I’ve mentioned Glenn T. Stanton, Director of Family Formation Studies for Focus On The Family before in this blog. As you might recall he has bragged that the most faithful Christians only divorce 38% of the time. You have also heard him call unwed mothers heroic. In the latter link I mentioned a bizarre passage from his book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity. In the passage he explains that he and his wife try to watch the movie As Good As It Gets once a year. He uses this movie as an example of the goodness of womanhood. In the section titled Girls Need To Know They Can Call Out The Best In Others, he tells us how the unwed mother in the story demonstrates this:
She is a confident and attractive young single mother, Carol Connelly, (Helen Hunt). Even as they grow closer, he is helpless to keep from insulting her regularly.
In one scene, they find themselves out for a nice evening at a fancy restaurant. When Melvin criticizes Carol’s dress, she tells him he has no idea how much his words hurt her and that he’d better come up with a compliment pretty quick. She even reminds him that a compliment is something nice that one person says to another.
As I have mentioned before I haven’t watched the movie in question. However, from the plot summary on Wikipedia I understand that the movie is about how the love of an unwed mother and the wisdom of a homosexual redeem a manchild. As Pastor Driscoll might say:
Melvin will drive straighter once he is carrying the load of an unwed mother and another man’s child.
Poorly thought out pickup truck metaphors aside, the moral lesson Mr. Stanton draws for girls from this exchange is startlingly bad. Here we have a woman who already failed her child by failing to provide a father. Now she finds herself attracted to another man who by all accounts isn’t interested in either marriage or fatherhood. Mr. Stanton doesn’t see this as a warning for young women that following their animal side will lead to disaster for themselves and their children. He doesn’t see it as a moral reminder for women to focus first on finding a worthy man to marry before having sex and children, a man they can remain married to, a man they are willing to submit to and whose leadership they can follow. No, the Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus On The Family sees this scenario as an opportunity to teach wayward young women that they can tame the bad boy they are attracted to if they only tell him his negs hurt their feelings.
I haven’t read all of Mr. Stanton’s wisdom in the book, but from skimming the pages available on the Amazon.com preview feature I did notice some more gems.
Chapters 5 and 6 focus on the process of boys and girls becoming adults. In chapter 6 Metamorphosis to Womanhood: Making Healthy Women out of Healthy Girls he explains that women are essentially innately good, and any deviations from this are due to society pushing them away from their natural state of goodness (emphasis mine):
We should appreciate what a profound life transition takes place when a girl becomes a woman…
A good woman is the more intricate of the species, for while both men and women are complex and profound, women universally have more interesting layers to their femininity than men have to their masculinity….
As parents guide their girls into the complex and wonderful world of healthy womanhood, what do they need to be aware of?
What are the essential qualities that transform our daughters into mature, secure women?
As you read through the qualities described below, please keep in mind that much of this is innate, but because our culture seems to fight so hard to suppress certain natural tendencies, it’s our privilege and responsibility as parents to watch out for opportunities to nurture and guide in these areas.
In Chapter 5 he takes a very different tack when explaining the process of growing up for boys. While girls naturally metamorphosize into women so long as society doesn’t trip them up, boys have to complete a journey to manhood. Here is a segment from The Journey to Manhood: Making Healthy Men out of Healthy Boys (emphasis mine):
In the amazing project of creating men from boys, we do well to recognize a curious fact about every single boy who has ever come forth into the world, including your own: not one of them has ever been a man before! As a rule, people who have never done something before need some help and direction in learning how to do it. Few pick it up all by themselves.
Who will help your little boy become a man? How will this be achieved?
These are profound parenting questions that demand great and long reflection. Note that I wasn’t entirely correct earlier. Each conveyor belt leads not necessarily to manhood but to male aging, because that’s what the mere passage of time produces. But good men don’t just happen. Good men are most often created in good families, and great intention needs to be put into the process. Fathers and other men play a key role!
A bit later he explains that the current epidemic of women having children out of wedlock and/or kicking the father out of the home after marriage is due to a lack of good men (emphasis mine):
…Marriage and family are declining so badly in nearly all American communities because, as a society, we have forgotten how to manufacture good men. Good men do what’s right, and they respect and care for the women in their lives. They work hard, they don’t make excuses, they know what their duties are, and they do them without complaining. They fight for what is right and hold accountable those who do wrong, including themselves.
If women can’t find good men to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do man or getting babies from him without marriage. Unfortunately, this describes exactly the new shape of family growth in Western nations by exploding margins…
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies. But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well… Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.
There is a special kind of irony in him lecturing about how good men hold those who do wrong accountable just before he goes on to not hold women accountable for having children out of wedlock, frivolously divorcing, and for choosing cads over dads. In Mr. Stanton’s defense, his view that men are to blame for women choosing to make babies with cads fits closely with Pastor Driscoll’s assessment of the situation as I have shown here, and as Laura Grace Robins has shown here. Neither of these men appear to be aware that young women are being taught to delay marriage as long as possible and that this message is enthusiastically received. They are apparently blissfully unaware that even Christian women passionately defend frivolous divorce. Likewise, neither man seems aware that young women are openly embracing the hookup culture, a culture which they often find addictive.
But just because Messrs. Driscoll and Stanton are Christian leaders, don’t assume that their foolishness is either kind or Biblically based. While modern Christians often struggle with the concept that women like men do in fact sin, the Bible is filled with lessons in this regard. Teaching men to look to women for moral guidance is if anything an inversion of Biblical teaching. These men received their foolishness not from the Bible but from the culture at large (which they then proceeded to reinforce in the name of Christianity).
As an amused and concerned observor of all things American, I deduce that Protestantism is the Democratisation of Religion, where once you have acquired a Masters in Theology or a Doctorate in Divinity (surely not that difficult) then like a High Court Judge you are apparently entitled to hold forth on morality and indulge in female pedestalisation. As every woman who is inspired starts up a shop-front Church, is it any wonder such sentimental confusion reigns. Do you not have the equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or even a Roman Catholic Prelate (not much wriggle room with that lot) or even the kindly Chief Rabbi, to set you all aright in matters relating to marriage?
I absolutely disagree with this. I have been mentoring women for over 8 years and every single marriage has improved dramatically. The key is helping the woman see and admit her part in the destruction of the marriage and start practicing biblical submission…becoming like Jesus. Without fail, the husbands step up and become leaders and start truly loving their wives. Women’s sins in the marriage…manipulation, control, nagging, disrespect, etc. aren’t as obvious as the man’s but it is almost always there.
Lori:
What exactly do y ou disagree with ? Stanton’s book? Or Dalrock’s criticism of Stanton’s book?
Funny you mention As Good As it Gets. Carol, the single mom, is portrayed as a flawless hero.
Melvin is considerably older than Carol. He’s physically unattractive. He’s an ass. He has no friends. He has obsessive-compulsive disorder. I remember wondering why it is such a woman would find anything attractive in such a man. I wonder this about so many movies which portray love, sex and and romance as nothing like how they exist or work in real life.
At the clinic I’m currently at, both men and women are predictable in their past history and current issues and thought processes.
The whole “women are innately good” thing is indeed deeply ingrained in American culture:
“Sugar and spice and everything nice. That’s what little girls are made of.”
“Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails. That’s what little boys are made of.”
I remember even at a very young age being offended by those words. I didn’t feel like I was bad but I believed that as a boy I must be because that’s what I was told. I was raised to accept that I, as a male, was inferior to the glorious creation that is woman. As a male my job was to learn to overcome my base male nature and aspire to the feminine, and maybe, just maybe if I became feminine enough one of these beautiful creatures would allow me to spend my every waking moment worshipping the ground she walked on.
Ironically (though not surprisingly) the more I supplicated and the more I emasculated myself the more the girls ignored me in favor of the jerks who treated them like total crap.
Recently I’ve asked myself Is “Culture:” in the bible. So after Googling and looking for it myself. I came to conclusion that culture is not in the bible. And quite frankly I find it sad that culture determines how people view the bibl.
“Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies.”
It should read, “Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies, then divorce those daddies and get a windfall of cash and prizes while trading up for a better daddy.”
Like most evangelical leaders, I suspect this guy has never bothered to actually read anything the Bible says about marriage.
Or, perhaps it’s a cold business decision. He knows that the primary consumer for this Christian pop-psychology self-help garbage is the feminized “Christian” woman. This is the same reason that, even though the Bible mentions the evils of a nagging wife more than it does the evils of looking at a woman lustfully (five times versus once, by my count), you never hear a pastor give a sermon or make a statement in a small group about how wives should stop nagging their husbands: Pastors know that in our feminized “evangelical” world, the woman in the family is primarily responsible for choosing which church the family attends and pays $$$ to.
Deti. Everytime you see this dynamic in hollywood, all you have to remember is this.
1) Hollywood is a gay ghetto writing stories about hetero people.
a) they write a gay story and switch the genders in most cases, ie sex in the city.
b) they assume that since in a gay relationship you have 2 men that can do the same things, that in a heterosexual relationship you have 2 people that can do the same things, Ie ass kicking women.
2) You can count on 1 hand the number of successful marriages amoungst the hollywood elite that these people admire and surround themselves with. Writing anything about the crash and burn relationship lifestyle of hollywood and calling it normal will always result in cognitive dissonance with regard to reality.
I can’t help but notice that the positioning that Stanton encourages implies that women should be on the throne of the relationship from day one, and the implication that the man will need to be led and taught and manufactured, whilst women are already squared away. Man, what kind of Ivory Tower does that guy live in?
Women are every bit as grievous of sinners as men are. In fact, wen it comes to erotic writing, for instance, the stuff I have seen written by women absolutely makes me blush. Holy crap.
While I regard it as true that the undertaking a man must do, to care for and provide for a woman can inspire him to pick up his game and get his shit together… and that men, in and of themselves, as leaders, would do well to develop much internal greatness-
I cannot understand how a guy who STUDIES this crap, like Mr. Stanton, can be so very blind to the issue of women being the low down and dirty creatures (sinners) that they are. Seems like he should be encouraging men to be internally powerful to help guide and mitigate that, not so that they can appease their moral-guardian wives.
I tell you what- the women of the church have done some kind of BRILLIANT snow job, convincing men that the men are the only ones who need correction.
The Emperor has no clothes, and women are directly undermining God’s order with deceit.
Men of God- Wake up! Start paying attention and don’t let yourself get snowed like the big dumb animal they say you are… lest you find yourself deserving of the serfdom you have been subjugated to.
side note- I despise that movie, and HH’s character, deeply. Her smart mouth needs some distinct correction. So does every high-horse christian woman who browbeats her man.
Stanton forgets the traditional role of older women and parents in training up girls. The older women train the younger women in how to be wives and mothers, teaching home economics among other things. They see older women acting as wives to their husbands. Fathers restrain their daughters by setting rules, enforcing consequences, and approving suitors.
Innately, women can be just as base as men. If not trained, they can:
1. Become sluts, racking up sex partners
2. Engage in serial monogamy
3. Indulge ultrahypergamy
and worse.
All it takes it a quick look through the dating profiles on OKCupid to undo this guy’s premise. Threesomes, dozens of partners, fetishes, kids from different dads, tattoos — i fthis is sugar and spice, I’d hate to see the snakes and snails.
A good woman is the more intricate of the species, for while both men and women are complex and profound, women universally have more interesting layers to their femininity than men have to their masculinity. You only have to look at how women and men adorn themselves when going out among their community or what materials they use to give character to their living spaces. Our girls should take pride in their more complicated selves.
————————————————————————————————————
I wonder if his wife *strapped one on him* the evening after he wrote that…because I thought I’d seen it all, but that one made my mouth turn bilious.
In a twisted way its sort of correct. Intricate is being nice, and complexity is being heralded as virtue. Its so stinkin screwed up to watch people/a gender who mostly react to stimulus with the fore and after thought of Leonard Shelby, the protagonist in Memento, and celebrate their layers and complexity! If he had any sense whatsoever he would be celebrating the straightforwardness of the man, and how a good relationship needn’t require entering the LaPlacian domain to achieve.
And whats this about comparing how she adorns herself and her environment? Is this a strong Christian endorsement of raw both raw materialism, and a woman’s innate ability to make a decision? It seems that almost every middle class women I know is constantly redecorating their home. WHY? These are character flaws dude, not virtues.
Women are insecure in addition to flighty, one feeds the other, a furious circle of irrationality he has decided to called layered intricacy.
Write off the entirely of that ministry. Its done, over, corrupted and under the evil manipulative influence of a woman. Do not discount that this comes from one women, likely his wife, and her rigid control of his every thought using his desire to be pious and pleasing to God, he has taken on a yoke that nearly every Christian wife wishes to hang off their husbands. Most adopt the faith with the added benefit of the tool that comes with it to be used to manipulate and control hubby with the personal Jesus. This degree is beyond gastro intestinal turmoil inducing.
I for one intend to send off some emails to the good sir.
I’ve been lurking for 9 months and figured it’s time to comment.
Editorial correction for Mr. Stanton:
“If women can’t find good men to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do man or getting babies from him without marriage…Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies.”
That last sentence should read:
“Women want to…have…babies.”
Love the blog, Dalrock. Keep up the good work.
[D: Thanks Simbuilder. Welcome!]
John VI:
Yes. In these romcoms, men are always portrayed as:
1. The Sweet, Good Natured Best Boy Buddy of the female protagonist (any Disney Channel movie). He’s always been her best friend and loves her from afar. But he does something heroic, or smart, or brave. Or he confesses his love for her. However he does it, he “mans up”, she notices him, and realizes she always loved him and the love of her life was right in front of her all along.
2. The Damaged Goods Asshole (Melvin in “As Good as It Gets, Trip in Failure to Launch). He’s damaged because of a serious mental disorder (Melvin) or a terrible trauma from his past (Trip). He just needs a good woman to help him and draw him out. Once he submits and confesses how wrong and bad he is, he will improve and finally be worthy of the woman who loves him.
3. The Arrogant Inveterate Cad/Player (Wedding Crashers). He just needs to meet the right woman, a perfect combination of sassy, brassy, smart, rich, strong/independent, beautiful, and banging body. Once he meets Her, he is converted to faithful husband material, which is what he really is and should have been all along. All she has to do is be herself, and she can make any cad into a dad.
4. The Impossibly Good Looking NiceGuy (women’s channel made for TV movies, Tyler Perry movies). He is an impressive physical specimen. He could bang any woman he wants. But he’s quiet, good natured, kind, loves animals and children, works hard and earns a good living, stoic and steadfast. No player’s life for him. No, he’s lived his entire life for this moment, when he meets the female protagonist, a beautiful woman of between ages 28 and 38 with a glamorous career that she never seems to work at. She is physically very attractive but neurotic, conflicted, misunderstood, a little pushy, and perpetually frustrated in her love life, She can never seem to figure out why her relationships never work. But Our Hero has come along. He is eternally patient. He is Friend, Beta Orbiter, Emotional Tampon, Spurned Lover, Therapist, Savior. He eventually wins her heart simply by waiting long enough for her to come to her senses and Grow.
“Women are considered deep – why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
I’m not really the biggest fan of old Freddy. But it’s worth noting that people have been fighting this particular derangement for a long time.
I used to be like this guy. I can’t wait until his wife–or maybe one of his son’s wives, if he has sons–becomes unhaaaapy because her husband is incapable of the impossible task of keeping her in a state of permanent emotional bliss (the cultural Christian version of the ideal marriage), so she has an affair on him and divorces him, all with the tacit support of their church. Man, he’s going to end up with a completely different worldview.
I saw this movie about ten years ago and the only thing I remember is a quote from Jack Nicholson’s character (Melvin?), who is a writer. He is asked how it is he is able to write about the mindset of women in his books. His quote (roughly):
“I start with a man. Then I take away all reason and accountability.”
I find that quote useful and accurate. I use it frequently!
”You only have to look at how women and men adorn themselves when going out among their community or what materials they use to give character to their living spaces. Our girls should take pride in their more complicated selves.”
Pardon the course language, but…WTF!!!???
So,are we to understand that by simply decorating they “give character” to their bodies and their homes (often at excessive expense, I would add), and that “character” that they give to their homes and bodies by the way they adorn them is somehow supposed to be a reflection of a quality innate inner character, or something?
In an earlier threat I said that the central theme in Christianity with no earthly father to Christ is a reason for the perils that our society is suffering under. Christianity had severely undervalued the importance of a genetic earthly father an laid it upon men to take responsibility for women’s children regardless of fatherhood. When it became possible for women to have children on their own it became impossible for Christianity to oppose this effectively as Christianity always has disciplined men, not women.
Som Christians attacked me severely for that, but here you se a woman christian who rationalize the absence of her child’s earthly father by implying that the earthly father is not as important than the heavenly father.
http://www.urbanfaith.com/2011/11/fatherlessness-is-not-fatal.html/
For the life of me, I can’t imagine why any Christian would use a film like “As Good As It Gets” as an instructional video on how men and women ought to relate to one another. It’s mind-boggling, to be honest.
First, HH’s character is a single mother. Again, I don’t see how that is a good role model for teaching a young girl how to behave. In addition, she has a terrible taste in men (i.e., going for Nicholson’s character, more below) and just loves the gay guy (even poses nude for him). This is not a role model for a Christian woman. Is this Stanton guy on drugs?
Second, Nicholson’s character is mentally ill and sadistic. He suffers from OCD, a pretty severe version of it, and refuses to medicate. He actively enjoys inflicting harm on others and seeing others suffer. He has almost no empathy at all. Sure, he tries to “get better” during the course of the movie to improve his chances with HH’s character, but he’s no good example of anything at all in particular other than what a mentally ill guy may have to do to land a cute single mother in Manhattan. I don’t see any role model there at all for how a Christian man should act whatsoever.
Finally, as Deti has pointed out already, the story lacks any sense of realism at all. Nicholson himself, being Nicholson, could land a woman like HH. Nicholson’s character in no way could ever do so in reality, meds or no meds. Sure it was a funny movie to watch, but in no way a role model for anything at all other than making the best of a bad situation — for each character.
As every woman who is inspired starts up a shop-front Church, is it any wonder such sentimental confusion reigns. Do you not have the equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or even a Roman Catholic Prelate (not much wriggle room with that lot) or even the kindly Chief Rabbi, to set you all aright in matters relating to marriage?
No, it’s totally atomized in the US. Been that way from the beginning, really, but is even moreso today.
It’s just a misapprehension that women are innately good. Add to my comment above that without training or instruction or “guardrails”,
–Women act ruthlessly in their own self interest. It is the training and instruction that restrains this and actually gets them to think and consider short – and long-range consequences.
–Women want to have sex with bad boys and hot men, and without restraint, they will do so. It is the training and instruction, especially from fathers, that keeps them from bad boys, and teaches them that bad boys, hot men and players will only cause them pain and will not give the girls what is best for them.
–Women are capable of verbal and emotional cruelty that simply boggles the mind. It far surpasses anything men say or do. (They simply don’t have the physical strength to back it up.) It is the training and instruction that teaches them the best way to a man’s heart is gentle submission and counsel, not head-cracking nagging or endless insults.
@DaveG
That’s my favorite quote from the movie too!
@Deti
Part of my red pill awakening involved becoming aware that men understand honor far more than women do. That women often have no honor at all and conduct themselves accordingly. Hence there is no such thing as a woman who fights fair the way a man would think of it. Hence the verbal and emotional cruelty that usually surpasses anything that their men are capable of.
Those women who have actual honor and morals had it imprinted upon them from childhood on. When women are left to their own devices to fill in what they should have gotten growing up, we see and experience the feral conduct that we are awakening to.
If women can’t find good men to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do man or getting babies from him without marriage
Women can’t find good men to marry, because by their sexual/romantic choices, they mostly reward badboys. With such a powerful incentive, what can they expect?
Christian women, despite their vehement and bitter protestations, are not very different in this regard. There are a few exceptions — the really strong ones do resist the badboys — but somehow they still can’t find it in their hearts to love a good man, so they hit the 40 mark single and alone. As for the rest…. *sigh*
It takes an ENORMOUS amount of internal fortitude and resolve, to defiantly remain a good man, when you KNOW that your goodness is the main reason that “Christian” women reject you. Especially when multiple “good Christian” women come right out and say, that your virginity is why they won’t date you! Or that you’re “tall, handsome, you make a good living, you’re a great catch… but you’re too nice….”, or something to that effect. Or, “Your chivalry doesn’t really mean anything special to me, because I know you treat ALL women that way!” (As if that’s a bad thing! I know, it’s hard to believe — I promise you I was actually told that once!)
Even more insulting, was an Elizabeth Elliot book, wherein she observed that “Christian” women would tackle rhinoceroses barehanded to find a “real man” — yet Elliot’s description of the “real man” was a pretty good description of how most of us were, BEFORE we were saved….*sigh*
Or even worse — in a moment of weakness, I stepped outside of my usual good guy role for a few minutes… and women who witnessed my lapse (which i was deeply ashamed of ), suddenly started going gaga over me though they never showed a glimmer of interest before. That was my redpill moment… the last straw that caused my prior undertandings to collapsed in a heap. It was then that I realized that the female draw toward badboys was not an endlessly repeated mistake, but their *actual preference*. And when I was a badboy for about 3 minutes, I finally caught their attention. Ugh.
It’s VERY HARD to stay a good Christian, when you finally figure out that a “good Christian” is the LAST man on earth that a typical Christian woman wants! Oh, they’ll swear til they are blue in the face, that’s what they’re looking for… but they reject every specimen they meet!
I eventually got lucky, I found one of the extremely rare sensible ones. But it took way too long…
it’s even worse now. What am earth am I going to tell my poor sons?
I’m going to email Stanton a link to this thread.
I want him to come here and try to defend himself, if he can.
It’s time we ended his nonsense and set him straight.
I find the idea that because women adorn themselves in pretty things, and decorate their houses with pretty things, that somehow makes them complex, a joke. It makes them innately shallow, and concerned with things that don’t matter. When a woman tends to the needs of her man, these things are pleasing to him, but it hardly makes her complex. We have forgotten the lessons of the past. Men used to know that women could and would get tied up in the petty and frivolous, and would miss the important things. Not that they are incapable of managing the important things, but that given in to their baser natures that is what they will do. Comfort allows them to give in to those natures. Marriage in the modern world, especially the Christian world is the utmost of comfort for women, that they are allowed to enter into and exit at their whim, and will have the support of the church. I as a Christian can not find a church that I will go to, because they attitudes towards masculinity favor the weak not the meek, and turns men into dishrags to be used and discarded by these frivolous women.
Dalrock,
Do you even recommend a man go to church these days? I’ve recentely been studying theology a lot. Lots of books (all of them from before the sexual revolution naturally). Fallen in love with C.S. Lewis, there is something about his writing that speaks to me, probably because he converted from Atheism and he writes from that perspective. I’m very moved by the concepts, which really aren’t related to mating and marraige for the most part and we should all remember is only a part of religion. My religous feelings come from non-marraige issues, but though marraige is still important to me.
I’ve been wondering if going to church is a good idea or not. I study theology. I buy into may of the core Christian concepts, but I don’t necesarily take the bible as infallible. I don’t think I have to go to church to be saved. So what remains is whether its a good idea or not. I tried going to my friends church, it was as wishy washy new age bullshit as you get. The sermon was about Steve Jobs. I’m not sure the boring rote services from my Catholic youth are much different. I get the idea of community, but what chuch community these days isn’t poison.
@ Random:
Agree. My point is not to bash women. It is only to point out and amplify that the reason we are seeing this feral behavior is lack of training, and indulgence of female whim.
–“I want what I want when I want it.”
–“I am entitled to slut it up until I tire of it or get hurt or want a husband.
–“I am entitled to a hot, wealthy, kind, alpha husband and I expect him to appear and propose to me when I am ready to receive it.”
–“i slept with all those men, but you can’t judge me for it.”
–“I slept with all those men, but it was because:
(1) I have an addiction and can’t help it
(2) my father/mother/family/teachers didn’t pay enough attention to me
(3) I wanted a boyfriend and they all told me if I slept with them they would love me and be my boyfriend
(4) I really thought nothing bad would happen because all my friends do it and they are all really happy and have lots of fun but they are all 30 also and none of them can seem to find a husband for reasons we just can’t figure out
(5) No one ever told me anything bad would happen even though along the way I had an abortion, contracted gonorrhea, then chlamydia, then HPV, then had a bastard
–“I should not have to accept the consequences of my poor decisions.”
–“Men should shield me from the consequences of my poor decisions.”
–“You’re a man. You’re just supposed to be able to take it when I hurt you.”
asdf:
“Do you even recommend a man go to church these days?”
If he’s a Christian , he should attend a church that faithfully preaches the bible. He probably should not expect to find a wife there.
deti, out of curiousity, where would a Christian man expect to find a wife then?
deti, out of curiousity, where would a Christian man expect to find a wife then?
The internet (worked for me). Or overseas (the backup plan I didn’t need to invoke).
Both of those are also fraught with danger, so still beware.
“I want him to come here and try to defend himself, if he can.”
If his wife lets him out of the kitchen…
There’s a Scottish saying that goes something like, “Find your wife on a Saturday, ne’er on a Sunday.” Make of that what you will!
I have to say that I never really viewed church as a good place to meet women. It’s just not conducive to it, as most guys have found out. You’re better off, sad to say, trying to find a mate who shares other aspects in common with you (through clubs or activities or even mutual friends) than you are in a church setting. In the church setting, things are generally as hypergamous as in a nightclub setting, I have found.
van Rooinek:
Yes. The Church isn’t realizing the lack of training for women, and that without that training, their young women are dooming themselves for failure. And what training young Christian women receive is faulty and has sprung up faulty theology, in my view.
Girls are brought up in the church as “Daughters of the King” and “God’s special little princesses”. They are told they are the fairer sex, the weaker sex, the purer sex. Girls and women are pure, noble, altruistic, and good. (Boys are tainted, fallen, base, self-serving and bad.)
Girls are entitled to special treatment, deference, and nurturing. (Boys are on their own.
In dating, girls are expected to date only Christian boys and certainly not to have sex. But she is entitled to princess treatment. He must pay for everything, be a gentleman, hold her chair, open her doors. She is not to settle for any man. She must only marry the man whom God has selected for her. Since God is “perfect and makes no mistakes,” the man He selects for her will also be perfect. God is all powerful and all knowing, so He can and will do it and knows exactly what to do and when to do it for her. God is also “not a man and therefore does not lie.” This means God’s chosen man for her will meet her every qualification and requirement. If a particular man does not meet even one requirement, however minuscule or slight, he is not The One, and the man is auto-dumped. (She has no agency, no ability to choose, no free will, no decisionmaking ability and in fact no reason or need to make any decisions. She merely needs to …. exist.)
She is never to have premarital sex. But if she does have premarital sex, it is not her fault. The boy/man tricked her in some way. He was a cad/player. He was so good looking. He caught her up in the moment. He lied to her and told her they were going to get married. It is only boys who need to be “wise like serpents and gentle as doves.”
In marriage, scripture is twisted to serve the feminine imperative. If she has moral failings, it is the man’s fault. If she is unhappy in her marriage or their marriage is not working, it is ultimately his fault. (“Christ is the head of the church, so the man is the head of the wife.”) If something is wrong, it is all traceable to the head, who is the man.
If a man looks at another woman and likes the way she looks or finds himself sexually aroused, he has committed adultery and his wife has grounds for divorce. If he looks at porn, he has committed adultery. (“If any man looks on a woman not his wife with lust in his heart, he has sinned because he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”)
If he masturbates, he has violated scripture by “spilling his seed” (the story of Onan in Genesis, who was struck down because he did not consummate a sexual relationship but instead pulled out and ejaculated on the ground). If he masturbates to porn (but I’m being redundant), he is guilty of both adultery in his heart AND “onanism”.
If she has committed adultery, it is because he drove her to it. She was merely looking for love, kindness and understanding from a man who would treat her right and better than her uncaring, insensitive, overworked brute of a husband. It is his fault because he did not lead her.
Wifely submission/respect is purely conditional, but these conditions are never met. Somehow, she is always relieved of this obligation. Yet, the husband’s obligation to love is unconditional because he is to be like Christ, who is Perfection personified, and he is to die for her and give himself up for her “as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her”. the argument is “after all, Christ loved the church and hung on the Cross even though we humans hated him, spit on him, and crucified him! So you have to love me and die for me even if I’m a bitch who hates you, maltreats you and won’t have sex with you, because that’s what Christ did and YOU HAVE TO BE LIKE CHRIST!!”
If any one or more of the following is happening or has ever happened, she considers that she does not have to submit or respect the husband:
–she considers him in any way deficient in leading (“because he’s not leading the family”)
–he sins or has any kind of imperfection (so “he does not lead me into sin”)
–he doesn’t attend church or doesn’t like it (because he’s not “right with God”)
–he looked at porn, or masturbated, or pushes for sex (because “he’s leading me into sin”)
–he isn’t loving or kind (because “he has an obligation to show sacrificial love FIRST, and THEN AND ONLY THEN do I have an obligation to submit/respect”)
@deti
This comment of yours is a classic. Thank you for sharing.
Having lived in Europe and Latin America, what amazes me about American women is that they watch rom-coms as if they were documentaries. They try to
Other women watch rom-coms but they know they are fiction. American men watch a Swarzenegger movie and don’t try to fight a bunch of terrorists singlehandedly with a gun. But American women are different.
If the decorative habits of some women make them “complex”, then I guess magpies and pack rats are equally “complex”, in their own way? This is one of the thinnest rationalizations I have read in a while.
deti says:
March 29, 2012 at 11:32 am
asdf:
“Do you even recommend a man go to church these days?”
If he’s a Christian , he should attend a church that faithfully preaches the bible. He probably should not expect to find a wife there.
YES, Deti, thank you !!!!
Church is for worship, spiritual feeding, a public pronouncement of faith; IT IS NOT THE LOVE BOAT!
MGTOW attitude, focus on the Word, not sending off desperate “I need a mate” signals, will probably attract gals. Women have pretty good intuition about needy men, and it repels them.
Any guy reading this blog for any length of time should realize by now that the tang is WAY overrated and the risks are mind numbing.
A woman brings 4 things to the table;
1) her looks
2) her virtue
3) her personality
4) her money, if she has it.
Looks are far and away her most important asset, but alas, fleeting ( a window of perhaps 20 years, 15 to 35 years of age).
After the looks fade…and father time is brutal to women, all she has left is her virtue and personality…or money. She had better have made the most of these things to pair bond with a worthy guy.
@deti
I meant the comment about movies archetypes. But this last one is very good too.
In dating, girls are expected to date only Christian boys and certainly not to have sex. But she is entitled to princess treatment. He must pay for everything, be a gentleman, hold her chair, open her doors.
Nothing wrong with that, as long as she ACTUALLY dates only Christian boys and ACTUALLY doesn’t have premarital sex. Such a woman deserves the princess treatment. Problem is, too many women demand the princess treatment yet don’t actually hold themselves to the high standards of a real princess.
Since God is “perfect and makes no mistakes,” the man He selects for her will also be perfect.
Wait…. is SHE perfect? Oh, wait, no…. Then… wouldn’t it make sense for God to set her up with a guy who is well-matched to her? Hey, maybe God has already brought several well-matched guys her way and she rejected them all. Yet she weeps before God as to why she’s still single! It reminds me of the old joke about the guy trapped in a flood, who expected God to miraculously save him and rejected all earthly efforts at rescue — and upon dying, dared ask God, “Why didn’t you save me?”, whereupon God responds, ” “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”
Deti’s comment at 12:08 is a great comment.
van rooinek:
I knew I forgot something.
If the woman has had a “checkered past” or has had premarital sex or a lot of sex partners, bringing her back to “right relationship” with God is quick, simple and easy. She need only pray a prayer, say she was sorry, “rededicate her life” to God, and get a “personal relationship” with Christ. Note she is not told HOW to do any of this; she is merely told to do it and pray the prayer.
Once that is done, she is fully restored to “Daughter of the King” and “God’s special princess” status. She is now a “born-again virgin”. But she needs to get married right away, and it’s the job of the church to find her a husband. It is the solemn obligation of the good men around her to surround her, affirm her, court her, and compete with her for her affections. The worthy man will appear at just the right time with a ring and pledges of eternal love.
Meanwhile, the men of the church are sternly lectured that it’s their duty and obligation to “man up” and “stop playing those video games” and “who in the hell do you think you are” sleeping with women who are practically begging you to “get it in”.
“Women are innately good”
cool topic for a post, I get a smile every time I see it
However, back on planet Earth…
@Deti
Your analysis of the Christian church is very accurate. The Christian church has always been focused on demanding from men to live up to their reproductive obligations as fathers. That was Ok until the day women were given the pill and especially the abortion. Because pup until then it was women who were the weaker sex.
Now every woman has the power to decide about life and death of another human being, and women can no longer be said to be the weaker sex. Women are the sex with the power in the hand. But women have not recognized – and Christianity has not taught them (because christianity is a female religion promoting matriarchy) that with power comes obligations and diminished freedom and rights.
I is time Christian men recognize that they can gain no help from Christianity as their own god has always been turned against them and always has sided with women.
However, as men we can rest assured that in the long run women are betraying themselves and the church are betraying the by not telling them the truth.
I se a future in which there are no heterosexual families, Women live for themselves and men for themselves. Women are impregnated through insemination and they will have no power of choosing the father of their child.
Most male children will be aborted -or the sperm with Y-chromosomes will be sorted away.
Only the most wealthy women will be allowed to get a son, and these men will have a very high status.
Only women will live in poverty and the overclass will be secure because women don revolt violently.
Thats my vision of the feminist future – and I am very happy not to be a woman. I cannot feel sorrow for al those unborn boys, because there is no reason feeling sorry for humans that never existed.
Christiankp:
Indeed. The point I was trying to make is that not only is this being done in the Christian church, it’s being asserted that every one of these points has a basis in Scripture, Scripture is being twisted and distorted to support the feminine imperative. And Scripture is used because you cannot argue with it or disagree with it. In this context, pastors bludgeon men with “Scripture is the infallible Word of God” and is “Given by God, good for teaching, instruction, rebuke and reproof”. So, the argument from the pastor is, if you disagree with any of this, thenyou are disagreeing with God, calling Him a liar, putting yourself above God, committing blasphemy, and blaspheming the Holy Spirit (which is the only unpardonable sin). So therefore, since there are scriptural bases for all of this, God is right, you are wrong, and you better shape up, man up and “get in line and agreement with God’s Word”.
Below are a series of assertions and the scripture I’ve seen used and its original meanings distorted. Note these are all taken out of context, or divorced from their original meanings, or devoid of any theological support:
–girls are “daughters of the King” and “God’s special princesses” (Song of Solomon, Psalm 45)
–“born again” virgins: (Christ’s instruction to Nicodemus that one must be “born again” to enter God’s kingdom; Paul’s statement that “if any one be in Christ, he is a new creation, behold, all things are made new”)
–Husband is responsible for wife’s sins, failings and substandard conduct: (“As Christ is the Head of the Church, so the man is the head of the wife”)
–Husband’s sacrificial love is unconditional even to the point of death: (“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her” Ephesians 5)
–Husbands are to love even in the face of the wife’s lack of submission/respect: (Ephesians 5, because the husband is to be “Christlike”)
Wonder what Glenn would think of this write-up of an abortionist, which is really nothing more than the logical outcome of man-up theory:
“When New York became the first state to legalize abortion in 1970, it coincided with Rashbaum’s split from his first wife, with whom he had two children, a son, now 43, and a daughter, now 45. With the mounting divorce costs, including many therapy bills, Rashbaum began performing abortions in New York City, which had quickly become the abortion capital of the country. The clinic where he worked was open round the clock, with three sets of doctors and nurses each taking eight-hour shifts. He says, “You would go home with a goddamn barrel of money.”
Divorce, of course, has no measurable effect on the psyche of men, and white knights are happy to man up when the situation calls for it:
“But in what began as a way to support two households, Rashbaum discovered a purpose and a mission. In the late 1970s, bored with his routine, he began doing second-trimester abortions and has since performed roughly 21,000. His work in late abortions has filled an important need, not only by providing services to desperate women but also by training other physicians. He has trained close to 100 doctors to do D&Es, some of whom have gone on to train others. This unlikely champion of women’s rights still insists on holding doors and slipping coats on backs. But then a large part of what makes Rashbaum exceptional stems from stereotypical male traits: He is a workaholic, undaunted by the threat of violence, and focused on getting the job done. In emergencies, he has driven patients to the hospital in his own car. Once, while operating on a woman with severe complications, he passed out from exhaustion, and as the other doctors were administering an ekg to make sure he wasn’t having a heart attack, he awoke, ripped off the wires, and returned to save the woman’s life. “He is good at taking someone through a crisis in a very supportive way,” says Mary, his second wife, whom he married 30 years ago. “Bill is a stander and a doer, not a sitter and a thinker.“”
Note, also, the everyday language used by his enabling wife to assuage his conscience:
“”He has felt sad and discouraged,” Mary says. “He is saddened by things. He is not destroyed by them.” For the time being, however, he takes solace in being there for a 14-year-old rape victim and a 29-year-old mother who have nowhere else to turn. “As long as I can make a contribution,” he says, “I enjoy what I do.””
What a down-to-earth mensch, the perfect model for the rest of us! Guarantee that Stanton would use the same friendly-triggery nonjudgmental legally-nonbinding sentences on issues not abortion.
@Deti your points below are good, and should be punctuated with the truth that Christ also resigns souls to hell for not following him. So if we are to love our wives like Christ loved the Church, then we are also then called, out of love, to resign these wives to their own devices and destiny if they choose not to follow their husbands.
–Husband is responsible for wife’s sins, failings and substandard conduct: (“As Christ is the Head of the Church, so the man is the head of the wife”)
–Husband’s sacrificial love is unconditional even to the point of death: (“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her” Ephesians 5)
Nothing wrong with that, as long as she ACTUALLY dates only Christian boys and ACTUALLY doesn’t have premarital sex. Such a woman deserves the princess treatment. Problem is, too many women demand the princess treatment yet don’t actually hold themselves to the high standards of a real princess.
A critical point. If you have lived a life of virtue you should be respected for it. We are essentially asking women to value men who are virtuous and we should likewise honor them when they achieve the same.
I actually feel very sorry for you guys. I’ve never been in a situation where a woman was able to slip by with the excuse that a man seduced her. The one time I heard it tried the response was a rather gruff comment to the effect of, “you were in a bar drunk, what on earth did you expect?” But I have generally belonged to very old fashioned groups. Seduction does happen and some _slack_ must be given. Slack however doesn’t mean blind ignorance.
–Porn is adultery (Matt 5-7, Sermon on the Mount: “If a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart”)
–Masturbation is adultery because it occurs in conjunction with porn use and/or fantasizing: (Sermon on the Mount, story of Onan in Genesis)
–God will select and present my husband to me: (Any Scripture speaking of God’s perfection, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience, “God is not a man and therefore does not lie”)
@Dalrock
“Now she finds herself attracted to another man who by all accounts isn’t interested in either marriage or fatherhood.”
She isn’t interested in him for 98% of the movie. Early on, he does something that would seem like a generous act, and helps him with some things because she feels like she owes him. But he only did it because his OCD made the restaurant unbearable without her there (routine was all wrong).
Other than that, you’re pretty spot on about the movie for having never actually seen it.
What I’m trying to do here is just describe what the contemporary mainline protestant/fundamental/ evangelical churches seem to be doing, and just how far afield it has gone from sound theology. Scripture is being distorted and misused to serve these feminine objectives.
This is what Dalrock and Deti are talking about. It is removing the shame of foolishness from a woman. And… when the commentator says she disagrees with Dalrock, then gives evidence that suipports him…
It is interesting, Stanton is rewarding the behaviour of fools. SInce I work in mental health, I suspect anyone who says they have universal success in counselling. What I think is correct is that if you change you will have success — the behaviour of one spouse affects the behaviour of the other.
Which is why Christian men need to understand the art of game. Marriage now is written for fools, and a wise man makes sure that his wife learns not to be one.
@christiankp
As I mentioned in the OP, there is a massive gulf between the foolishness men like Stanton preach and what the bible actually says. This is Deti’s point as well. Check out 1 Corinthians 7 as just one example. The pedistalization of Stanton isn’t biblical. He didn’t get this nonsense from scripture, he got it from pop culture, including movies like the one he and his wife make it a point to watch once a year.
@van Rooinek
“it’s even worse now. What am earth am I going to tell my poor sons?”
If you are honest? “Son, you better approach every women with nothing but rape and cruelty in your heart, and they will love you without limit for it – or else pray that you’re gay.”
@Chris
Lori hasn’t responded to Deti’s request for clarification, but she has been very consistent in all of her comments that I have seen so I’ll be presumptious and speak for her. I’m pretty sure her disagreement is with the title of the post, and most likely specific quotes from Stanton.
BTW, Lori if you are reading did you do a post some time back on the movie Courageous? I’m thinking you did and that the movie made you appreciate your husband more. Sorry if I have you mixed up with another blogger. I’m planning on doing a post on the movie in the near future.
If christianity was only 1 Corinthians 7 maybe I would be a christian. But Christianity is foremost about a child without a earthly father. And that is CATASTROPHE. We would not have feminism, we would not have broken families, we would not be entering a world in which men will be redundant and women might be nothing than the only necessary biological step in an industry of reproduction.
You can keep on saying that Stanton misrepresent the christian doctrines – and maybe he is. But he will say the same about you.
I am an atheist, but my wife says that I am the most christian man she knows. In some ways she is right, because I have followed the 1 corinthians 7 more than most men and women calling themselves Christians.
My reason for following this morality is not, however, christianity, but evolutionary theory, I think that I have a responsibility toward the children I have conceived. Therefore I believe strongly in a lifelong relation to the mother of these children – and I believe that a formal institution condoned by society called marriage is the best way to do this.
I also firmly believe that the morality of biology and evolution dictates reciprocity between people and that this reciprocity is best gained by putting obligations on the parties rather than talking about rights.
I am not here to fight Christians because I think that my morality is fairly equal to the practical morality of many Christians. I call this moral the “moral of necessity”. At the same time I want you to recognize that the core theme of Christianity has been conducive to what we se now, and if you want to stop the deterioration of all humans you have to make a reinterpretation of Christianity.
I firmly believe: It is no coincidence that feminism spread in the Christian world, although I recognize that even the Muslim world and even the far Eastern religions are now severely affected.
Brent 11:48 am:
“deti, out of curiousity, where would a Christian man expect to find a wife then?”
Brendan’s right. I dated one or two girls from church as a young adult just out of school. The older women in the church were playing Yentas and suggested I do so, thinking I’d be a good match for one of the Sunday school teachers or the young mezzo-soprano in the choir. I wasn’t good enough, of course.
Here’s how I met girls that I actually clicked with:
–friends of friends
–clubs and activities I was involved in
–through mutual acquaintances
–in college classes
–in college, at my various jobs (but be careful of sex harassment policies. I was in college when sexual harassment policies were just starting to come into usage.)
Great blog. I converted to christianity 10 yrs ago unwittingly became a part of the evangelical/protestant church that you speak of deti., At 21 yrs old I joined and found nothing but manginas and used up whores masquerading as “daughters of the kings” like you said.
After a few years I left in utter disgust. I remember this one girl who had a bastard. Good looking girl too. She was of course lookin for that godly man…lol. She was loud, obnoxious at times and fully supported by the cadre of losers at her church. She even had the audacity to get in front of the young adult group and give a lecture for men on being a godly man! This girl had a tattoo of the guys name she had a kid with on the back of her neck.
How shameful I thought, to be her man walking in public with her having another mans name branded on her body with bastard spawn in tow.
Christianity in america is a stinking cesspool of decay, lies and dysgenic philosophy.
Hell cant be much different.
What an unbelievable ass this Stanton guy is. Nice work.
@TB
Stanton is hoping to get laid
ChristianKP, while there are moral issues being discussed here, they are being done so as topics, themes, trends, over arching things. People get too sensitive about Christians and our morality, as if we moralize from a superior standpoint, at the individual level.
This is the utter (one of) beauty of men coming together in favor of things like family and lower divorce and true fairness. Men that are Christians and not Christians can buy in and benefit selves and their kids and wives and society, and come at it from whatever basis you like. Its a truly common cause that no one need compromise core beliefs to share direction in.
I know you know that already, and I see you post here time to time, but I was curious as to why you felt the need to post that last post.
Its all good….really. This coming together of men is to me, awesome, men in particular can let intellectual peacocking (most of us are guilty of that) and nit picking favorite subjects, peeves, etc drive a wedge between us, if we let them
christiankp,
“evolutionary theory, I think that I have a responsibility toward the children I have conceived.”
Evolutionary theory is about strategies, not morals. Alphas pursue cad strategies, betas pursue Dad strategies. Not because of morals or responsibilities or even because of options. A beta pursues a Dad strategy because its the only way to get a woman to accept his seed, and the only way to know the limited copies of his genetic code will survive (since he gets so few oppotunities).
Due to the nature of our modern economic and political framework, people mix cad/dad strategies. But in the absence of God lets not start talking about morality. Strategy is strategy, not morality.
“morality of biology and evolution dictates reciprocity ”
Morality doesn’t come from biology or evolution. There is no such thing as morality in a strictly materialist world.
“I call this moral the “moral of necessity”.”
And I call it semantic bullshit. Look, if you want to believe in God, just believe in him. Are you so tied up in your atheist identity your going to tie yourself up in a million knots just to pretend you aren’t saying what your saying.
“I firmly believe: It is no coincidence that feminism spread in the Christian world, although I recognize that even the Muslim world and even the far Eastern religions are now severely affected.”
Christianity is a complex religion. They all are if you want to approach them like an adult. The universal march of feminism worldwide and in every culture and religion shows its bigger then any theological doctrine.
Christianity, like all religions, was forged in the agricultural era and most of its ethical mores are based on what worked for agricultural societies. What worked for agricultural societies is whatever maximized beta male labor by promising them pussy and paternity. Modern technology has turned every agriculture based more upside down, religious or not.
And yet, none of that matters, at least from my POV. Yes, if you take the Bible literally, and you can’t jettison the specific rules that no longer apply, then it matters. But if you are focused only on the core of Christian theology. If you focus less on specific rules and passages, and more on what the implications of Gods existance mean, you’ll understand that knowledge of God affects your life profoundly even if the rules change.
@deti,
Thanks for the info.
@deti, regarding your comment :
“–Porn is adultery (Matt 5-7, Sermon on the Mount: ‘If a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart’)”
Would you be willing to give an explanation of your disagreement–if any–with the common interpretation of Matt. 5:28 vis-a-vis pornography?
@empathologicalism
the reason why I am critizicing the core theme of christianity is that I am convinced that it is central to the core problem of todays society of redundant fathers. You as Christians have to work this out by some reinterpretation of your holy script and you need to do it not just for the sake of men but for the sake of women and children too. You can take it as a friendly advice from a person who as an atheist are more free to think critical of central themes in christianity. You may find that my advice is wrong – and maybe it is – I do not know the ultimate truth of this world – but that is how I see it.
And for now, I will end my crusade against Christianity (just an attempt to be funny) as you are right we have many reasons not to get split up for intellectual pea cocking. We can do that for fun later on.
For know I really believe that all humanity is facing the most severe crisis in all humankind. And I think the crisis is due to reproductive technology which is transforming human life from a life as wild animals (I am an atheist – remember) to be domesticated cogwheels in a reproductive industry serving the purpose of the upper class.
Here I would have loved if Christians had spelled out the problems instead of just referring to the word of God. What will be the consequences to women if men are excluded from taking a personal part in reproduction and reduced to sperm donators. Is this what women want? How can they oppose this if they don’t want it?
I have to stop for now as it is bed-time, but there are lots of things that should be spelled out to women and that they need to consider – and unfortunately it is my experience that very few women know how to think in principles and see ahead to foresee the catastrophic consequences of seemingly harmless decisions.
I wanna respond, will respond, gotta pick up the kid from pole vaulting….crap
asdf
As I am going to bed I can not give you an elaborate answer. But biology is imposing morals on me and you as human beings. neither you and med can live without support from our fellow human beings. this is a biological truths. We are very fragile and one of the reasons that humans exist is our ability to corporate. That is a biological truth.
Corporation demands reciprocity and reciprocity demands moral. Therefore biology puts moral responsibilities upon every human being – unless you want to die.
alpha-males are freeloaders and there is no place for freeloaders in biology. They should be isolated and put to extinction because they undermine society and the survival of all human beings.
It is very unfortunate that women have not understood this, and therefore modern women are contributing heavily to the demise of humans. Alpha-male genes should not be allowed to propagate into the gene pool.
The main reason that the bride could not accept her fiancé’s proposal without the consent of her father was that men are much better to recognize alpha-males and womanizers that cannot be trusted.
Now feminism has caused a genetic break-down as well as a cultural.
“I also firmly believe that the morality of biology and evolution dictates reciprocity between people and that this reciprocity is best gained by putting obligations on the parties rather than talking about rights.”
Morality does not actually exist in biology and evolution, any more than it exists in capitalism. Such things simply are, and he who takes his morality from them will be tossed about randomly. Most of the people who say they take their morality from evolution or libertarian economics are usually assuming a hell of a lot of other institutions and existences to enable the evolutionary or capitalistic process to produce the ideal work. Just as libertarianism works best with a small community of moral IQs above 110 and not in modern day black Detroit (despite the lack of police presence ensuring anarchy actually exists,) so too does the evolutionary process ‘work toward greater good’ only in narrowly defined environments.
@empathologicalism
I se is as you are submitting yourself to the obligations you have as a father, and I approve
Good night for me.
christiankp,
“But biology is imposing morals on me and you as human beings.”
Do you understand the definition of morality? Morality, by definition, can’t be imposed by biology. Or reciprocity. Or anything else of a worldly origin.
JHJ says:
@van Rooinek
“it’s even worse now. What am earth am I going to tell my poor sons?”
If you are honest? “Son, you better approach every women with nothing but rape and cruelty in your heart, and they will love you without limit for it –
Yeah, what a shame that a tattooed drifter on a Harley, captures far more female attention than a hard working middleclass schlub with an engineering degree. And compare the prices:
Est. cost of 3 engineering degrees: $467,000
Cost of 3 harley-davidson motorcycles: $66,000
So the most cost effective way to get grandchildren, is to buy my boys Harleys!!!!
or else pray that you’re gay.”
Homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord.
Brent:
“–Porn is adultery (Matt 5-7, Sermon on the Mount: ‘If a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart’)”
“Would you be willing to give an explanation of your disagreement–if any–with the common interpretation of Matt. 5:28 vis-a-vis pornography?”
Oh man. Take all of this with a five gallon bucket of salt. I am not in any way a theologian. This is just an amalgam of what I’ve heard and read. And this is not a theology blog so Dalrock can delete this if he wants. It’s really not the purpose of this board to get into heavy duty theological discussions.
I think ultimately Christ was trying to impress on his audience that matters of the heart were most important. Legalism was the order of the day. People were getting quite caught up in whether something was or was not adultery, for example. He was trying to get them to check their hearts, to bend them toward God, to at least take note of the spirit of the Mosaic Law and not always its letter.
There is much to do with actual intent, also. If you look at pornography, do you actually intend to seek out the persons appearing in the photos or video to have sex with them? Of course not, and if you do, something is very, very wrong with you. There is a far distance between experiencing sexual arousal and release from looking at photos and videos, and obtaining that release from a real live flesh and blood woman not your wife.
Finally we’ve now come full circle back to legalism as Matthew 5:28 is currently used, and that’s my real objection to the way the Church currently uses and interprets this Scripture. I don’t believe for one second that the “porn police” are concerned about porn usage or what it does to families. (If women were having sex with their husbands there’d be a lot less porn usage. If men could find decent wives who stay with them, there’d be a lot less porn usage.) That’s a pretext, in my view. No, their true concern is finding a basis on which to get a woman a “Get Out of Marriage Free” card. “He looked at porn. Therefore, he committed adultery, and I now have grounds for divorce. I’ll collect my cash and prizes, please. Tell me what I’ve won, Judge!”
When Christ said this, I believe He was intending to help men and women look inside themselves, check their hearts, and look at what was really in there — because God says that’s what He looks at. This passage is not used to help anyone or correct men who might be stumbling. It’s not being used to improve anything. It’s only being opportunistically used now to get women something they want. What adds insult to injury is that this passage is used to cloak it with the imprimatur of Scripture so as to (1) provide a bulletproof basis for divorce (who can argue with the Word of God!?) and (2) relieve her of any agency or responsibility.
@asdf
Of course morality can be imposed by biology. Culture is nothing but our extended phenotype evolved over thousands of years of common human experience. So I disagree with you.
As for now I think it is more important to fight feminism, because feminism is the result of the 68-generation throwing aside all their ancestors experience of human nature in a bout of the most fatal hubris any generation of mankind has ever seen. It was much more fatal than the combined destruction of WWI and WWII
And as this is most important to me I will take the advice of empathologicalism and stop intellectual pea cocking.
@deti
Agree with you about the abuse of porn as a legitimization of divorce.
@deti, I would agree porn is adultery in regards to the soul, and it is between you and your God. It is not however by the definition of adultery for the purpose of a woman justifying divorce of her husband. The Bible does not support the notion that a man committing adultery in his heart by looking lustfully at a woman other than his wife has actually committed the act of adultery.
If people were really concerned about porn and Christ’s exhortation against “adultery in one’s heart” as Christ apparently intended it, people would ask:
“Why does he burn with lust for women not his wife? Why does he have a problem with porn? Why does he feel a compulsion to use it? Why is masturbation a married man’s only sexual release? What is going on in his marriage? Do he and his wife have sex? If not, why not? What can we do to help him? What can we do to help her?”
But largely, that’s not what is going on. What is going on is “He looked at porn! That’s adultery! It says so RIGHT THERE in Matthew 5:28 because he looked at a woman with lust and he had sex with her in his heart! If he wanted to have sex with her, that’s as good as having sex with her! I want a divorce!”
Another basis I thought of: When Christ called out adulterers (and forgave them), they were REAL adulterers, not “adulterers in their hearts”. They had actually had sex with men they weren’t married to. Think the Samaritan woman at the well with 5 husbands. Think Mary Magdalene.
Take it all for what it’s worth, Brent.
@deti 4:06…Looks like you were typing the same time I was, and got to the point much more completely and succinctly than I.
christiankp – “Stanton is hoping to get laid”
LOL.
Actually Stanton is in the business of selling books, or more specifically “Christian” books.
I don’t have any statistics to back it up, but I’d bet that 80% or more of all such “Christian” books are sold to woman.
My own opinion is that Stanton has not done any deep analysis of the state of relations between man ans women, nor mankind and God. And, why would he? That’s not going to sell any “Christian” books – Churchians don’t want the truth.
No, Stanton has done the only analysis that he really needed to do in order to be successful in his field of endeavor – the analysis of what women want to hear.
And, he’s giving it to them. I especially like the part Dalrock quoted regarding their imagined “complexity” and “giving character to” based on their desire to shop (the way they get all those fine adornments), and buy frivolous goods.
I can pretty much imagine it some thing like this:
random self-absorbed Churchian chick – “Oh, look! Glenn Stanton says that women who like to dress nice and decorate their homes are complex! He really knows what he’s talking about, cause I like to shop, and I’m real interesting.” I should buy more of his books.
Glenn Stanton – Winning!!!
Another basis, and perhaps the most persuasive one I can remember:
Christ’s exhortation against “lust” and “adultery in your heart” had everything to do with getting people to check their hearts as I said before. This has to do with how a Christian relates to, and submits himself to, God. He was not talking about how a Christian relates to his spouse, or to other Christians.
That’s one way I think Matthew 5:28 is being misused and misconstrued.
“No, their true concern is finding a basis on which to get a woman a ‘Get Out of Marriage Free’ card. ‘He looked at porn. Therefore, he committed adultery, and I now have grounds for divorce. I’ll collect my cash and prizes, please. Tell me what I’ve won, Judge!'”
I’m generally of the “Greeks got the Gospel and turned it into Philosophy, Europeans got it and turned it into a culture, Americans got it and turned it into a business” mindset. And I also used to be a church treasurer, so I’ve been in some “smoke-filled rooms,” if you will. Think about it this way: The woman is hell-bent on getting a divorce. The pastor and elders probably know for a fact they can’t stop her. A man has no power to talk the modern woman out of anything. One of the two of the husband or wife will change to a different church, with certainty. Here’s the thing: After the divorce, she’ll get a continual stream of monthly cash from her ex-husband. She’ll also get a stream of income from her job. Whatever church she goes to–assuming most still teach the un-Biblical tithing system–will get 10% of her salary + 10% of her monthly cash and prizes. On the other hand, he will be in a worse situation and may stop paying tithe altogether, or he may pay it only on his net after alimony and child support.
If you’re a typical pastor or an elder worried about finding funding the next “outreach” drive, multiply that one woman times 40% of all the women in your congregation (assuming a 40% divorce rate). Then factor in the fact that if you alienate the woman, she’s taking her entire “team” with her out the front door (with their husbands if they have them), and that might even include the wives of the pastors or some of the elders. Which one do you support? Yeah, I know, they wouldn’t actually go THAT far, would they?
@Deti
I mentioned 1 Corinthians 7 upthread partly because I was reading it recently. It is striking how much of the issues we discuss Paul covered in his letters to the early congregations:
The last two sentences are right in line with your point. The first part would no doubt be a great shock to the married ladies at Christianforums.com as well. It turns out that (lifelong) marriage is in fact central to Christain sexual morality, and not a state sanctioned version of boyfriend and girlfriend.
I’m still reading, but I haven’t yet found Paul’s counsel to those who aren’t haaaaapy keeping their vows.
Brent: Your description of the thought process about the financial ramifications of a church couple divorcing is probably a pretty good one. The Big D has noted and argued before about how women are the ones who make the decisions where to attend church and how much to give. Check this:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/game-for-pastors-part-i/
This is my first comment here, and my first foray into this fascinating thing called the manosphere. I am a Christian and female so I find this fabulously interesting. I have some close male friends in my church so I hear them talk about the (pride) and (vanity) that afflicts many a woman in the church, although they don’t name it as such. What bothers me though, is that they chose the pretti(er) woman as oppose to the homely woman (who would be very pretty and blossom like flowers if someone showed them some love and attention), and a beautiful woman can sometimes be subject to a little bit of vanity, just because she gets a bit more attention. Sometimes I think from reading these posts that there’s a clear distinction made between men who are alpha jerks and regular good guys, but there’s no distinction between female self-centered alpha jerks and “good” woman….that all woman are like that. Perhaps the men that get ripped up in divorce etc. are the ones that married Barbie dolls? Granted, I do think our culture does “promote” a lot of vanity in woman in a special way nowadays, but I don’t think all woman are like this.
I can not imagine how a man would willfully turn his back on marriage, especially a Christian one. Christianity is probably the most explicitely “sexist” religion. Even “more so” then Islam or Judaism. Woman are not allowed to speak in congregations and to obey their husbands the way they obey Christ which is like, if your real, submission. I can see how marriage can add a lot to people’s faith. I know some Christian woman are interested in Alpha men. Ahem, they are not interested in Alpha men, they are interested in masculine men who can lead them. Big difference. No one wants to date a guy that acts like a four years old shy school girl. I’ve dated guys that were gentle and kind but they still knew how to lead. They always won the day over neanderthals for me every time. Neways I want to hear your opinion to this comment. (OBTW -My compliments to the writer – This blog is excellent. And I so hope Stanton responds and tries to defend himself)
[D: Thank you, and welcome.
The concept of alpha doesn’t translate across sex lines. It is true that the prettiest women get the most attention, and are at risk of having that go to their heads. However, the complaint from most men isn’t that the top tier women won’t give them the time of day, but that nearly all women are fixated on the top tier of men.]
Glenn T. Stanton is inflicting profound injury upon the Church – the Body -; he is destroying the possibility of a solid Christian marriage; and, with his satanic doctrine that the woman is born intrinsically good, he is saying women have no need of redemption or salvation: there was no fall on the part of woman: she has no need of Christ.
Either Mr Stanton is to be removed from his position and recant or all godly men of understanding must remove themselves from fellowship with this wicked fellow and the orgainzation to which he belongs.
Focus on the Family, like the Moody Church/Bible Institute and many others, is merely a “christian” patina over a functional matriarchy w/steady income stream
as others pointed out, the “leaders” of (pseudo)Christian churches and colleges and institutes are ruled utterly by females, and by the West’s feminist secular ideas and institutions, with which these “chrisitans” collude for economic, psychological, sexual, and egotistical reasons
you can obey your wife OR you can obey God
you CANNOT obey both, as Glenn Stanton and the thousands of other false “pastors” and “ministers” and “preachers” prove daily, tickling the ears of the (commanding) female congregants with their split-tongued “sermons”
as in politics, or government, or corporations, or the justsis sistem, the “men” allowed to lead the churches say what their wives and The Herd want to hear, and do what Woman directs, or they are handed a spatula and apron at McDonalds, instead of a fat, comfortable, upper-middle-class life worshipping Babylon and her gyno-institutions
Stanton is not anomalous, but the frightening mainstream in spiritual leadership in the Western world — now that he and his gyno-servile pals in government, education, and law have destroyed American masculinity, they demand we “man-up” and fall to our knees apologizing and begging the forgiveness of those who disenfranchised us . . . like Bary Soetoro says, men who have been, ah, displaced, should find jobs in the Service Economy (i.e. serving him, Joe Biden, and the Grrls)
“A good woman is the more intricate of the species, for while both men and women are complex and profound, women universally have more interesting layers to their femininity than men have to their masculinity. You only have to look at how women and men adorn themselves when going out among their community or what materials they use to give character to their living spaces. Our girls should take pride in their more complicated selves.”
they blabber all day in their churches and on their teevee and radio shows The Father this and The Father that, Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus
but they SERVE their wives . . . WomanNation . . . themselves
“He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)
“There is a far distance between experiencing sexual arousal and release from looking at photos and videos, and obtaining that release from a real live flesh and blood woman not your wife.”
Now, don’t get me wrong. There might be problems with this. If the only way he is getting sexual release is from porn, there is probably something wrong. He might have a physical or mental or emotional problem. He might have an addiction. He might have a problem with his wife, his marriage, his job, his family, or something else entirely. He might not be attracted to his wife, or she to him.
There might be many kinds of problems. But I don’t think one of those problems is adultery and thus grounds for divorce.
@Opus:”As an amused and concerned observor of all things American, I deduce that Protestantism is the Democratisation of Religion…”
No. Protestantism is the recognition that the individual stands before The Lord God with only – only – Jesus Christ as the Mediator and Redeemer: there is no Babylonian Mother of God crap; nor is there any acknowledgment that a priest in fine robes and adornment and a Babylonian triple crown upon his head in any way can be considered God/Christ on earth whose words, laws, and authority exceeds the bible, God, or any angel — this is the recognized anti-Christ.
I’m still reading, but I haven’t yet found Paul’s counsel to those who aren’t haaaaapy keeping their vows.
and you wont, either, b/c “I hate divorce” leaves little room for opinion, counselling, relationship experting, therapy sessions, or small-group decisionmaking
@njartist49
I am indeed indebted to you for reminding me that Ratzinger aka The Bishop of Rome is indeed the Whore of Babylon and thus the Anti-Christ. Whereas I am neither an official or for that matter unofficial spokesman for the man now calling himself Pope Benedict XVI, I cannot but observe that the doctrinal difficulties that seem to affect Protestants such as Stanton are largely absent from Catholicism and I suppose Orthodoxy – at least they do have the means to eradicate heresy. Anglicanism is of course not really a Protestant Church at all, being as it is full off fine garments and the better sort of music, and valuable real estate and where a belief in God or indeed any god is regarded as optional as is a strict compliance with all of the Ten Commandments – like a school examination only seven out of ten need be attempted – although it does, regretably, seem to have been infiltrated by Women Priests, Homosexuals and Guitars in recent years. You must therefore forgive my overlooking the finer points of true Protestantism.
[D: I think he misread your humor while at the same time misreading you as a Catholic and not an atheist. For the record Catholics are always welcome here.]
If it is true that the implied theological assertion of FOTF is that there is a gender based difference in the sinful nature of humanity, then I’ll say it right now that they are teaching heresy. Romans 3:9-20 applies to both genders. Not just beta males.
I’m tired of all this…. Evangelica screaming the law at its adherents; self effort, works righteousness, whatever you want to call it. Why should I go to church to hear fulminations about how damning my evil penis and lack of culturally approved (“alpha”) masculinity are? or “Gaawwwd wants you to lay down righteous |UFC asswhippings (both on and off the gridiron) on libtards and trade unions and weaklings, democrats, non Haplogroup 1b holders etc…. coz we need to reclaim our countreh for thuh Laawrrd, just like Jepthah did for Isss-rel (thank you dominionists)”. Or what 3xy^4 steps can make me a more acceptable evangelical male worthy of approaching massively entitled (and perhaps also massive princesses)…. What utter bollocks. Matthew 23 all over again.
asdf… a sermon on Steve Jobs…are you s–tting me? Walk away. Sounds like affluent West Side creampuffery, gosh I might even know the church itself no, As a Christian you should not give up looking for a congregation. It might take a year or longer to find somewhere where the Gospel is fully preached and confessed, but keep looking. Pray for humility in this search; what you want may not be what you need. IIRC, do you live somewhere in Vancity?
So you were bored with the rote Roman Catholic liturgy as a child. Moving to a megachurch isn’t a cureall for boredom and unhappiness.
Dalrock
I’m still reading, but I haven’t yet found Paul’s counsel to those who aren’t haaaaapy keeping their vows.
Pretty sure that’s in the “Book of Awesomeness”…
MW:
Amen brother. The other side of this are that some churches are preaching everything BUT biblical principles on anything. When I’ve gone to some of these churches I feel I’m at a stage show, watching performance art. After the concert, we sit down and listen to a salesman talk about self improvement: how I can eat better and quit bad habits, or making my friends like me more, or how I can better manage money, or how I can work better, or how I can raise my kids better, or how I can be a better citizen of the world, or ……
christiankp,
I can’t help you. Morality implies choice. There is no choice in biological imperatives. The material world is a set one in which all things are fated by physical laws and choice is no possible in any moral sense.
Your assumption about the plot of the movie is off. But so is Stanton’s use of Melvin as an example. He’s a cranky hermit with over the top OCD and the worst personality of all time, who nobody in the world can stand. However, he does have money by virtue of being a successful writer. He takes a liking to his regular waitress at the coffee shop (partly for OCD reasons, he must always sit at her table). When she can’t come to work because of her chronically sick son and therefore can’t wait on him, he solves that problem by finding a doctor (an expensive one) who can actually diagnose the kid’s problems and improve his health – something she has been unable to do on her health insurance and budget for his entire life. This causes her to see him in a new light and blah blah blah. However, he had never been pursuing her for anything other than serving his breakfast – which he needed to have served by the same person every day (and she was the only one who could tolerate him enough to do it).
Anyway, point being, when he supposedly insulted her, he wasn’t even trying to insult or neg her, he simply had no social grace whatsoever. Also, he was arguably an omega (despite his money) before they sorta/kinda started to like each other.
And she is anything but “confident” before this. She is sometimes brash, but she is an Eff up and knows it.
“Mr. Stanton doesn’t see this as a warning for young women that following their animal side will lead to disaster for themselves and their children. ”
With Melvin, she is doing anything BUT following her animal side. However, in portraying her as such a beacon of virtue, he ignores the fact that she is mostly a wreck and is sometimes frustrated with her dating life because the chronically sick kid gets in the way of her having sex or a relationship with more normal men, as shown in the scene where she is getting started with a guy on the couch and the sick kid stumbles out and interrupts them by telling his mom he is feeling really badly. Nonetheless, she is protrayed as completely dedicated to the kid, so in that sense, she follows his script.
Anyway, the movie is so so (if you can stand ridiculously politically correct stuff), but doesn’t stand for the proposition for which Stanton uses it.
Walk away Deti. These spectacles hold nothing for me, either side of them. Both are brimming with inflated optimism, exceptionalism and self delusion. Lent this year was a real blessing in that I’ve seen the vaaast gulf between both sides (or perhaps they are both sides of the same coin; in fact the more I observe them the more this seems to be the case). Rigid amero-puritanism (Austrian school, of course) on one side and fluffy “progressive, emergent” whateverism on the other.
And the lonely way navigating between them. The book “Good News for anxious Christians” describes this phenomena quite well. The author has some very astute insights on the tensions in current evangelicalism.
Wish you had an email posted. But I’m sure some that have it have also see this gem of a woman.
http://www.parenting.com/blogs/show-and-tell/megan-babytalk/mom-decides-parenting-not-her-and-leaves?cid=obinsite
Innately good my ass.
Mom goes on a work trip, and then decides she doesn’t want to be a Mom anymore.
@Opus: “Anglicanism is of course not really a Protestant Church at all”
I was raised Episcopalian; yet, I left it in the 1970s when it became obvious the denomination was apostate: not only did the denomination become a leftist haven, it became more Babylonian having increasing fallen to Roman influence. I never found a home since. I read the bible, pray, and pursue my relationship with God at home: This decision was reinforced when I read current prophets are declaring that God is commanding the faithful to come out of Babylon so that we will not share in its plagues: this nation as are other western nations is going to be turned upside down and ground to nothing; and this judgment will begin in the church.
But, I do not expect an atheist to ponder any of this as legitimate.
………..
Someone else commented to the effect that Christian men are not to seek a wife in Church.
The church – as church- makes proper demands on one’s faith life as a community; therefore it has the very obligation to raise up women who will see men having been raised in the church and having a godly character as a true love object and worthy of sexual desire and marriage; for a Christian man is not to be unequally yoked; if the church refuses to do this, then its remaining demands as a community are worthless.
@Dalrock
“I’m still reading, but I haven’t yet found Paul’s counsel to those who aren’t haaaaapy keeping their vows.”
A couple of quotes come to mind. The first you’ve probably seen in Corinthians 7 and the other from Romans (H/T Jimmy Seghers at Totus Tuus Ministries):
“To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate
from her husband, but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her
husband – and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor 7:10-11).
“Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her
husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly,
she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is
alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she remarries another
she is not an adulteress” (Rom 7:2-3).
Seghers (a Catholic, but the product of divorce) is quite thougtful on this and points out that Paul is fair-minded but strict in his interpretation of marriage. There’s no easy out. Seghers uses the usual amount of fem-friendly prose (he presumes no-one, not even Catholics will take him seriously otherwise, I suppose), but he doesn’t let anyone off the hook. The kind of preacher and interpreter that Glenn Stanton should be.
http://www.totustuus.com/
http://www.totustuus.com/StPaulOnMarriage.pdf
christiankp: David Hume, surely no friend of Christianity, said it best: “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, ‘is’, and ‘is not’, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ‘ought’, or an ‘ought not’. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ‘ought’, or ‘ought not’, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.”
From the materially factual proposition ‘This behavior will preserve the species’ there is no getting to the moral proposition ‘You therefore ought to behave thus, whether you like it or not’. Biology alone can say nothing to the alpha-male freeloader; without another source of objective valuation, he can, with perfect reason, say ‘The future of the species is no concern of mine’ – and, for that matter, ‘The future of the species is ultimately meaningless.’
Brian,
Good link. You have to love the classic frivolous divorcée language:
Don’t worry ma’am, no one will judge you for abandoning your children. I have it on good authority from two Christian leaders that when women do something bad somewhere somehow a man must be to blame.
asdf and Unger
I believe that life itself dictates to men what is good and what is evil. I admit that this used to be communicated thru religion, but I think that no religion manage to be a make an objective valuation of the moral code. I think that the discussion going on here at Dalrock about the degeneration of the Christian church i showing this. There was nothing in the bible that made it impossible for the church leaders to give up original Christian morality and to deceive half of the population.
Sheera Longman
I am not a Christian so maybe I should not commend on your post. However, I think you are wrong when you say that Christianity is a sexist religion against women. It is sexist against men, if anything.
There are several good reasons that women should keep quiet in public and I will try to explain. The survival of the society to the common good of primarily women and children depends on that everybody has a stake in its future. As women become mothers they will always have a stake in community, but the much looser connection between men and their children puts men in a limbo regarding this.
To compensate for this a community order evolved that made men primarily responsible for the public realm in the same way that women are primarily responsible for the private realm. In fact this order is an order of equality because both sexes have responsibilities. Now women are taking over from men in the public realm and thereby lots of men will no longer have stakes in the future of society, permitting free-weeling, and putting irresponsible alpha-males at the top.
Women taking over the public realm is dangerous to society and it will not give women any power. Think of a society in which all women are upper class and all men are under class. Women will have no power over men, and it would be easy for men to revolutionize against their women suppressors. You could not defend yourselves.
The power women holds go through their sexuality. A mother in a patriarchal society holds way much more power in her hand than a woman senator in a matriarchy. In patriarchy men have been handed the overall responsibility for their family and children. In everything a patriarch does he is bound to put the interest of his wife and children first. When he speaks out in public he cannot go against the interest of his wife an children.
In patriarchy the division of power between the sexes can be compared to the power division i big corporations: men are the executives and women are the board-directors. Women are much more invisible, but their power is deeper and more long term. Feminism wants to put women in the seat of the directors as well as in the board – and then suddenly men have no stake in the future of the corporation.
And I think that we all know this in our hearts because I think that we all know that it has very seldom occurred – if ever – that the US president has passed a bill to which his wife was opposed – and if he did he thought he had very good reasons for doing so, and he did not doing it lightheartedly.
About female vanity: I think that many men shy away from women who are looking to beautiful. I think that Nash made himself a Nobel-prize by explaining why at the end of the day it was always the most beautiful girl who was without a male partner. Personally I get appalled by those all to beautiful women, because I find them cold-hearted. When a woman makes herself too beautiful she does it because she wants to get a man without reciprocating him on a more substantial level.
In the same way I would say to women: if the man is giving you too many flowers or too big a diamond ring he is flattering you. And this just signals one thing: in the long run he will betray you.
I have pondered for some time that the portrayal of men and women in movies, books and the like has changed a lot. The way men are characterised as unthinking buffons, incapable of independent thought. Women shown as smart, capable and always patient. It always feels like some feminists fantasy world, where black is white, white is grey, and the rabbit hole just keeps descending.
The deeply disturbing aspect is how media influences expectations. Women believe this rubbish, and act it out. Combined with their intrinsic lack of empathy makes working with them or being around many of them deeply irritating.
The concept of propinquity says the longer the association, the greater the degree of liking. I work in an area that has had a lot of people through it for a few months at a time. Some people are likable, others less so. But i am noticing this anecdotal trend, the longer i work with some women, the less respect i have for them.
Many of them would claim to be smart, career focussed types, but i rarely interact with truly smart women. Cunning, deceitful, treacherous, untrustworthy, absolutely. But are they smart? Not really. The iq curve for women is much more peaked than for men. Most are in that readers digest bracket to 115 points. Which in the range of iq means plus one standard deviation, or diddly squat.
Innately good? Innately deluded, more likely, and not too smart either. Unfortunately, female pride, puffed up through regular transfusions of self esteem and reinforced at regular intervals by the msm, is not likely to admit deficiency in the near future.
Broader society may need a train wreck before this changes. But men will probably be
blamed for it all in the meantime.
Christian, I was tongue in cheek when I said Christianity was sexist. Hmm, well I don’t know about men and beautiful woman, maybe your more sensible, I’ve seen men chase them. Maybe the beautiful woman end up alone because their too picky.
“Man deficit”, or to paraphrase,”alpha deficit”.
It’s a redeeming fact that the manosphere is populated with economists who understand the meaning of supply and demand.
I guess Happy Days was way ahead of its time, just not enough Fonzies to go around.
@Dalrock
I must apologise, but I found myself unable to resist njartist49’s comment. I like to think that behind my levity there is, however, a serious point – which I will not now belabour.
I am glad you referred to me as an atheist with a small rather than a large A, although I dislike either label, for as I usually jest, ‘I may not believe in God, but I absolutely draw the line at Atheism!!’ – I have little time for the Dawkins Crowd, who strike me as having ditched one set of beliefs and replaced them with attitudes far more pernicious. I prefer to say when people ask, as they occasionally do, that ‘I am not a believer’ (and without being explicit as to exactly what I do not believe or why). In another sense however I am culturally Anglican as one is most likely to be if one is English; indeed only three weeks ago today, I found myself quite happily (a lunchtime concert) in one of London’s Wren churches – now being used by the Lutherans. As one Anglican commenter on another blog once put it to me, when I suggested that he was a believer, ‘I did not say that I was a believer: I said I was an acceptor’. Subtle difference.
Mitch Daniels decided not to run for President because his wife said so.
Recall, she had an affair and left him, chased the stud to California, not sure if she married the stud or not, then she came back to Mitch, and he “did the right thing” and has taken her back and raised his kids. She gave a speech during the speculation he may run, and it was painfully evident she was da boss, nearly growling when she said that the man doesnt run alone its on his whole family.
Obviously she doesnt want her hypergamy in the main media as it would have been if Mitch ran, so, she told him not to.
Now, those who talk of him being VP need to shut up. He is disqualified already. If they want him, just nominate his wife
[D: I’ve never heard of him so I searched on his name and found his website. The man doesn’t even look cool riding a motorcycle. There is no hope for him.]
@deti
“Finally we’ve now come full circle back to legalism as Matthew 5:28 is currently used, and that’s my real objection to the way the Church currently uses and interprets this Scripture. I don’t believe for one second that the “porn police” are concerned about porn usage or what it does to families.”
You’re totally correct on this. What pisses me off so much isn’t so much that pastors talk against porn, as that they do it on a one-sided basis. The fact is, all the things pastors accuse porn of doing–creating unrealistic expectations, demeaning women, objectifying them, creating the illusion that women only exist to serve men’s desires–whether or not porn does this, all of this is indeed done by the female porn that we have cloaked in the less derogatory term “romance novels” or “romance movies” or even the high-sounding word “drama.”
Think about it for a second: Women like the romance part of intimacy best. Men like the humping part best. So guy porn is mostly humping with no romance. What would girl porn be? Romance with no humping. There is a term for “romance with no humping.” It’s called Christian romance novels. It’s called Janette Oke. It’s called Dee Henderson. It’s called Fireproof.
The theme of all of that stuff is that men exist entirely to fulfill a woman’s desire to be in a constant state of emotional ecstasy. And unlike regular porn, all of society including the church–no, ESPECIALLY the church–confirm and agree with the message of female emotion porn: Men exist to serve your every whim. And Christisn publishers produce this kind of thing.
Since 1 Corinthians 7, in that epistle Paul directly attacks the idea that a man should always focus his life on fulfilling his wife’s every desire:
” 29 And I say this, brothers: The time is limited, so from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none….
32 I want you to be without concerns. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the things of the world—how he may please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided.”
When is the last time a pastor gave a sermon on this verse, and told the wives that, regardless of the culture’s totally fixation on the “haaaaaaapiness” view of marriage and the idea that your husband’s job in life is to make yours an emotional utopia, get over yourselves. Woman up!
This is a sore spot for me because it was this view of marriage that caused my Christian ex-wife to believe she was justified in infidelity. And she got that message in part from a continuous consumption of female emotion porn, much of it produced by Christian publishers.
Brent:
You’re talking about emotional porn, like Eat Pray Love and the Oke novels, though of course Christian opinion is divided on Oke.
The main justification I hear in my circles for Christian men divorcing is infidelity. That’s grounds for divorce, full stop.
What I hear from Christian women are overwrought biblical justifications. She wants a biblical reason because she is then fully justified in divorcing her husband even if he hasn’t committed adultery, abuse or abandonment (the so-called “beating, cheating or retreating”). So then, if he is doing any of these things, she feels fully justified in cheating and then leaving.
She will claim he doesn’t lead well enough, or he does not spend enough time at home, or he spends too much time working, or he doesn’t earn enough money, or he looks at porn, or he looked too long at another woman, or he doesn’t go to church. Therefore he is in sin, she is in danger of being led into sin, and she cannot remain with him and is justified in refusing to submit to him.
Re Mitch Daniels:
According to his wikipedia. entry:
[Daniels] met Cheri Herman, who was working for the National Park Service. The two married in 1978 and had four daughters. They divorced in 1993 and Cheri married again; Cheri later divorced her second husband and remarried Daniels in 1997.
Perhaps there was some concern about all this (and what empath said) coming out if he ran for prez. You can bet that if he ran, whatever happened and variations thereof, true and not-so-true, would come out, particularly since he’s a Republican. The media loves digging dirt on Repubs.
The bias towards the female developed in American Evangelical Protestantism, like so many other pernicious trends, under the influence of the frontier. The frontier was by definition a strictly male-dominated society. Men went there, and men stayed there to develop it. Once men felt as though the environment was safe enough for womenfolk, they would ordinarily send “back East” for a suitable wife. With women came the churches that, increasingly, pandered to them.
If you want rationalization hamster-level pedestalization, you have only to read Great Awakening/Civil War-era sermons on the Influence of Women on Society, restraing the gawd-awful masculine sins of drinkin’ shootin’ chawin’ cussin’ stabbin’ etc.
If the woman has had a “checkered past” or has had premarital sex or a lot of sex partners, bringing her back to “right relationship” with God is quick, simple and easy. She need only pray a prayer, say she was sorry
Well, that’s actually true. Getting back into right relationship with God is easy and quick — “a broken and contrite heart, He will not despise.” But, getting back into right relationship with MEN, is a much tougher task. Another way to put it: Forgiveness can be had from God in an instant, but repairing a wrecked earthly life may take years and sometimes isn’t possible at all (eg, the years of beautiful fertile youth, that were wasted on badboys instead of family formation, cannot be gotten back.)
Someone needs to tell women this.
Perhaps there was some concern about all this (and what empath said) coming out if he ran for prez. You can bet that if he ran, whatever happened and variations thereof, true and not-so-true, would come out, particularly since he’s a Republican. The media loves digging dirt on Repubs.
———————————
Actually she feared the dirt’s reflection on her.
Mitch Daniels decided not to run for President because his wife said so. Recall, she had an affair and left him, chased the stud to California, not sure if she married the stud or not, then she came back to Mitch, and he “did the right thing” and has taken her back and raised his kids
Yes, and if he ran for President, all this sordid behavior on her part, would become a topic of national conversation. That’s why she said no. Consequences, consequences…
I can not imagine how a man would willfully turn his back on marriage, especially a Christian one.
There are many reasons, but the most salient are (1) the family law grinder (which in particular has depressed the rate at which men are getting remarried, even Christian men) and (2) the realities of the current dating/mating market (aka “combat dating”), which apply to the Christian market as well as the secular one (Christian women don’t really choose men very differently from other women).
Yep, my impression is that she didn’t want her EPL episode to get the scrutiny it would in a national election.
Fumbleback
Same thing happened in middle ages in Europe, Poddles lays it out well in “The Church Impotent”
“repairing a wrecked earthly life may take years and sometimes isn’t possible at all (eg, the years of beautiful fertile youth, that were wasted on badboys instead of family formation, cannot be gotten back.)
Someone needs to tell women this.”
But that would hurt their wittle feeeeeeeeeeelings. The worst crime on earth, remember, is to hurt someone’s feeeeeeeelings.
@Brendan, I have seen a few. They were cheated on multiple times, or the wife was so toxic in her contempt that it became something they couldn’t ignore anymore. Generally these guys followed this timing.
1-3 years Though it was relationship growing pains not actual contempt
3-5 years Confronted her, but not to harshly, because there are kids involved
5-10 years Gave up trying to get respect, sought other outlets for respect
10-15 years Her contempt grows because he now ignores her. Might initiate divorce
15-20 years Kids are older, disrespect is constant, he is done regardless of consequences
The cheating wife gets a much different timeline, because christian men have different levels of tolerance for this. Many will ignore the signs, and pretend for years that its not going on. I know that I did, even knowing that she had cheated on me once before. At first I thought it was my pride that blinded me, but no it wasn’t that. I was Christian, and didn’t want a divorce for me or my kids. I ignored this because to admit what I was seeing would require action that I wasn’t prepared to take.
@Brendan I read that wrong. It was turn their back on marriage, not turn their back on their own marriage. Well my points stand, but aren’t really a valid reply to you.
About this nonsense of “porn = adultery = grounds for divorce = permisson to remarry”… the permission to remarry has been demolished in a prior thread, but I think it’s time to debunk the “porn is grounds for divorce” nonsense once and for all.
Jesus said, “Whosoever looketh on woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery in his heart”. This is true — and so is, “whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” In both cases, the sin of the heart precedes the sin of the flesh, and ought not to be nurtured since it can lead to the sin of the flesh. This much is solid biblical teaching. And yes, by that standard, we shouldn’t be looking at porn.
But… do you put a man in prison for hating? Who among us hasn’t hated someone, or been angry enough to kill someone, at least once in the course of our lives? Thankfully, most of us don’t act out those desires, or the streets would be red with blood. But who is innocent by that standard? We should ALL be on death row. (Spiritually, we all are, which is why we need Christ’s pardon, but that’s another subject.)
So… can you divorce a man for looking at porn? Well…. it certainly is an example of “looking with lust.” But “looking with lust” predates internet pornography by many millenia. Porn is not some special category — it is simply one of many ways that men look with lust. So the real question is, can you divorce a man who looked at another woman with lust? Is that what Jesus meant?
Well… as with hatred, there is NO MAN who is not guilty of this. So, by that standard, ANY women can get a “biblically justified” divorce at any time! THAT INTERPRETATION IS CLEARLY NONSENSICAL, because it completely contradicts all of Jesus’ teaching about the permanence of marriage. If every married woman has legitmate grounds for divorce (or worse yet, divorce/”remarriage”) at all times, the statements about the permanence of marriage in the scripture are rendered null.
Clearly porn is a sin. But it’s not biblical grounds for divorcing and remarrying.
Regarding the single woman with child referenced above who still had her baby-daddy’s name tattooed to the back of her neck – I’ve come to regard visible tattoos as a significant signal. Seems to me to the PUA, visible tats and especially peek-a-boo tramp stamps would be useful tells. Tats on fingers, cleavage tats, back of the neck – bonus points suggesting a bit of the extra-freak/kink side, for those who like that sort of thing.
The flipside of the coin is to a man who wants a woman that can stand behind him without stabbing him, visible tattoos and tramp stamps are major warning signs. A woman who is impulsive enough to have a man’s name tattooed on a part of her body that is routinely visible, and who is not intelligent enough to have it removed when he’s no longer around, is not someone to let into your house as family. Tattoos in general indicate a poor degree of impulse control, and a short time horizon. Under the current legal environment, that is like keeping a dog with rabies in the back yard…
I believe that in the not too distant future – 5 years or sooner – visible tats on women will be confined to a cultural niche: waitresses in coffee houses / bars, barristas, incense/smoke shop clerks, alternative used bookstores, and so forth. In fact, we may already be “there” and not know it.
To sum up: any woman who is impulsive enough to decorate her body with some man’s name, and not intelligent enough to have it removed at the appropriate time, cannot be trustworthy enough to live with.
@van Rooinek,
This is one of the most sensible things I’ve read regarding Matt 5:28 and surrounding context. In fact, even though feminism has tried to make our Biblical text gender neutral, the gender pronouns in the text don’t allow conflating 5:28 with the verses following that deal with divorce for adultery. The reason? Matt. 5:28 deals with a MAN looking at a woman lustfully. Matt 5:32 deals with a WOMAN committing sexual immorality. While no one is arguing for different rules for men and women regarding lust or sexual immorality (no one here is anyway), the text instead points to an interpretation of “1) I’m commanding men in regards to sins of the heart, and 2) I’m making it HARDER on men to divorce their wives.” It is not, as evangelical Christianity tries to make it, “I’m giving women an out so they can EASILY divorce their husbands.” This interpretation completely turns the text on its head.
The text about divorcing for sexual immorality is about men being allowed to divorce a sexually immoral wife, not about a woman being allowed to divorce a man who looks at some other woman lustfully. In regards to Dalrock’s initial post, I wonder how Stanton would deal with the implication that the Lord evidently thought women–as well as men–were capable of grievous sexual sin.
I don’t believe for one second that the “porn police” are concerned about porn usage or what it does to families
I agree. There’s something else going on. Many Christian women let the marital sex lives dwindle to zero or near zero after a few years, and their husbands try everything to get it going again, to no avail — and are practically tearing their hair out in frustration over what to do about it. (BTW, this is the most common email Sheila Gregoire gets from men!)
Yet somehow, the fact that the frustated husband eventually breaks down and looks at porn, is seen as a greater sin, than the sin of sexual denial on the part of the wife. The church wants to bash down men for turning to porn, but they are seemingly lethally allergic to asking the question, WHY was he so vulnerable to its pull? In some cases he’s just a cad or an addict, but I guarantee you, when honest research is finally done, an inverse correlation will be shown, between marital satisfaction and porn use.
@van you are so correct. Women are not held to account. The thing that surprised me is that when married and almost zero sex life because she is tired, angry, not in the mood, survivor is on, american idol is on, or house hunters of some sort is on, etc, is that porn had a big draw. It was boring yet enticing. Since we have separated, and the expectation that a wife would satisfy me in some way sexually is gone, so is the pull of porn.
Sheera Longman:
“What bothers me though, is that they [Christian men] chose the pretti(er) woman as oppose to the homely woman (who would be very pretty and blossom like flowers if someone showed them some love and attention)”
As Brendan said above, the Christian dating/mating market isn’t really different from the secular market. These men might be Christians, but they are still men. Given a choice between the pretty girl and the homelier girl, they tend to choose the pretty girl. The absolute most important attraction trigger for men hands down far and away is looks/physical attractiveness, and that’s equally true for Christian men.
For men, looks is a huge majority of the equation. Fortunately, for most men, roughly half of all women meet the looks/appearance test. the problem is that most of the women are holding out for the top 15 to 20% (roughly) of men.
evangelical Christianity tries to make it, “I’m giving women an out so they can EASILY divorce their husbands
Don’t you mean, efemgelical?
“‘I call this moral the “moral of necessity.’
And I call it semantic bullshit.”
I call it rational morality and it’s been around much longer than theological morality. It boils down to how we choose to fulfill our needs, and the logical consequences of every choice we make. It is honest accountability.
Today’s main paper in NZ has an article about child abduction & the Hague convention today.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10795699
Already there. High status women don’t have a visible tramp stamp — and note that even actresses cover their art of the red carpet.
Already there. High status women don’t have a visible tramp stamp — and note that even actresses cover their art of the red carpet.
In my realm (lawyers and similar professional business execs), *no* women have visible tats. And most, based on my experience, have *no* tats. It’s not uncommon in the American middle class for women to have tats, but it’s still pretty uncommon for UMC women to have them.
The idea that Helen Hunt’s character failed to produce a father for her son (any indication that she’s happy with this situation) or that she’d EVER accept a guy who wouldn’t be a good father for him, no matter how attractive she might find him, is horseshit. She was a very devoted mother.
HeligKo says:
March 30, 2012 at 11:30 am
There is another possibility…the male ability to think logically.
Ok, so you discover cupcake is cheating, and you live in Marriage 2.0 land…what to do, what to do???
1) Confront her…she denies, women are pathological liars.
2) Divorce her…you lose 1/2 your shit, the house, the kids, the pension, and risk false DV charges and jail.
3) Ignore and seethe… you know what you know, but you have though it through and the financial consequences are simply too devastating to allow you to stand on honor and principle, so you fake that things are ok and suck it up, knowing that you are married to a cheating whore.
4) go underground and plan your escape…drain accounts, plan an exit strategy etc.
5) cheat on her in retaliation…and run the risk of STD’s, kids, being found out etc.
6) Forgive and forget…the toughest of the option, because you can never really let it go.
These lousy options are why I feel Islam and Shariah are coming to the western world. Our Islamic friends have a pretty good handle on wayward women and battered, feminized western men are going to embrace Shariah as a way to level the playing field in relationships.
All, from As Good as It Gets…
LOL! Classic!
Buck, HeligKo:
Probably the best scenario for today’s married man is to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I think Brendan and Athol Kay have suggested variations of this:
Have a plan in place that you can implement if you discover cheating. Decide ahead of time what you’ll do. Some of it sounds really cloak and dagger. Suggestions include:
1. Sock some cash away either in cash in a secret location or in a bank account in your name only.
2. Have a “go bag” ready. Keep clothes, cash, keys, wallet, phone, essential papers ready to go, or away from the marital house and at your office. Be ready to evacuate at a moment’s notice. The idea is that you have supplies you can gather quickly and readily in the event you find yourself locked out or with only 15 minutes to get things out o f a house after you’ve been slapped with a restraining order.
3. Before anything goes bad, talk to a knowledgeable divorce lawyer now so you have a rough idea of how a property division will go, best and worst cases. Hire and pay the lawyer for his time in cash. Don’t write a check or use a credit card. This eliminates a paper record of the meeting. It also cretes an attorney-client relationship binding the lawyer to confidentiality.
4. Keep a close eye on her activity and the money. Watch for any changes. If money starts disappearing from the accounts or there are large unexplained withdrawals, or she has a lot of unexplained absences, or she suddenly becomes secretive about things that used to be open book, something is going on and you should get to the bottom of it.
5. If you discover cheating, implement the plan. Either start gathering evidence, or confront and demand the cheating stop immediately, or just auto-dump. Then stick to it.
Dalrock, do you pay attention to Boundless? They’ve had Stanton as a guest on their podcast several times now, and basically all he ever does is trash men and exalt women. Apparently, back in January, they had him on a podcast and he said this:
“women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons and we could talk about that. But men have to be taught how to lead.”
That says it more explicitly than any quotation from his book you found. He’s pretty much coming out and saying that women don’t have original sin.
[D: Wow. I hadn’t seen that, but I just searched and found this boundless article with the quote and the link to the podcast itself. Thanks, and welcome!]
Pingback: Three must-reads. « Haley's Halo
Ecclesiastes 7:28 ” . . . I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.”
(Of course, that’s all aside from sin and salvation, which is equal regardless of gender).
@Hermes,
Not only is Stanton’s white knighting transparent and pathetic, but his statement is extremely heretical. What he is indeed saying is that women are born without the taint of original sin. As Michael Horton over at White Horse Inn is wont to point out, American evangelicalism is rife with Pelagianism. Stanton’s statement is a feminized version of a wider Pelagian trend.
Oops–I had meant to link to that article in my post.
If you search Boundless, you can find several other examples of Stanton doing the same thing. My favorite was from back in 2010, when they had him on the podcast to discuss that Hanna Rosin article “The End of Men” that was all over the media at the time. The Boundless staffer host, Lisa Anderson, was actually asking some decent questions, but he just kept ignoring what she was actually asking and making these pat statements about men needing to “man up” and our society not “manufacturing good men.” He also sounded like he hadn’t read the article at all.
Deti says:
“Women are capable of verbal and emotional cruelty that simply boggles the mind. It far surpasses anything men say or do. (They simply don’t have the physical strength to back it up.) It is the training and instruction that teaches them the best way to a man’s heart is gentle submission and counsel, not head-cracking nagging or endless insults.”
So true
Great Blog and great posts….hopefully the church I attend does not stray into these waters.
I know I came into this thread late. Just wanted to express my appreciation for all the great contributions. It is so great knowing that others are out there who understand. That was the worst part of my early re-pill days, before I’d discovered the manosphere. No to sound too wimpy, but It is very difficult to see the folly going on around you and thinking you are the only one who sees it.
Related to the artice:
A few months back, I tried to post on an article at boundless. I guess I let too much of my red-pill masculinity show, cause it started a constant stream of comment moderation. They contacted me via email and suggested changes to my comment before they would post it. Evidently the word whore is acceptable for the bible but not acceptable for boundless. It was about a week of back and forth with one of their mods before I realized it was futile. They are an echo-chamber. Only administratively approved thinking is allowed. Washed my hands of the whole site. They are too far gone.
@ van Rooinek
That was perhaps the best breakdown of porn=adultery=divorce that I’ve seen. Very well put. I’m saving a copy of that for the future when I have these discussions with others.
Good Day all.
Mmm,
Hear what you are saying about boundless. I posted there for several years and never worked out the underlyng issues, until i stumbled across game theory, hypergamy, roissy etc.
I too have withdrawn from posting there and have not been back. The misandric fog on their thinking is very thick and it seems pointless to argue with a bunch of mostly women that will not accept or try to understand the reason or logic that i find here, and at related sites.
Pingback: Who Should We Focus On? - The Spearhead
One pattern that I noticed in the book of Genesis is that listening to the woman is the correct course of action 50% of the time, almost alternately.
Adam: Listened to his wife and sinned.
Abraham: Did not listen to his wife in Egypt and made a mess of things.
Abraham again: Listened to his wife and made a mess with an Egyptian.
Lot: Did not hold his wife’s sentimentality and lived. Let’s not think about what happened later.
I can’t say that I like Rebecca’s methods, but Esau was a dolt.
Joseph: Had to run away physically from his woman problems. Didn’t do him much good, though.
Tamar: Had to trick Judah into doing the right thing, and being utterly humiliated changed the course of his life for the better.
———————————————————————————————————
Misandric Fog
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Bard 6, Clr 7, Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V, S, F (Mostly V)
Area: 120-ft burst around the caster
Duration: Permanent or one hour/level (see text)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Nonsense Resistance: Yes
As the caster shouts and waves a book in a violent fashion, the shoulders of nearby men start to droop, while women in the area take on a smug and somewhat vicious expression.
If creatures in the area fail a will save, they are affected in one of two ways. If the creature is male, he suffers an effect similar to crushing despair, taking a -2 penalty to attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks, skill checks, and weapon damage rolls. He is entitled to a saving throw once per week to shake off the effect. A successful break enchantment spell ends the effect immediately. Repeated castings of this spell at least 24 hours apart stack until the target has been affected five times. At this point, he develops a twisted affection for people who are capable of casting this spell (as charm person) and only a limited wish, miracle, wish, or death and subsequent resurrection can cancel the effect.
If the creature is female, she is given a suggestion to insult, mock, deride, or intimidate the next three males with whom she has a meaningful interaction. She receives a second save if she knows the male intimately and has not insulted him so before. She cannot be affected again for 24 hours, but she receives a cumulative -1 penalty to her Will save for each consecutive failure until the penalty reaches -5, at which point the spell effectively becomes permanent and triggers at random and only a limited wish, miracle, or wish can cancel the effect.
Misandric fog counters and dispels good sense.
Focus: a book of lies, fabrications, and vicious distortions costing at least 25gp
——————————————————————————————————–
Yeah, coulda had my name in lights as a D&D book writer. That’s free under the OGL for all you out there. 😉
Pingback: “Guys Lust, Women Love,” and Other Lies | Christian Men's Defense Network
Pingback: Porn: The Evangelical “Get Out of Marriage Free” Card | Christian Men's Defense Network
Pingback: Trad Con Tourette’s | Dalrock
Pingback: Cutting leaders off at the knees. | Dalrock
Pingback: Texas U.S. Senate candidate is proud to have been raised by one of Stanton’s heroes! | Dalrock
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/women-are-innately-good/#comment-33956
I’ve listened to the podcast referenced. Stanton is way past disgusting. It definitely is worth listening to to see how really messed up things are in their camp.
Pingback: Why Good Christian Men Don’t Ask Her Out | Christian Men's Defense Network
Pingback: The ubiquitous frame of hypergamy. | Dalrock
Pingback: Defining Feminism Part 2 – Defining Herself | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Oprah 3:16 and the Christian Divorce Machine | Christian Men's Defense Network
Pingback: Why Christians need game. | Dalrock
Pingback: Beauty taming the savage beast. | Dalrock
Pingback: The Chief Cornerstone of Marriage 2.0: Foolish Sacrifice | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Fem-Porn Watch – Yes Men Are Bad, Women Are Good. | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: The Deification of Wives | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: BD #7 – The Basic Concept Behind The Man-Up Rant. | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Single mothers and the failure of Christain men; it is time to Man Up! | Dalrock
Pingback: Early Feminists: Moderate or Radical? | Reaping the Whirlwind
Pingback: Red pill bitterness | Dalrock
Pingback: The Herd and Women-Good/Men-Bad | Donal Graeme
Pingback: The Married Prostitute | Donal Graeme
Pingback: Market Failure- Part 2 | Donal Graeme
Pingback: The Reason Why Men Reject Women | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Who loves best? | Dalrock
Pingback: Repackaging feminism as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock
If I were not going to live forever, I would be overwhelmed with anger and regret for the years I believed the lies of the Christian manginas who told me I couldn’t trust my own instincts but I could trust my wife’s, that she was the better of the two of us and that women were the only thing holding Christian civilization together. Yet it was she who tried off and on for years to end our marriage but wouldn’t because I demanded she obey her vows to God and put the good of our children before the “pain” of being married to me! Oh, how terrible it was for her that I just couldn’t live with her in peace. That I continuously hurt her (always emotionally, never physically, and always out of my innate male ignorance of her specialness as a women” (Thank you Gary Smalley for supporting her in her rebellion against God and me!).
(Speaking of Gary Smalley, was anyone else besides me run over by that train wreck of a “Christian counselor?” I’m surprised I haven’t seen his name mentioned in any blogs or on any manosphere websites. Talk about a beta, gamma, or deta mangina (I’m not sure which he is)! I swear, when I used to watch that guy’s late night infomercial I always wondered if he was gay! After all of his bowing and obeisance to his pedestaled, does he ever get laid? Enough, apparently, to make him believe his grovelling is the right thing to do! How I wish I’d known then what I know now I would have destroyed every one of his ridiculous, unbiblical teachings and I could have saved myself an additional 18 years of torment living with the harridan I had married.)
On another note, I believe much of what’s wrong in the church stems from the UNbiblical doctrine of the sinful nature (instead of a merely a “corrupted nature”. Seriously, how can something in nature be sinful? The very term is an oxymoron!) first espoused by Augustine and then later codified into church dogma. The subject demands an entire book, but the gist of it is that it was Augustine who promoted the idea that all sex is bad except for procreative sex and that lust in a man all by itself is the very DEFINITION of sinfulness (and NOT, as it truly is, the source of his strength, power and masculine identity). In so doing, he effectively emasculated all Christian men for the next 1500 years, up to the present. This teaching also lead to priestly celibacy and the curse of pedaphile priests.
To do this, we are going to have to articulate and promote a different, and as I have learned, a more biblical, sane and rational, interpretation of Matthew 5:28. THIS is the silver bullet the church uses to DESTROY the very identity of the Christian male. If the popular interpretation of this verse is true, that EVERY TIME I THINK ABOUT HAVING SEX WITH A WOMAN I AM SINNING, then is it any wonder I feel fallen, guilty, pathetic, weak, and despairing as a Christian man? Why, if this interpretation is correct (which it isn’t), there truly is NOTHING good about me. Whereas over there, there stands the godly and pure WOMAN whom the Bible never accuses of being naturally sinful (although the medieval Catholic church certainly DID have a horrible opinion of womankind). Instead, she is the redeemer of mankind because only she has the power to force a man to tow the line, using sex as her carrot and her stick, giving him access to it when he is good and slamming shut the doors when he is not. Which, to be honest, just might work with most beta (and lower) males IF she actually dished it out fairly!! But mine never did!
Sheesh! If I keep going on like this I may have to start my own blog! Thanks for listening.
Pingback: Stanton’s wake-up call. | Dalrock
Pingback: The roots of modern Christian wife worship. | Dalrock
He’s still at it:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/12/20272/
@MikeJJ
Reposting your link in the newest comment thread.