefore Christian) I find this very depressing. Current Christians have stopped worshiping a cross. Now we worship a vagina. Enough said.
David Collard
“Alte is an intelligent and effective generally anti-feminist blogger.
She is not perfect, but who is?
I think she tires of the manosphere tone sometimes. I think she needs a break. We all do sometimes.”
Alte is a human female. She is also someoe that has a dog in the hunt as a christian female blogger. Dalrocks article was an assault on the essence of her blog community. She is a she and has been discussed before reacted with emotion and first stop is team woman. it was natural and normal. After a period of time she apologize for her feelings and reaction to Dalrock and Dalrock understood and so do I. I have seen her post comments on mens blogs but this time it was brought to her house,very shocking.
Hawaiian Libertarian said something in his most recent post that brought me back to the nature of the discussion that has unfolded here:
Verisimilitude and ethos are nearly impossible to fake. Indeed, verisimilitude is practically the coin of the realm in the blogosphere – without knowing who each other are, we have to judge each other based on the truthfulness (intentional and/or inadvertent) in each other’s writing…
Despite any differences of opinion, clearly a few of the men who commented here (including Keoni) appreciate that the writers and former writers at TC have proven ourselves as anything but garden variety, Team Woman feminists.
And thanks Dalrock for being fair. I know these conversations can often be anything but rational because the topics are so personal and hit so close to home for so many men. The willingness of some of the guys here to call it like it is and take us at face value of the basis of the character exhibited extensively in our writings instead of defaulting to the “woman as evil” meme actually gives me hope.
Yes, I agree with Elspeth.
I also agree with DC that I need a break, which is why I’m going to go take one now. Really, this time.
@ AquaNet:
“By poaching Christian women on Sunday mornings, you PUAs are actually ensuring that nice Christian betas will never, ever get laid.”
At the risk of stating the obvious, nice Christian betas aren’t getting laid now anyway. PUAs in church will make no diifference on that score at all.
@Zed: Thanks for that link. 😯 It would be interesting to have something that shows which states do this. Clearly, common sense (and decency) has flown other places besides the US……
Something to bear in mind when you can’t understand why sometimes, in some places, some men seem so angry.,….Women in this society get to say pretty much anything they want, anywhere they want, any time they want, to almost anyone. They don’t realize that for men it’s nearly the exact opposite: we hold in words at work, in public, at home on a routine basis. There’s very few places where a man can speak his mind….
Yeah, and somewhere in my childhood I got it burned into my head, that if the “red dawn” ever came for real, I should heed Paul Revere’s ancient cry, grab an old deer rifle, and sacrifice my life as a teenage guerilla fighter, in defense of such noble words as this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”
While this is not an exclusively Christian blog regarding how the topic is addressed, I see a lack of information for all involved on the theology front. So, in case anyone wants to know what the Bible says on Sunday morning PUA’s “doing God’s work,” here’s Paul in Romans.
Romans 1:28-32
English Standard Version (ESV)
28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
God does not approve of evil acts, but He will give you the opportunity to be the agent of your own destruction, PUA’s and Christians-in-name-only alike.
Well, read it for yourself, its written right into the law in Ontario. The nanny state is protecting its hegemony over its harem of single mothers. So if you do in fact happen to “take an interest” in any of the offspring of a single mother you can be held financially responsible for them in perpetuity.
So single mother = big risk for a financially secure single man! Stay away!
The Sunday Morning Nightclub concept is actually helpful in that it helps to clean out the dross of the women in churches. I do not approve of the activity in and of itself, but like some immoral activities, in this case it has a useful purpose for everyone else.
Well, read it for yourself, its written right into the law in Ontario. The nanny state is protecting its hegemony over its harem of single mothers. So if you do in fact happen to “take an interest” in any of the offspring of a single mother you can be held financially responsible for them in perpetuity.
So single mother = big risk for a financially secure single man! Stay away!
Yeah, I tend to think the guys who go for single mothers are often (not always, but often) guys who are either near the end of the rope or who are thinking with their dicks (i.e., there are some quite hot single mothers). Either way, if things work out badly, they’re kind of getting what they deserve, in my opinion.
@ElectricAngel,
And here I was, thinking there were Venial sins and Mortal sins. Sins that would hold you longer in Purgatory, and sins that would, if unforgiven, condemn you to hell (Lust is one of them.)
Do Protestants not recognize Venial sins?
I am Catholic and I do understand the differences between venial and mortal sin:
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm#answer5
All mortal sins can be forgiven, if the sinning individual truly repents their actions and has remorse for what they have done, AND if they do not do it again.
I have also found their shows to be heavily female-centered but I do think that they have good intentions, just very limited and misguided ones. Perhaps they are trying to present a mask of ‘equality’ in order to address the plundering marriage rates and increasing divorce rates.
But using Christianity as a cover for excusing female nagging, perstering, guilt-tripping etc while shaming equivalent male stress-outs is very suspect.
Steffen says:
“While this is not an exclusively Christian blog regarding how the topic is addressed, I see a lack of information for all involved on the theology front. So, in case anyone wants to know what the Bible says on Sunday morning PUA’s “doing God’s work,” here’s Paul in Romans.
Romans 1:28-32
English Standard Version (ESV)”
You’re engaging in a fallacy called “prooftexting” where one pulls snippets of text out of context and applies them to unrelated behaviors you wish to circumscribe. If you had included the whole passage, we would see that the “they” in your quote is referring to idol worshippers, specifically the Greco-Roman world. Nothing addresses anything about PUA, here. There was no PUA in that day, nor was there any need for it (outside of adulterous seduction), given that all women, both pagan and Hebrew, were married off at puberty.
@caballarius1
Read the chapter. “God’s anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known.” v.18
You’re going to worship something, it’s a truth inherent to the human condition. If that something is not your Creator, you are an idolator, and these verses do indeed apply.
But using Christianity as a cover for excusing female nagging, perstering, guilt-tripping etc while shaming equivalent male stress-outs is very suspect.
The reason they do it is because of their traditionalist mindset. In that mindset, the man, as the head of the house, is the one who is responsible when things go badly — either his own bad acts or her bad acts, ultimately the buck stops with him. So, the woman is not directly targeted, but is instead used as a way to “correct” the male behaviors that are assumed to be the root of any misbehavior on her part, while the man is directly targeted for the same reason. Per this mindset, it is counterproductive and beside the point to critique the women directly because (i) the underlying cause lies with the man anyway, and so it’s like treating a symptom rather than the disease and (2) doing so takes away a strong cudgel to correct the man’s behavior. One can see how this very easily slides into the gynocentrism and misandry that underlies much traditionalist thought, but from their own perspective “it makes sense”.
This is one of the main reasons why trads are no friends of men, and never will be.
Steffen says:
“Read the chapter. “God’s anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known.” v.18
You’re going to worship something, it’s a truth inherent to the human condition. If that something is not your Creator, you are an idolator, and these verses do indeed apply.”
I’ve read the passage many, many times. Glad to see you admit the passage is about idolators. What’s it got to do with the discussion at hand?
Use it as a time to have conversations about what are those qualities about men that she as a woman yearns for, looks for, appreciates, and what are those qualities that she doesn’t like as much. In those conversations she can teach her kids really in wonderful ways, ok this is what a good man looks like, this is what a good guy looks like.
Given the out-of-wedlock birthrate and divorce rate, how on Earth will this women be able to point to their children the very qualities that these women don’t have? Something doesn’t compute, it must be my Windows that need a fresh reinstall…
@Elspeth
Cosigned. You especially have been entirely unwavering in your support of traditional marriage, but all of you are very solid in this regard.
With that said, there is no litmus test to participate in this discussion. There is no orthodoxy here which men or women need to follow. No woman needs to prove herself a supporter of men to offer her own opinion. This doesn’t mean her opinion shouldn’t ever be challenged, but her right to participate should never be in question.
Personally I have far less patience for white knights (especially if they have had a chance to learn better) than for male or female feminists. Even so, I’ll even allow white knights to participate in the discussion unless they seek to derail it.
@caballarius1
Simply this: The chapter is one of many that clearly lays out God’s disapproval for corruption in the world. On the topic of sexual immorality, among other things. Dalrock laid out in his latest post he does not view the guys picking up chicks to sleep around with at church as being of any higher level than the chicks themselves. I agree with him.
If any here want to assume a higher moral authority to lend themselves more credibility on the subject, I’d recommend taking the high road. It’s not particularly easy, merely worth it.
Brendan writes: “The reason they do it is because of their traditionalist mindset. In that mindset, the man, as the head of the house, is the one who is responsible when things go badly — either his own bad acts or her bad acts, ultimately the buck stops with him.”
In other words, the man is always presumed guilty. His mere status as a husband serves as a standing indictment against him, to be used to humiliate him and break his resistance in the face of bad doctrine, unjust demands, and flat out idiocy. I’ve never believed this garbage when pastors spouted it, simply because it’s a worldly principle, not a biblical one. Keeping men emotionally off balance with relentless demands and accusations, so that they are always unsure of themselves and therefore unable to defend their own dignity, let alone assert authority, is a basic female tactic of psychological manipulation. It ruined my stepfather, who was emotionally wrecked by an abusive, traditionalist mother. My father-in-law endured this torment from his wife until, driven virtually to the brink of madness, he finally called it quits. On the same principle, men are quitting the feminized churches.
FoTF is Dobson? Holy cow, it’s starting to make sense now. This guy is everywhere. He authored the horrible abstinence book (http://www.amazon.com/Preparing-Adolescence-James-C-Dobson/dp/0003306011) I got force-fed in 7th grade, which was one major reasons that I turned into an asexual chump for so long. It’s a blue pill the size of Montana. It took years to recover from that.
Dalrock –
The only two oases of male-friendliness in the church world are Orthodoxy and traditionalist Calvinism. Traditionalist Calvinism is best exemplified by such denominations as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or the AR Presbyterians. Lots of men in those churches.
<i.“The reason they do it is because of their traditionalist mindset. In that mindset, the man, as the head of the house, is the one who is responsible when things go badly — either his own bad acts or her bad acts, ultimately the buck stops with him.”
See, I’ve never believed that. Granted, I have witnessed a few heinous acts toward a couple of male relatives when I was a child and a few even more recently that colors my perspective, but I don’t think any clear-thinking person trad or not believes that adults are not responsible for their actions based on gender. In fact, I just lamented this kind of behavior on the part of the church in a recent post.
I think one of the defining marks of a true traditionalist (not the feminized Christian variety) is that we (or at least I) believe that sacrifice should be shared equally regardless of gender for the greater good of children, families and society as a whole. I’m no more interested in female autonomy than I am in male autonomy to tell you the truth. If a woman has sex, let her bear the baby that comes as a result rather than have the taxpayers subsidize her birth control and/or abortion. And if a man impregnates a woman not his wife, the two of them should both be held liable for the consequences of their actions. If a spouse (male or female) wants a divorce, let them prove fault. Churches need to hold the line on what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage. Period.
That all probably makes me sound horribly uncompassionate, but from what I can see with my own eyes, the unchecked freedom to follow one’s urges and feelings have taken us no where good. If this current society is what “compassion” and ‘self-actualization” leads to, then I say we’re better off without it.
@asinusspinasmasticans: “AR Presbyterians”?? (American Reformed? I think it would be safe to include the RCA in there, because it’s so close to Presbyterian that there is not much difference) Do you mean PCUSA? Then you also have the Evangelical Presbyterians and the Bible Presbies, too. (Given the last vote a while ago regarding homosexuality in the (PCUSA) clergy, I think it’s likely that this is one to watch, imo, as there is already fallout)
“Elspeth says:
If a woman has sex, let her bear the baby that comes as a result rather than have the taxpayers subsidize her birth control and/or abortion. ”
I’m on board with a lot of what you say, from a responsibility standpoint, but society also bears the cost of these people’s actions, no matter how much we want those responsible to (wo)man up. I am strongly opposed to abortion, but I am also strongly opposed to people who don’t want kids parenting.
I think it is well worth it to society to bear the cost of birth control (ie. actual conception prevention – not post-conception early abortifacients). The fewer unwanted lives started, the better. I’d love to tell women not to have sex if they are not ready to raise children, but societally, I’d rather minimize damages where it’s comparatively cheap to do prevention rather than cleanup.
Steffen says:
“Simply this: The chapter is one of many that clearly lays out God’s disapproval for corruption in the world. On the topic of sexual immorality, among other things.”
Actually, the chapter is explaining that the sexual perversions of the Greco-Roman world were the direct result of those people who “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” I suppose you can mine it and spin it to your heart’s, God knows many a pope and hedge-priest has.
Dalrock laid out in his latest post he does not view the guys picking up chicks to sleep around with at church as being of any higher level than the chicks themselves. I agree with him.
If any here want to assume a higher moral authority to lend themselves more credibility on the subject, I’d recommend taking the high road. It’s not particularly easy, merely worth it.
Pingback: Game for pastors part I | Dalrock
Pingback: Game for pastors part I | Dalrock
Pingback: Game for pastors part I | Dalrock
Pingback: Game for pastors part I | Dalrock
Glenn Stanton is FOTF’s mangina uber alles.
Pingback: Do You Think They Will Say The Same Thing About Single Fathers? » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology
rayy says:
under the current gyno-systems in church and state, trying to fill the gap in the lives of these (often wonderful) boys does more harm than good, adding another layer of trauma on top of the missing-father wound”
Why would that be? I could see it only in the context of dating their mothers. Being a stable non-family male figure in a boy’s life could help a lot – a boy scout leader, or a teacher, or something.
The suggestion given above to form a boy scout group with the involvement of as many fathers as you can get, plus boys without fathers would be extremely valuable for the boys with no fathers.
fair question — i was trying to be brief, guess i was too brief
boy scouts or Big Brothers is better than nothing, but not much — what boys want, and greatly need (for their own safety and development) is their OWN dad or, second best, a man who loves them LIFELONG in a personal, one-on-one relationship
boy scouts etc just doesnt cut it — youcan’t fool a kid into thinking a group relationship is a personal relationship . . . oh yeah, here’s your Group Daddy . . . not
my point — from experience, not theory — is that in our matriarchy, women expect and demand a lifelong, hot-sex, mega-romantic worshiipfest that prohibits boys from maintaining relationships with the men (fathers or otherwise) who love them
mom wants a New Thrill every few years (or months!) in validation of her own attractiveness, even in her forties and fifties! so the boys who form permanent relationships with men that love them are CRUSHED when mom gets bored and moves on to, yet again, the Next Guy
thus my prior comment, that in our gynocracy, trying to help and love these boys re-traumatizes them to the original loss of their biological fathers (who, often, are two husbands or ten “boyfriends” in the past)
once these boys come to love you, mom will often weaponize that love to coerce the man into being, and doing, whateveer she demands . . . or else your relationship is over
naively, i once thought that just loving these boys would be enough — but in a culture in which females hold all the power, sadly. trying to “sub-daddy” often only makes things worse
“Sin is Sin, there isn’t any rankings.”
Says who? Are you going to tell me that fornication between 2 consenting, single adults is on the same level as seriel killing and eating your victims flesh?
TFH, I just find it out that you write like an older, disgruntled, divorced man, not like a young, single and carefree PUA. The system works in your favor, as it works in mine, that is why you won’t find me bemoaning injustice against “nice girls” who “just want to settle down with a nice guy”. The only people I stick up for in this game is CHILDREN, because they have no one to speak for them. They are the ones who are suffering emotional and psychological trauma as a result of their parents divorcing, or not marrying at all, and swinging from one partner to the next.
That is why on principle I refuse to date single dads, even if their situation is not their fault. By dating a single dad I would be complicit in the child abuse he is meting out to his children, and make no bones about it, single parents who date ARE neglecting and abusing their children psychologically. Why should the kids have to suffer just because the parents couldn’t keep their relationship in tact?
But you will not hear me bemoaning the state of the single life here, for either the male or female side, which you are doing in your cheerleading for single beta men. I will not bemoan the single life because I think no matter how bad some people might find it – it is infinetely BETTER than having kids and then betraying them by not staying together as a tight-knit intact family.
Only a fool or a highly irresponsible person would bring a kid into this culture, and that is EXACTLY the majority of the people who are doing it!
Elspeth says:
“If a woman has sex, let her bear the baby that comes as a result rather than have the taxpayers subsidize her birth control and/or abortion. ”
That baby will cost the taxpayers A LOT MORE if she does have it.
Gabriel says:
“Given the out-of-wedlock birthrate and divorce rate, how on Earth will this women be able to point to their children the very qualities that these women don’t have? Something doesn’t compute, it must be my Windows that need a fresh reinstall…”
Gab, we are at the point now where divorce and oow birth is seen as perfectly normal, even something to aspire to, I kid you not. There is no where else for these women and men to point as a good example to their children because they will point at themselves as the good example!
Young girls are getting the message from culture, media, society, school and their own parents that having a baby 00w is “cool”.
I kid you not!
When we’re speaking to ‘sin’, in the biblical sense, and not ‘morality’ in a general ‘don’t do bad things’ sense, yes, all sin is equal.
The bible is pretty clear on this (despite catechism’s interpretation into mortal vs venial):
If you sin (any sin, of any kind, at all), and do not repent and receive forgiveness, that sin is enough to separate you from god.
Therefore, under that paradigm, it is simply a black or white – sin, or no sin – regardless of what exactly the sin is.
When people are speaking ‘sin’, they are generally speaking to the biblical use.
You don’t have to agree with the bible, but there’s not a lot of value in arguing about what it says when you don’t give it any credibility anyways.
In secular terms, I think most of us agree that there are different levels of ‘wrong’.
“ray says:
boy scouts or Big Brothers is better than nothing, but not much — what boys want, and greatly need (for their own safety and development) is their OWN dad or, second best, a man who loves them LIFELONG in a personal, one-on-one relationship”
That’s all I was going for – better than nothing, rather than detrimental.
I agree that women’s temporary dates flitting in and out can just do worse harm to a boy without a dad.
I don’t think that other adults can fill the role of dad.
But I do think that longterm, even if not lifelong, interaction with good male role models through sport, boy scouts, or any such thing can add a lot to a fatherless boy’s life.
Think of the number of athletes who have spoken about the impact their coach made on their lives. I have two parents, but my girl guide leaders definitely made an impact in my development as another good caring role model.
I don’t mean to suggest that it is a replacement – but I think what can help a little is still helpful.
@TFH
“Bad things happen when good people do nothing. Not on my watch.
If I felt racism were a bigger problem (it is not), I would be fighting that. Yes, many aspects of the modern sexual marketplace work in my favor, and I have had a better set of experiences than 99% of men.”
You’re not fooling anybody. A single man who has success with many women does not spend as much time as you do on the internet writing about divorce, mens rights, and how to get women to stop riding the carousel and commit to beta males. Uh huh. Forget about putting up posters in urinals and encouraging other men to do the same. Uh huh. No way. And forget about that single, successful with woman Don Juan being an Indian who could opt for arranged marriage with little risk of divorce. Uh huh. No way Jose.
You’ve obviously been burned. Maybe you had a “love marriage” here in the States and she reamed you in divorce court, or maybe the women you loved rejected you for an alpha male, but whatever it is, I can guarantee you that if you were really reaping the benefits of the sexual market place like you claim, you would NOT be spending as much time as you do on these blogs and with these issues.
Uh huh.
Just catching up on comments. The Christian teaching that first came to mind when I saw TFH’s comment was of course commandment 3. It’s one thing rambling on about a certain lifestyle, it’s quite another claiming it’s God’s work.
@Lily,
I thout it was a little odd as well, although I did think it might fit under the category of “What you intended for evil, god intended for good”.
Jason
“But I do think that longterm, even if not lifelong, interaction with good male role models through sport, boy scouts, or any such thing can add a lot to a fatherless boy’s life.”
Kai —
in my zeal for advocating individual relationships, while pointing out current grave needs, i regret my unfair minimizing of Boy Scouts and Big Brothers
you are of course correct
those orgs do a great job, and i am VERY thankful for the men who interact w/boys these ways; may god bless them
@Aqua Net
“You’ve obviously been burned.”
Maybe he has, but he is changing a lot of minds on the sorry state of relationships in this country….
@Aqua Net
I just double checked the recent comment stats, and you are far the most prolific commenter on this blog.
Dalrock says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm
@Aqua Net
I can guarantee you that if you were really reaping the benefits of the sexual market place like you claim, you would NOT be spending as much time as you do on these blogs and with these issues.
Uh huh.
I just double checked the recent comment stats, and you are far the most prolific commenter on this blog.
*
Yes, but I’m not claiming to be a young female pua or juggling many men or even in a live in relationship, remember? Remember I said I have a low libido and such type of things are not a priority for me currently? Believe me, if I was out in the game, I wouldn’t be commenting here.
Ferdy isn’t nearly as prolific as he used to be, though. Nowadays most of the posts on In Mala Fide are written by guests and stuff.
Oooh, good point, I forgot about In Bona Fide.
The blogs you cited, other than Dalrock’s, aren’t MRA blogs. Roissy and Roosh write about game. Roosh writes about his personal experiences with women abroad. They are not ranting and raving about divorce and all this MRA stuff. They have all written posts distancing themselves from MRAs.
You on the other hand, write like someone who’s not had success with women but rather been burned very badly by them. Divorce issues? Come on.
You don’t irk me. You just remind me of alot of uncles I know. Its amusing.
Huh.
I thought surely I’d find a comment here by Flenser on Glen Stanton. Yet there isn’t one.
How curious…
@David Collard
“Most men play for Team Man. I do sometimes.”
Basic evo psych informs us that “Team Man” doesn’t exist and has never existed. There’s certainly no evidence for it.
Pingback: The missing fear | Dalrock
Pingback: If Mark Driscoll weren’t so foolish he would be wise. | Dalrock
Pingback: It’s just like running a restaurant | Dalrock
And while we’re on the matter of male responsibility, how annoying is it to hear the pop culture bring up Valentine’s Day as some sort of male duty, to worship at the female altar?
Pingback: Who is a feminist? « Thinking 8
Absolutely, let’s shame them just like Jesus did.
Pingback: Stanton’s Heroes | Dalrock
Pingback: Women are innately good. | Dalrock
Pingback: Threatpoint | Dalrock
Love my husband 30+ years. Homeschooled 3 kids through college. D DAY five years ago ..found photos of two children he and his OW had during their 14 year adultery. She RESEARCHED how to become a ‘single mom by choice’ .
I have followed the Lord with my Bible and allowed Him to bring fellowship of whomsoever He determined for me as I was at home, teaching my children , tending to our own responsibilities to study the word and to live by what we found there.
No church affilation as we went to find …many do not care for the WORD but only their party line
My husband had a loving , submitted wife who believed in his need for rest and relaxation and trusted his time for work and his need to play golf was appreciated but tried to gently remind him of what he was missing and our children were missing as he was so ‘busy’
Now we all realize he was not busy with all of his many responsiblities as much as we thought .
We all basically withdrew so we would be available to him IF he had any time for us in his schedule.
He chose to make a LOT of time for a total stranger who he eventually invited into his work .
I never dreamed him capable of reducing himself and his integrity much less would I have guessed he would risk his career, health [ and mine] and the kind of financial losses , let alone care so little for our children to CHOOSE to have children with a woman of this caliber….a self proclaimed communist , feminist , gaia worshiper.
He gave in to her urging him to ‘give her children ‘ because ‘he had used up her years to be able to meet someone else’ She initiated the relationship while he was eating alone while having gone ahead being transferred shortly after the birth of our last child….I stayed behind to finish up a HUGE addition on our home and prepare it for sale..while recovering from a C SECTION….and caring for a new baby and two young children
He gave her anything she asked for once pregnant ..a new house… a lexus …money in any amount at that time he felt he could and all of his income was his to do freely what he wanted …even though we agreed when we married and had very little ..to discuss any expenditure over 50.00
He became more and more independent as he gained status…and freedom from his former knowledge and concern for the Lord…We were NOT captive in the church system but we both had been involved in our walk
This woman cared NOTHING for the fact he was married but I think she saw a perfect MARK to con into this lifestyle where she now has us paying for child support and we are going to have to sell our home and move.
The women who think children are like ‘purse dogs’ and want the ‘experience ‘ of having babies to get money from men they do not want to marry …she did not want any of the men she could have had who were available…and now she has two children and gets over what she could get if she went to the soc services . She does not stay with them when sick at home…does not have a full time job…and does not keep food in the house or cook!
My husband suppliments their meals by feeding them in the AM and then drives them to school
Now as we SHOULD be having a great life in our golden years…I am heart broken ..our two daughters raised to be virtuous and not in the contemporary ‘dating ‘ mode…have no connections because my husband has moved us about every two to three years…he gets’ advanced’
His selfishness and foolish disregard for the family and wife he has …and his being without self governing and this woman’s lack of regard for me ,,,our children or even caring about having chldren out of wedlock with a married family man is APPALLING
There are no laws outside of my Lord’s to deal with these women who have apparently no moral conscience or upbringing ..her own parents LOVED my husband and approved of their adultery …they KNEW the details of HIS family life and saw only $$ for their daughters future as eh WORKED his guilt and lust .
HE is fully responsible for what he has done ..now has SEEN her for WHAT she is ..but the damage to our household may take it’s toll upon our own children who are now having to deal with HIS choices too …even wondering IF there are any decent people out there who are CAPABLE of fidelity though they have been raised to expect to live as godly people …not churchized …but according to their own integrity of faith and conscience
There is no way to express the depth of damage these women who have learned from “Sex in the CITY ” types of media …and the PORN of Cosmo …[which started by a FEMINIST extrodinair …subtily serving up fashion and beauty ..now a porn mag offering sex tips to single owomen at the grocery check out ]
As a young woman in the 60’s I did not appreciate the way feminism was effecting the young men as I loved having my door opened …and being treated with courtesy ..that should not be a gender issue ..but an ethics and ettiquette issue …Today it IS a ‘jungle’ out there …anarchy is HUGE in our area….it is frigthful to just go into the city ..I avoid it like the plague…
I am so sad to see so much decline in human decency
All of my efforts to protect my children and train them aright ,.and my husband goes out and not only commits adultery [ being an over achiever! ] He inseminates a WHORE and she give birth to two who procliamed to my husband that they hate christianity .
The ‘visible’ church claiming Christ is NOT what is true Christ followers…but many are there and don’t have enough knowledge of scripture to realize this ..but still The children of my husband’s adultery are being taught to worship the pagan and pantheism and to open up to a ‘spirit guide’
This may not bother many people …but it is like a little microcosm of the two dycotomies of God’s Kingdom vs the carnal kingdom of fallen fleshly man …not neutral but proactively destructive of all godly order.
My husband is ‘sorry ‘ and we are still together …he has cut off his relationship with her…but continues to ‘father ‘ the children ..I do not know how this will turn out
To me he is not equipped to be a good moral influence upon them but it is a safety valve to keep her from neglecting them…and for the kids to know they have an advocate.
I once was willing to help in this but now seeing she is such a sociopath …in therapy since way before he met her and she has the kids in therapy too ..now they think they have ‘issues’ …paranoid…fearful ..and messed up and they are not even teens as yet.
This is EVIL and I don’t see even his ‘good intentions ‘ working out …at some point they will see his duality in his facade…
You cannot manipulate someone’s reality without them becoming very angry to learn that their life as it realates to you ..if you are the parent …is all a FANTASY you devised to make yourself feel good ..which I believe he is doing ….it is easier to engage with children than the wife you have voilated an the children of your marriage you deceived…but I think he is doing it all over again …and when THEY find out it will not be the great future ‘crop’ that he thinks he is sowing
I don’t think you can expect GOD to bless anything that violates your marriage vows..and steals from your marriage relationship
when he began to reconnect with them and did not inform me for two more years I noticed his effort drop off in the work to reconcile and heal our marriage
You cannot serve two masters…and now instead of the OW being the drain ..it is the KIDS of her ‘single mom by choice’ …she is not even authrentic in THAT …she gets more money from US …than many divorced moms
He is teaching his daughter of HER that a woman can get it ‘all ‘ and not have to work …and not have to be married !
What a RIP OFF .
Neither will those children observe two loving parents of male and female go through and work through issues that life offers us to GROW through .
It is a sham he is trying to live ..and all the while our daughters and son are not moving forward …They should be interested in marriage and family ..How do they trust anyone ..their father did such a good job of being such a ‘great guy’ and successful business man ! ANY man who appears to be all of what my husband was …will be suspect …all because my husband would not take responsiblity to learn HOW to protect his marriage and love .and grow it with me …
He had ME ..secure in my being trustworthy I became his ‘homebase’ for HIS wonderful and exciting life.
I was not a ‘doormat’ I was a good and loving wife..and kept myself trim ..fit and daily groomed …He has had NO excuse ..he simply was offered too many opportunities for ‘free love’ and was lustful , greedy and felt entitled…or ‘invisible’ as he said ..
He just felt he SHOULD because he COULD
A vow faded as he entered into the corp world among people who did not respect marriage and the feminist movement has DENGRATED being a WIFE ……that role has been so disrepected
Had my husbnd involved himself in our family life …HE NEVER would have given that woman a child ..or two …She thought ANY idiot could be a mother ..NOW she demonstrates her lack of concern and love for caring for her children ..JUST as one would conclude in someone who did not care about the losses HER intrusion into our lives meant to all areas of our lives
None of us had the life that marriage and family GOD intended because my husband would not invest in learning how great and fulfilling our family was …IF he had cared enough to invest himself
He lost all but he cost all of us …and the GODDESS who he allowed into his life ..was deceitful to gain his confidence that she never wanted to be his wife ..but just wanted to steal MY LIFE
She wanted what it took us years to build without making any sacrifices or being under any man;s authority. or any form of order that would be beneficial to the children she wanted.
She got all of what SHE wanted for HERSELF ..and now is simply continuing to live for HERSELF .
My husband is working harder than ever at a point where WE should be able to have time for each other and our family and some reconnecting in our twilight years..HE can’t …and by the time those children are off the dole of our family’s vanishing income ..I may not be able or even alive to enjoy life with him
His lust and foolishness and HER devious using has cost me, our three children , her two children and all of the extended families HUGE …all for HER manipulative ways …and my husbands lust and then GUILT which she used well to attach herself to US all ..a TRUE parasite.
No law can protect what a man is not willing to protect…..for lust sake.
I have NO contact nor do I want to …I will allow that GOD does recompense evil ..and if there is no repentance they dig their own grave ….and eternal destiny …SHE has been told the word ..and hates IT …and apparently everyone else in her life…what a bane …
Pingback: Romance Novels for Men: The White Knight Hero | THE UNIVERSITY OF MAN
Pingback: Whistling through the graveyard? | Dalrock
Pingback: The normalization of the trashy single mother. | Dalrock
Pingback: Romance Novels for Men: The White Knight Hero « stagedreality
Pingback: Single mothers and the failure of Christain men; it is time to Man Up! | Dalrock
Pingback: Holiness Uber Alles. | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Remaking the princess, evicting the prince. | Dalrock
Pingback: Empowerment turned demotion. | Dalrock
Pingback: Let's Read: Church Impotent
Pingback: Post-Modernism’s Final Causes and Pyrrhic Victory | iParallax
Pingback: The Church Man | The Reinvention of Man
Says your brand of Christianity. Here’s what mine had to say:
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/commentaries/not_in_praise_of_single_motherhood
2 Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Pingback: Fathers [sometimes] matter! | Dalrock
Pingback: Do You Believe Your Lying Eyes? | Spawny's Space
Pingback: How Conservatives Helped Ruin the “Sanctity of Marriage” | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy
Reblogged this on Afro Futurism.