As I mentioned yesterday Darwin Catholic (DC or Mr. Darwin for brevity moving forward) has a post up titled How To Marry a Nice Girl in response to my post Rules of the road for fornication. At the time I hadn’t read his full post, but having done so now I want to share my thoughts. Mr Darwin opens with:
Manosphere blogger “Dalrock” has linked to me under the apparent misapprehension that because I wrote that it is okay for someone (even, some were shocked to hear, a woman) to intentionally remain single so long as he or she remains celibate, MrsDarwin and I are promoting fornication. This seems to be about on par with Dalrock’s previously shown abilities to read and understand the arguments of others…
Mr. Darwin has misunderstood my argument. My disagreement was in two parts. The first was with his wife’s assertion that the trend we are seeing in women (in general) delaying marriage is driven not by feminist encouragement to women to prioritize education and career before marriage, but instead is being driven by women using careers to pass the time while eagerly looking for husbands. This is patently absurd. Reading her reply again, I realize that this might not have been what she meant. Women often take statements about the culture in general as personal attacks on themselves and the choices they made. Mrs. Darwin’s passionate rebuttal to the commenter on her site lamenting the general trend of women delaying marriage may well have been a defense of her own choices, and not actually intended as a response to the issue he was raising. The inability of so many to separate the general from the personal in these cases is the cause of a great deal of confusion and I strongly suspect this was one of those cases.
The other part of my point was Mr. Darwin’s over the top reaction to a polite discussion on why it isn’t bad advice to suggest that men should prefer to marry virgins. Putting together Mrs. Darwin’s great passion in defending the ever rising age of marriage for women with Mr. Darwin’s over the top outrage that men would insist on only marrying virgins, the Darwins appear quite passionate in their defense of the career woman slut who suddenly decides she needs to marry. Without addressing his own previous arguments against men who wish to marry virgins, he explains his overall reaction to GKC with an editorial note:
Last time I unleashed a broadside at the manosphere in general and Dalrock in particular, I was spoiling for a fight after watching Dalrock’s readers flood into the comboxes of Patheos in response to a post by Elizabeth Duffy and behave pretty badly while doing so. (This ranged from garden variety rudeness to calling the author a c***.) So when I stepped in with a response post, I was in the mood for a fight. When one of Dalrock’s readers started propounding the idea that regardless of repentance any woman who had sex before marriage was “a slut” and could never get married, I grew tired of dealing with the situation, banned him, and closed the thread.
If I’m reading this correctly, he is suggesting that he responded the way he did to GKC not because he disagreed with GKC’s politely structured biblical and practical argument, but because he suspected that GKC had at some point read and/or commented on my site, and that others whom DC suspected may have read and/or commented at my site had made objectionable comments on a third party’s site. It is worth pointing out that GKC had already expressed his own concern about the comments which were directed at Ms. Duffy. Still, the rule of Six Degrees of Dalrock took precedence and GKC was prevented from politely making his case. Aside from the strange friend of a friend whose cousin once read Dalrock’s blog explanation, DC’s assertion that he was “spoiling for a fight” strikes me as suspect. If he was spoiling for a fight, why did he end the discussion as soon as the opportunity for a vigorous intellectual exchange appeared? Why “unleash a broadside” if you plan on fleeing to port once the ostensible enemy appears?
At any rate, GKC will be pleased to learn that DC has now decided to unban him. At the same time, DC clarifies that words like “slut” and “ho” are banned at Darwin Catholic, as are comments “generally derogatory towards women (or men)”. I can only assume that there are no such thing as sluts in the Darwin Catholic world, since the word itself is offensive. Or perhaps they recognize the existence of sluts, but would prefer that commenters use an approved euphemism. Might I suggest the term grass widow, or a phrase I believe was coined by Badger, a woman who has had too many hot dogs in the babymaker. Feel free to suggest your own euphemisms in the comments section (here) so DC can consider them for his commenting policy.
My next point is in relation to the data I used in my rules of the road post. Mr. Darwin misunderstood the data I was using. Overlapping slightly with where I left off before:
This seems to be about on par with Dalrock’s previously shown abilities to read and understand the arguments of others, and once again I can’t help responding, especially because he attempts to make an argument from data while clearly using an incomplete historical trend and generally not knowing what he’s talking about.
Farther down in the analysis he elaborates:
…by starting in the 50s, Dalrock misses a fact I imagine he’s not aware of: the 50s marked a low point in the average marriage age in the US. This table shows median age at first marriage (rather than average), so the numbers are very slightly different from what Dalrock’s quoting, but the trend is very clear: the median age at first marriage fell steadily from 22 for women in 1890 to 20.3 for women in 1950. It didn’t rise to the 1890 rate again until 1980.
The table he links to is an abbreviated version of the full US Census data set I linked to in my original post. If he had looked at the full version of the data I shared, he would have noticed that the median age of marriage rose to the 1890 rate in 1979. This is inconsequential to the discussion, except for the fact that DC can’t have understood my analysis very well if he didn’t realize he had only found a summary version of the full data set I shared. He even misunderstood me as presenting mean and not median ages of marriage, even though every chart I shared had this prominently in the title. As for his ostensible smoking gun that I left out the great late marriage scandal of 1890, I did see that in the data but I didn’t (and still don’t) see that as relevant. The full data set only has annual data starting in 1947. When I created a chart from it I started with 1950 as a round year which also took us further away from any extraordinary impacts potentially caused by WWII. I didn’t see the need to go back 120 years when 60 years was sufficient to describe our path to the hookup culture. More important, as I explained in my analysis when women are commonly marrying at 22 the priorities of an 18 year old young woman are going to generally be on marriage. From my own analysis of the post sexual revolution 1980s, when women were marrying at 23:
18 year olds look to 20 and 22 year olds for an understanding of what they should be doing, and those women are actively hunting down husbands.
The point of my analysis was that there is a tipping point as the age of marriage continues to extend in the post sexual revolution world, where women entering the SMP stop initially looking for dad material men and feel free to go after cads for a period instead. Nevertheless, DC locks in on this issue and offers statistics on the age of marriage going back to 1600. I don’t have any specific knowledge of the marriage trends in the 1600s, but I’m guessing the culture was generally able to keep those women who planned to marry in check until they did so.
DC’s final criticism of my post is due to younger marriage leading to higher divorce rates:
Dalrock’s amateur sociology by decade leaves out an obvious problem: People who divorce in one decade probably got married anywhere from 5-20 years before…
In other words, marrying a 20-year-old woman is no guarantee you won’t get divorced. Lots of those women who married young in the 50s and 60s proceeded to get divorced in the 70s and 80s.
Does this mean you shouldn’t marry young? Obviously, we don’t think so, since we married at 22 (well under the average marriage age in 2001.) But it is true that all data these days suggest that those who marry young are more likely to divorce than those who married older.
I don’t deny that young marriage is associated with higher rates of divorce. However, it isn’t clear if this is due to women “marrying the wrong man”, or due to the much greater ease of remarriage for women who divorce while young. Given the fact that divorce rates decline dramatically as the wife ages, I suspect that the perceived opportunity to remarry is a very large driver here.
Throughout his analysis DC can’t help but confuse criticisms of a general social trend with an assault on his own choices and those of his peers. He does this frequently with phrases like:
Of all the couples our age (mid 30s) we’ve known living our kind of life in the Catholic sub culture, only one that I knew personally has gotten divorced.
and
That didn’t worry me, because I wasn’t marrying “woman aged 22” and I wasn’t marrying 100 women and hoping to get the maximum percentages of those marriages to last;
and
And I know good Catholic guys (and also good Catholic women) who are in their late 20s or early 30s, still looking hard for the right spouse, and still saving themselves for marriage.
In DC’s world, it is all about him. There aren’t any social problems afoot so long as his marriage, his family, and his small social circle are untouched. When asked by one of my readers if in his support of marriage he advocates divorce law reform, DC replied:
– I’m not particularly working on family law issues because 1) I’m neither a legislator nor a lawyer and 2) it doesn’t affect me much since I don’t believe in divorce in the first place.
What DC doesn’t understand is a large percentage of the millions of fathers kicked out of their kid’s lives didn’t believe in divorce either. That is the whole point. No fault divorce is unilateral, as fellow blogger Elusive Wapiti recently described:
My former wife had already absconded with my children across the country when she served me with divorce papers, thus her act of filing for divorce was both the beginning and the end of the divorce process. It was all over but for the court date to make it official. This single act set us both on what the report calls the “divorce superhighway”…
Incidentally, her Catholic priest recommended to her that she seek a divorce (and later the Archdiocese of Washington would breezily approve the annulment, after having the sac to ask me for a $500 “donation” to finance their declaring that my marriage to her never happened and my children were henceforth bastards).
But why should DC care about men like Elusive Wapiti or their children? Who cares if millions of other men are being treated with gross injustice; DC doesn’t believe in divorce. Actually, on second thought DC’s answer might make sense, depending on how we interpret the phrase “believe in”. If he means this in the sense that he doesn’t believe in Santa Clause, then his apathy is easier to understand. Perhaps DC’s level of denial is even greater than I had previously considered.
Elsewhere he advised one of my readers who was concerned with the damage wrought by feminism in the larger culture to not worry about the culture, and simply join a group of people who aren’t part of the culture:
Go find a group of people who actually share your beliefs about marriage (not just give lip service to them, but really share them) and start looking for a mate there.
In DC’s defense, he practiced what he preaches. Brendan described for my readers the subculture that DC is a part of:
I have had some dealings with people from FUS, and I think what others need to understand is that, in effect, the people who come from FUS (and the handful of similar very conservative Catholic institutions scattered around the US) are basically akin to the Amish. A huge percentage of the people there get married either while they are still in college at FUS or immediately thereafter. They’re not geographically concentrated like the Amish are, or technologically limited, but they are similar in that they are a very small separatist-type group that doesn’t generally participate in the culture at large — even in the *Catholic* culture at large that you may see in your local Catholic parish.
But this raises the question of why DC and his wife are so passionate in their defense of the status quo in the larger culture. Why are they so invested in opposing those who oppose feminism? If feminism doesn’t need to be opposed, why has he separated himself so dramatically from the feminist culture he so passionately defends?
Perhaps part of the answer lies in his particular sub-flavor of the Traditional Conservative counterculture. While DC is all for Traditional Conservatism, he derides Traditional Conservative women who decide to become wives and mothers without first going to college and playing career woman<.htma> (emphasis mine):
And that I tend to strongly disagree with the flavor of “trads” who think that women shouldn’t be educated or pursue careers while single. This is for the simple reason that I find educated and accomplished women far more interesting than those whose only accomplishments are long hair, lack of makeup and prairie skirts.
Ridiculing traditional wives and mothers is one thing, just don’t say anything ill about sluts.
In another comment on my site, DC channeled his inner Marie Antoinette when he explained why he opposes those of us who speak out against the great harms feminism has wrought in our society:
Sure, there are a lot of badly behaved women in the world. The solution, from my point of view, is simply to not marry women like that and move on. Why spend all one’s time winding oneself up about women in general? After all, we each only need one.
What is interesting is his core advice here is what I give as well in my Interviewing a prospective wife parts one and two. The primary difference is that DC is fundamentally in denial about the feasibility of this strategy for the majority of men, and he also instinctively sides with feminists in issues of the culture war. Only a small subset of women meet the requirements that either DC or I would advise a man to look for in a wife. While smart men who want to marry should be on the lookout for suitable women other men have overlooked, on the larger level only a small number of men will be able to successfully marry following this advice (and it is still even then imperfect advice). All men can do is improve their own (and their children’s) odds of having a chair when the music stops. The net end result for society will still be the same, especially with Traditional Conservatives insisting on acting as the advance guard of feminism.
I hope that one day DC and other Trad Cons will reconsider their apathy for the state of marriage and their knee jerk defensiveness of feminism and the hookup culture. Our disagreements aside, he is clearly a very sharp and articulate man, and I don’t question that his intentions are good. He is at the end of the day a man who is devoted to leading and taking care of his wife and children, and is whether he acknowledges it or not at risk to the very culture and laws we are speaking out against in the manosphere. For his devotion to his family he has my respect, and I truly wish him and his the best.
In the context of women we are addressing, how about “unpaid whores” ? I would regard that as accurate, and since ‘whore’ is a biblical term, it should not cause any offense.
Let’s be accurate and not spin or sugarcoat things to placate people who are more deserving of a rebuke than of appeasement.
What catches my eye, is the attempt to whitewash by banning: the word, Slut, and by banning terms allegedly derogatory to women as if to ‘wash away their sins’ – but DC is (obviously) not an ordained Priest – so as to offer these ladies absolution. Slut I may add is a word good enough for Shakespeare (three times) John Gay in The Beggars Opera, and Samuel Pepys. The sensitivity to this good old English word, which everyone understands, indicates I would say an inability on the part of DC to face something that the Man-o-sphere is very conscious of, namely the sexual indulgences of single women, which would be less serious were females to be less coy and deceitful about their activities for as Roissy pointed out one always has to double if not treble the professed number of partners a woman claims.
I am thus put in mind of one of my favourite quotes: ‘If it looks like a Duck, waddles like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, then it doesn’t much matter what you call it; it’s a Duck’; and in this case a promiscuous woman is spelt S-L-U-T. If you would all like a euphemism (popular over here) merely say that the lady has ‘been engaging in Ugandan discussions’.
I did get the sense you guys were talking a bit past each other. It is perhaps the principal point of dispute between (for lack of a better term) traditionalist conservatives and (for lack of a better term) manosphere conservatives that the former seem not to be concerned with the broader culture. I mean Darwin just kept saying something like “I’m not in favor of fornication at all! (!!!!!)” As though that was somehow enough. Problem solved. Well that works for you and yours, but illegitimacy rates are 41% or so and we all have to live in this good ol’ US of A. Well of course all Catholics and Christians can all agree to be against fornication. But ya know there were sluts and cads around 100 years ago… Just a helluva lot fewer of them. So what changed? Has human nature itself changed, or could there perhaps be subtle public policies or attitudes that have changed as well? And if so, then burying one’s head in the sand screaming, “The 10 Commandments all apply to all men and women everywhere” isn’t terribly useful, not untrue, but not useful… I mean sure, you’re pure… as you fiddle… while Rome burns… and you (or your children) with it.
A separate peace for these insular groups will not last long while the society around them crumbles. Nor will it protect his children at all.
So what do we call promiscuous men, and they are legion….. are they required to be virgins when they marry? No judgements here, just askin…..
@Jeanne-Marie
“So what do we call promiscuous men…?”
Successful
OK, that was a joke. Actually, call them whatever you like, but a common term is CADS.
I’ve been lurking thru this series with DC. (Btw, welcome back Dalrock.) It seems you have nailed it down on this one. DC is indeed intelligent and trying to live in accord with his beliefs. I grant him the benefit of the doubt if his household is as he describes.
However, he absolutely has his head in the sand. Doesn’t believe in divorce. What?!? Lets follow that logic further. I don’t believe in taxes. Ha, take that IRS. Oh wait, you can’t put me in jail… I said I don’t believe in taxes. Or how about I don’t believe in gravity. Screw you Newton. Anybody want to follow me off a cliff? I don’t believe we’ll fall.
Here’s a clue DC. I didn’t believe in divorce either. I was a Christian who married a Christian virgin at 24. That fact doesn’t console me in the least now that I’m a 40yo divorced Christian castaway husband. I hope you’re cozy in your little make believe bubble of protection. I hope you raise fine daughters and your wife never goes EPL on your ass. Just stay in your bubble DC and the men who are out here in reality will carry on. We will continue to spread the word about the realities of marriage and sluts to the men who will listen. Who know’s, if your bubble someday pops (dispite your disbelief) we will still be here. You may never experience that Wile-E-Coyote moment but you do other men a disservice by minimizing the dangers.
@Samuel
I like that ‘unpaid whore’ What other euphemisms can we come up with if slut is too offensive?
How about ‘low women’? I believe that was a classic term.
‘Loose’ was always a personal favorite.
Incidentally, her Catholic priest recommended to her that she seek a divorce (and later the Archdiocese of Washington would breezily approve the annulment, after having the sac to ask me for a $500 “donation” to finance their declaring that my marriage to her never happened and my children were henceforth bastards).
Yeah, but as DarwinCatholic said, he doesn’t care about this kind of thing because he’s in a church that honors men. You know, the Catholic church. Not that other, totally unrelated Catholic church that tried to get a bribe in exchange for an anullment of Elusive Wapiti’s marriage.
I for one am glad DarwinCatholic made that clarification.
“Cheap” would work too, since were are talking a “marketplace”
or “Easy”
or “women with lower (or looser) standard” which again we get to “loose”
Or how about something that they would agree on? “Women of low self-esteem”
or “Sisters Looking for Unlimited Titillation”
If 80% of women demanded male chastity in their future spouses, men would fall into line pretty quick if they were then guaranteed a chaste, faithful wife – the mathematical rational behind ‘dads, not cads’. On the other hand, if 80% of men demand female chastity, then women have no need to take that into account because the remaining 20% alpha men are more than enough to keep the carousel in working order.
The christian morality of virginity isn’t really the big issue here – It’s that it’s much easier for the average woman to be promiscuous compared to the average man and so rejecting to do so is a higher indicator of virtue (and thus good future wife material). But to address your question directly Dalrock has said on multiple occasions that yes, a woman would be well advised to not marry a man who is promiscuous. But of course, that’s probably what attracted her to him in the first place…
So who honors women? I guess the men who marry them.
@ Jeanne
Required by whom? Required by God, yes absolutely. Celibacy is the standard. Required by women? Ha, no. Why don’t people understand? Women set the conditions. If women like virtuous men and respond to ‘good’ men, then that is what the bulk of men will aspire to be. If women respond to cads and the dark triad, then again, that is what men will aspire to be. Is it necessarily right? No. But that’s how it is. The men will always try to SUPPLY what the women DEMAND. I know I’m drifting off the topic of your question. Men and women are not the same regardless of society’s emphatic desire. Do to the realities of biology, it IS worse for a women to be ‘slightly used’ then it is for a man. It is more damaging to the reproductive cycle and it exhibits poor judgement on her part.
Jeanne-Marie – ”So what do we call promiscuous men, and they are legion….. “
There are lots of terms for promiscuous men, Cad, Lothario, Playa, etc. You could even just call them male sluts. Few, if any, in the what is called the Manosphere (or, increasingly, the androsphere) take the least bit of exception to any derogatory term that can be applied to promiscuous men – not even the promiscuous men themselves. You see, men and women in these parts aren’t afraid to call things for what they are. It is basically the exact opposite of what you’ll find in the cowardly, female-appeasing, female-pedastalizing spheres of either the leftists gender-feminists or their allies on the right, the pseudo-religious SoCon/TradCon/Traditionalist Christians.
In those places, you’ll often see words that are derogatory towards badly behaving women banned, so that none of the women who feel the term hits too close to home will be offended.
”are they required to be virgins when they marry?”
Nobody can require anything of anyone but themselves and the person that they choose to marry. I’d like to elaborate more, but, frankly, I sense that you’re just here to try to stir things up by using that variant of the lie often told by the cowards about men in the Manosphere – that they are sluts, but require virgins.
I’d much rather address that untruth.
Most men in the Manosphere are not themselves particularly promiscuous (there are of course some, but they are only a fraction of the total), and are not practicing the double-standard that is implied by the lie. They are simply men who have come to understand that a promiscuous women is simply not likely to make a happy and loyal wife. And, few would argue that a promiscuous man is likely to make a happy and loyal husband either. There is no broad application of any double-standard here. People are imperfect, and young adult virgins of either gender are not plentiful. The focus of the Manosphere is not to demand that all brides must be virgins, but rather to educate about the risks of marrying a promiscuous person – period. [Note – not all will agree, but the Manosphere does not require lock-step adherence to a narrow, predefined set of judgments. It’s something more in keeping with the idea of classical education wherein ideas are discussed and debated in the hopes of elucidating a greater understanding.]
”No judgements here, just askin…..”
Now, why don’t I believe that?
Oh, yeah! I remember now. It was just recently over on DarwinCatholocs blog that the lie of Manosphere men being promiscuous but demanding virgin brides was being clucked about. Can it really be a coincidence that you should suddenly show up here asking about a variant of that lie?
If celibacy is the standard then both men and women should adhere to it. Question: Why is it easier for a woman to be more promiscuous than a man? I can’t follow that line of reasoning.
@slwerner I did not ask anything about virgins. My question was simple, what are promiscuous men called, you answered. Thank you. Also, I do not know you so cannot judge, just asking for clarifications.
There are three things that I find defective in the Darwii presentation:
1. Poor numerical performance. If one claims to be “all about the numbers”, then it is prudent to be extra careful in public disputation about “the numbers”. As I pointed out in another thread, the conspicuous lack of anything numerical in the Darwii original posting, coupled with plenty of “I feel” and “I believe” is not compatible with the claim of being “all about the numbers”. Learning the difference between measures of central tendency (mean vs. median vs. mode) should be squared away in the 1st semester of probability / statistics. It’s an elementary, fundamental, set of definitions. Someone who is “all about the numbers” should be sufficiently attentive to detail as to not commit such a howling blunder.
2. A sneering lack of empathy. Many of us in the androsphere have not suffered nearly as much as some other men have. But that simply adds to the outrage, or ought to. Most men learn how to put themselves in the other guy’s shoes to some degree as part of the normal maturation process. So I do not have to go through a full-bore case of divorce theft, complete with false allegations of marital rape & DV, loss of job, loss of livelihood, failure to meet child-a-mony demands as required of me due to grossly inflated “imputed income” numbers followed by imprisonment…I don’t have to go on the full ride of horror to know that it is something that happens, and it is the normal outcome far too often. I don’t have to discover that a wife has unilatererally decided to have an abortion when I see the clinic fee on the credit card bill to know that “reproductive choice” is a one-sided deal. I don’t have to spend time in the local jail to know that false rape accusations are real, and there’s no legal downside for women who make them as a rule. I can read accounts of such things, and understand the impact (emotional, financial, etc.). But all too often, when pointing out the situation to tradcons, the response is basically the usual sneers: “Well, you should choose more carefully”, “Maybe the girls just didn’t like you”, “Bad things do happen, but women really just want to be helpers”, and so forth. For all their vaunted superior morality, traditional conservatives do not seem to be able to actually see clearly that other human beings are in dire straits and often in the case of men they got there by doing what tradcons say they should do. It’s one thing for a PUA player to get hit with a false accusation of rape or DV, it’s another thing for a church-going man whose “crime” is working two jobs to keep his Princess Snowflake wife living in the style she wants – only to be told “You never pay attention to me or the children”. Yet apparently, to the Darwii, there’s no difference. If a woman is not haaaapy, it’s some man’s fault and he must pay. This is yet another example of how tradcons and feminists are the same in their attitude towards the walking ATM’s / sperm vending machines known as “men”.
3. Pig ignorance. There is no excuse, none, for the Darwii to decide on the one hand to “take on the manosphere”, but on the other hand to not bother to actually read and learn prior to pompously issuing pronouncements. It is simple arrogance to claim that the righteously angry men have no really beef aside from being He Man Woman Haters, but have no clue what “false claim of DV” means. I’m sure that if any of us waltzed into the Darwii’s cultural environment and started spouting of ignorantly along the lines of “NFP? Wasn’t that a rap group in the 90’s?” they would take offense quite quickly. But they don’t find any need to actually learn what we are angry about. Nah. They just “feel” we are wrong. And equating criticism that is justified in fact with hate is another aspect of the pig-headed ignorance.
I find the Darwii’s performance to be innumerate, sneeringly arrogant, and invincibly ignorant. I give them a D+ only for showing up rather than running away.
@ Jeanne
“Question: Why is it easier for a woman to be more promiscuous than a man? I can’t follow that line of reasoning.”
Because you still think men and women are the same. A woman, any woman, can get laid within 15 minutes if that is what she desires. Either you are being obtuse or you believe it it the same for men. Let me tell you, it is not. A very very very small percentage of men could pull the same feat. I’m guessing you think that applies to all men. Google apex fallacy for a clue to your error.
So, if a woman can have sex within 15 minutes what does that say about the quality of men out there roaming around? I am well aware that men and women are not the same. Obtuse is a very good word…… No errors here.
Jeanne-Marie – “Why is it easier for a woman to be more promiscuous than a man?”
Assuming that you might be trying to be serious here, it is easier for a woman to be promiscuous than it is for a man simply because all a woman has to do is offer sex to get it (unless she is so hideous that all men would be repulsed). On the other hand, I man must first attract a womans interest in having sex with him.
A simple, but revealing example would be to have two people, a man and a woman, both of approximately equal visual sex appeal (for example two people who would rate 5 or 6 out of ten for attractiveness) enter a crowded bar and loudly announce that they “just want to get laid”.
I think it’s fairly easy to guess what the highly divergent responses of people in th bar will be.
The woman’s expression of being open for sex is bound to arouse interest in quite a few men, and she would have her pick of sexual partners. On the other hand, the man would come off to women as desperate and pathetic. Even women who might otherwise have some interest in him will quickly be repulsed by him instead. Unless there was a seriously desperate women there, the man would likely not even be able to get a woman there to talk to him.
And, because women of a less attractive rank can (and often do) arouse the interest of men who are of a higher rank, woman are more likely to be willing (and thus likely) to have sex than their equal-rank male counter-parts, who cannot get sex simply by being completely willing.
Speaking of Elusive, I tried to post there and couldn’t. I have seen plenty of good men go through the “annulment process” and it is as easy as he describes for the woman to get it, despite what the naysayers on his post say.
All a woman has to say is “she didn’t understand the nature of the agreement and therefore couldn’t consent” and bingo she’s off the hook. I doubt anyone really understands that agreement before the enter it and if men did, or could see the future where it would take them personally, I suspect the marriage rate would fall off the cliff.
I read the papers one guy got when he tried to contest the annulment and the questions they asked him were geared to “when he knew something was wrong in the relationship” the answer (the annulment is going to happen) was in the questions.
The problem is insurmountable for the churches, catholic and protestant, they embraced feminism, social justice and feel goodness because they decided women were their primary constituents and now they’re like the beta husband, afraid if they stand up to them the women will leave and they’ll have nothing and lost their moral authority.
I am deadly serious. If someone wants a real relationship, they would not waste their time on casual sex, especially with a man that they do not know. What would be the point? It would lead to nothing. Why would women be more willing to have that kind of sex than men? They stand to lose much more than the man given that historically society has looked on casual sex for men as sowing their wild oats; women are considered promiscuous.
@ Jeanne
“I did not ask anything about virgins. My question was simple, what are promiscuous men called, you answered. Thank you. Also, I do not know you so cannot judge, just asking for clarifications.”
and yet you did ask about virgins about 2 post above:
“So what do we call promiscuous men, and they are legion….. are they required to be virgins when they marry? No judgements here, just askin…..”
You seem to be fixated on not being judged. If that is the case you are in the wrong place. Unlike the rest of the world, here you will be judged based upon what you write. You won’t be judged on your skin color, or your accent, or on your fashion sense. But you will be judged based upon what you contribute to the conversation. This is how men should operate. And everybody who comments here is fair game. If you wish to learn more about the manosphere without being judged, then I would recommend you spend more time perusing the archives. I have a feeling most of your questions will be answered.
A thoughtful & necessary demolition job.
Welcome back, Dalrock.
Ah yes, mortarman mike, you got me on that one. 🙂 You gentlemen are the ones who are fixated. Well boys, gotta run, please enjoy your evening… And thanks for your insight,
Yes, it is the fact that the women has so much to lose and yet STILL chooses the bad behavior. That is the crux of the matter. It is more damaging to her, she has more to lose, and she will be branded a slut – and yet they still choose to engage in that behavior. The fact that they are the gatekeepers of sex and that they discharge that responsibilty poorly is an indicator of a person with poor wife potential. Branding them a slut is a kindness, not to them, but to the men that would potentially marry them, as well as to other women. It keeps a good man from mistakenly being paired up with a wanton woman and keeps him available for a different ‘good’ woman. It also serves as a warning to other women to keep their knees together.
“So, if a woman can have sex within 15 minutes what does that say about the quality of men out there roaming around? I am well aware that men and women are not the same. Obtuse is a very good word…… No errors here.”
You are missing a key point. You think for every promiscuous woman there is a promiscuous man. It is not a 1 to 1 relationship. The majority of sluts are giving it up to a minority of cads. Once again look up apex fallacy. This will explain this far better then my feeble attempts.
So what do we call promiscuous men, and they are legion….. are they required to be virgins when they marry?
You could call them cads or players or manwhores or what have you — the names are out there. One clarification, however — there actually aren’t very many men who are actually promiscuous. That’s not because there are fewer men who would *like* to be promiscuous, but because women are pickier in sex partners, even for casual sex, than men are, and there are relatively few men who can achieve the level of sexual access to women that would rise to the level of the male version of promiscuity. Alas, these are generally also the men who are the most attractive to the largest number of women (hence why they have the sexual access to be promiscuous to begin with), and that’s why they also tend to get noticed — as in, “all the guys I notice are total manwhores” and so on. The other guys who have little sexual access are just not noticed, and so are not “counted” when it comes to drawing conclusions about how many men are actually promiscuous — a term for this is “the apex fallacy”.
Jeanne-Marie – “It would lead to nothing. Why would women be more willing to have that kind of sex than men?”
But yet, as we all know, millions of them do just that.
”They stand to lose much more than the man given that historically society has looked on casual sex for men as sowing their wild oats; women are considered promiscuous.”
They once stood to loose so much more. But not really so much any more. Abortion, contraceptives, and the right to post-birth abandonment now allow woman to easily “duck” the losses once associated with single-motherhood. And, even single-motherhood is no longer looked down on (Did you see where Focus on The Family’s Glenn Stanton praised single mothers as heros?).
Plus, there a even financial benefits for a slut who gets pregnant and decides not to murder or abandon her child. Legal enforced child support from the father (or, even just some guy she claims is the father who doesn’t know to protest his paternity assignment with in the narrowly allotted time to do so). And, if he cannot pay, then there are still plenty of welfare benefits for single mothers.
So, really, what do women stand to loose by being promiscuous?
Well, their reputations – perhaps. But, it seems that many young women don’t bother to consider that aspect until after they blown (pun deliberately intended) any chance of having a good one.
And, not to fear. The forces of female pedastalization are already hard at work on vanquishing that old “sluts and studs” (supposed) double standard. Instead of trying to create disincentives for men being promiscuous, they are trying to encourage men to accept promiscuous women as readily as women now accept promiscuous men [hint – this is why it really isn’t a double-standard. Woman have long been failing to understand the pitfalls of the stud the way men understand the pitfalls of the slut. The only reason that studs are considered accepted and successful is because WOMAN willingly chose to make them so – not because other men hold them in high esteem. Studs would largely disappear if only women had the sense to reject them the way men reject sluts – the real way that the supposed double-standard should be ended.]
@ Jeanne
It really doesn’t matter if you think that it’s pointless or a poor long term decision. In fact, I’d say we agree it’s a bad long term decision. But that doesn’t stop the fact that it’s very real, and so denying reality in the face as if it’s an academic argument that doesn’t make enough sense to be considered… seems rather foolish.
That being said, other than trying to not be judged, I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make. You come across as having read nothing on this site or anywhere similar, and asking ‘brilliant’ questions designed to trap us on a double standard, when in fact it’s the same sort of nonsense we’ve all seen a million times before.
THF – “Freudian slip?”
You and me both. It seems that every time I go to type “trad” I end up actually typing “tard” anymore. I have to be sure and proof-read before I hit Post.
The score:
Darwin: 0
Dalrock: 2
greenlander – ”
The score:
Darwin: 0
Dalrock: 2″
well, okay, if your scoring it as one point per round.
But, what would it be if you were scoring it more like boxing, on a blow-by-blow basis?
I am deadly serious. If someone wants a real relationship, they would not waste their time on casual sex, especially with a man that they do not know. What would be the point? It would lead to nothing. Why would women be more willing to have that kind of sex than men? They stand to lose much more than the man given that historically society has looked on casual sex for men as sowing their wild oats; women are considered promiscuous.
And there you basically changed the term of reference.
It’s very true that women are generally “less willing” to engage in casual sex. However, that willingness increases significantly with (1) the attractiveness of the man in question, (2) the circumstances (e.g., foreign travel away from prying eyes, urban anonymous lifestyle, any other situation where reputation damage may be mitigated). And, due to the wide availability of contraception and abortion, Plan B is more accessible as well, which also mitigates the downside risk substantially (and I think almost everyone agrees is the one of the main causes of the rise of the promiscuity culture to begin with). Indeed, in terms of reputational damage, it’s almost beginning to slide inversely among younger women these days, with virgins/low experience women being shamed for their *lack* of indulgence. In any case, suffice to say that the downside risks have been reduced such that, in certain circumstances, and with respect to certain men, the general lower degree of willingness of the average women to have casual sex increase substantially.
But in any case, the issue, I thought, was “who was more likely to have casual sex”, not “who is generally more willing to”. Men are more likely to want it, but less likely to get it Women are less likely to want it, but more likely to have it, at least a few times, due to specific circumstances (i.e., “I don’t know what came over me, it just happened ….” type of thing).
That was the vibe I got too Alexander. I think she’s a plant. Or a missionary sent here to try and convict all us womyn haters of our evil ways. If that is the case, I think she’s in over her head. Is she baiting for tingles or is she a missionary??
@Troll-Bot
Why would women be more willing to have [promiscuous] sex than men? They stand to lose much more than the man given that historically society has looked on casual sex for men as sowing their wild oats; women are considered promiscuous.
“Historically”, i.e., “in the past”, i.e. “preceding the sexual revolution and feminist-driving norming of slutdom”, i.e. “what I’m saying has no relevance to the world in which we actually live”.
Roissy/Heartiste, Dalrock, Rollo Tomassi, as well as myself, have all discussed this in depth. The number one driver of divorce in younger demographics is OPPORTUNITY. Women in younger age ranges have more opportunity to remarry due to still being attractive, plain and simple. Add in all the incentives for divorce (alimony, onerous child support, etc) and throw no-fault divorce into the mix, stir vigorously, and out pops the trends we’re seeing today with women riding the alpha cock carousel during their 20s and marrying as soon as the wall approaches.
What DarwinCatholic has done is use an Amish technique. He is… to quote:
The problem is that the secular divorce laws actively undermine the rules of his separitist Catholic world — or the Amish, for that matter. The only way the community can function is to shun those who do not play by the rules.
This is moving from the theological position of universality (what ‘catholic’ means) to a functional counter cultural cult. Like the closed Brethren, Hutterites, etc.
What most of you forget is this strategy workds . Not for society in general, but for those who are in the group. It as worked for the Anabaptists for 400 years. But it will not preserve a society who sees the Amish as quaint, part of a tourist trail, and cathedrals as tourist destinations.
Jeanne-Marie – ”Ah yes, mortarman mike, you got me on that one. You gentlemen are the ones who are fixated.”
Fixated on what, exactly?
Fixated on beating down the lies and telling the truth?
Okay, I’ll plead guilty
@ Jeanne-Marie
Promiscuous men? Sluts, whores, why would we call them anything different?
When they marry? IF they marry.
Marriage is a legal matter and the government doesn’t seem to much care whether the parties are virgins or not (although sexual orientation they DO seem to care about).
Jeanne-Marie – ”You gentlemen are the ones who are fixated.”
That sure seems like an attempt at shaming language.
The charge of being “fixated”?
Is there a color code for that one?
Chris, that strategy may have worked in the past but it is a brave new world now don’t ya know. I rate their chances of maintaing seperation from today’s global machinations to be slim to none. It’s pure delusion. As Christians they should realize that this world has been given over to the father of lies. The gender war is simply one front of the epic battle between God and Satan. Given that worldview there are two options. To resist, or to hide. There will not be victory until the Great Victor returns. When he returns, he will find me resisting the world, not hiding from it.
Why don’t you start by neutralizing the alphas then? That would be much easier than trying to control women today (which is unrealistic and will remain so).
[D: Good idea little buddy].
And, not to fear. The forces of female pedastalization are already hard at work on vanquishing that old “sluts and studs” (supposed) double standard. Instead of trying to create disincentives for men being promiscuous, they are trying to encourage men to accept promiscuous women as readily as women now accept promiscuous men [hint – this is why it really isn’t a double-standard. Woman have long been failing to understand the pitfalls of the stud the way men understand the pitfalls of the slut. The only reason that studs are considered accepted and successful is because WOMAN willingly chose to make them so – not because other men hold them in high esteem. Studs would largely disappear if only women had the sense to reject them the way men reject sluts – the real way that the supposed double-standard should be ended.]
This is basically true as well, although I think there are wired/biological reasons for both sides of the “double standard”, based as it is on the very different risks men and women run vis a vis cuckolding as compared with male cheating and resource depletion. The reason why the double standard wasn’t “dumbed up” as you suggest is that women prefer men with *some* sexual experience (not mansluts) because this is a sign of preselection while not rising to the level of resource depletion risk (as represented by the iconic female fear of being left for a younger woman), whereas the equivalent level of sexual experience is not preferred in women by men because of the rather more severe risk of being cuckolded, a risk which was the principal issue the entire edifice of marriage, monogamy and the related social and moral rules was built to allay and address. So it would be harder for men to “dumb down” men’s expectations in this area (which are not today expecting virgins, but generally men have a lowish tolerance for significant partner counts in wife prospects, even today), while at the same time hard for women to “dumb up” their own preferences (not many other than hyperreligious are interested in a man who has no sexual experience beyond a certain, fairly young, age, especially in our sex-drenched society today — preselection, in sexual terms, is more important than ever). So the double standard turns out to be fairly durable, even though the “acceptable” number of partners for women has crept up over the past few decades.
“If celibacy is the standard then both men and women should adhere to it. Question: Why is it easier for a woman to be more promiscuous than a man? I can’t follow that line of reasoning.”
Ole Jeanne-Marie was using the playing dumb technique here.
DC maybe on the way to changing his tune Dalrock. Lets just hope he is the intelligent man you have given him credit for being
TFH
I’m waiting for “involutary childless spinsterhood” to become a common phrase that brings hysteria
Brendan – “I think there are wired/biological reasons for both sides of the “double standard””
As usual, you provide some of the best in-depth analysis of issues.
I was aware of the deeper issues at work, but was merely providing a simplified response to Jeanne-Marie, who’s motives I was highly suspicious of, and wanted to include a couple of “digs” at the aspect of women being the ones who actually serve to uphold the “stud” end of the double standard (just the stick for doing so, and no carrot of the hard-wired reasons as to why they do).
It seems that MrDarwin has a new post up, regarding Arthur C. Clarke’s si-fi design for destroying the family unit via contraceptives and paternity testing (well, he doesn’t really get into the paternity testing). Just though it was curious given that “cuckolding” has come up over here.
Ha, ha, ha, you guys are so lame……Woman are not the only gatekeepers, men are equally responsible. Why don’t we all just keep it in our pants. I saved my virginity for marriage,my ex did not. We are still divorced. And what would my motives be…. Which one of you is Wile E. Coyote?
Jeanne-Marie – “Ha, ha, ha, you guys are so lame”
Now, that’s definitely the shaming language of a feminist who has no real argument to make.
And, speaking of “lame”, maybe you could elaborate on the meaning of your poorly worded comment.
Men are equally responsible as gatekeepers?
Perhaps you do not understand the concept?
And, who’s telling men not to keep it in their pants? How is that even related to anything here?
So, you saved your virginity for marriage, but your husband did not, and you got divorced anyway. What are you saying, that your having been a virgin didn’t keep you from being disloyal as a wife? Given the context of the prior discussion, that would be the only way your divorce would serve as a counter-demonstration to what we have been telling you. (you did catch that irony, did you not?):
“Ha, ha, ha, you guys are so lame. I was a virgin but still cheated on my husband, proving that you’re beliefs about marrying virgins are all wrong”
Is this perhaps what you are trying to tell us?
@Jeanne-Marie
“Why don’t we all just keep it in our pants”
Could you please explain what “it” is that women are supposed to keep in their pants. Maybe you were keeping the wrong thing in your pants rather than keeping the wrong thing out of your pants.
@Jeanne-Marie: it seems clear you did not read, let alone could you comprehend Dalrock’s response to you which included a link to one of his previous posts on the very topic you were on about.
Excepting for rape. Women ARE the ONLY gatekeepers. It makes no difference the how mind blowingly charming and desireable a Lothario, the women is the decision maker on whether sex takes place.
The Wile E. Coyote comment was directed at DC. I hope he avoids it. It occurs when he realizes that all he believes (or didn’t believe in) is pulled out from under his feet. And that moral high ground he thought he was standing on is replaced by open air.
Yep confirmation. She’s not a missionary, just baiting for tingles. Enjoy.
Sluts = Women of easy virtue.
Jeanne Marie:
Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Since the dawn of time, and only with the exception of the very, very top men, women decide who gets sex, when, where and under what circumstances.
I googled slut euphemism and low and behold what comes up first, an article from jezebel. Imagine that. I won’t post the link without Dalrocks consent and I’m a little learing of sending extra page hits to them anyway. The crux of the article was to try to reduce the power of the word slut. Evidently deep down that word still has some power over womens delicate little feeeeelings. Typical slut-empowerment trash.
Harlot still seems good. Hussy seems too endearing and cute these days.
FYI, I’m getting quicker on my troll trigger finger. Jeanne Marie is now in moderation and I don’t think it is likely that I’ll be releasing future comments of hers. She might feel at home at Darwin Catholic though.
Edit: I’ve had enough of Dana too.
Next!
As we seem to be honoured today by the presence of an equality-theorist, I felt that the following remarks may be pertinent:
1. Women, unlike men, go to considerable lengths to hide their sluttiness from men. One can only conclude that they stand to lose something very valuable were they to be open about their sexual exploits.
2. In my observation, promiscuous women tend to be lacking in the empathy that enables them to form and nurture relationships, and indeed they tend also to be somewhat disturbed in themselves; whereas,
3. Alpha males, not only, are perfectly happy to let the broad number of their conquests be known, but as a fair number already have Wives and Girlfriends are not only capable of holding down a relationship, but do not give the impression that they use sex as a means of filling a yawning gap in their lives i.e. they just like sex and find it hard to turn down the offers they receive and do not use sex as a relationship substitute.
4. A married or engaged man (who has thus been pre-selected) is frequently very desirable to women, but the converse (namely a married or engaged woman) does not become more attractive to a man because she is attached – in fact almost the very opposite, for no man wants an unnecessary fight.
Same ol’, same ol’. Trad con thinks he’s found his own little piece of heaven with his trad wife and trad kids in their trad marriage in their little, trad community. That being the case, trad con wonders (either in feined innocence or out of genuine ignorance) “what’s the problem?” Divorce? I don’t “believe” in it. The carasel? I don’t “believe” in that either. Girls going for “bad boys?” Either i don’t believe that either or just the find the girls who don’t. I did. See. You can too.
(1) You, Mr. Trad Con, are not everybody. Maybe, I say maybe (see numbesr two and three below), you got lucky. Great. And the rest of us? What are we to do? And the response to this is…..wait for it….maybe girls just don’t like you.
(2) You, Mr. Trad Con, are living in a Fool’s Paradise. At any moment, the dam may break and little, loyal Mrs. Trad Con just might let the flood tide of feminism and the simple reality of the law break through into her perfect little Mrs. Trad Con heart. And, when she does, it’s EPL time for you, Mr. Trad Con. Divorce papers. BS accusations of “abuse” (which, by the way, your Trad Con lifestyle and beliefs will only confrim in the mind and heart of the judge). Loss of child custody. Kicked out of your owh house. Alimony. Child Support. “Setttlments.” Attorneys’ fees (yours and hers). Enjoy!
(3) If you are even more lucky, number two won’t happen. But, if you happen to have daughters, what are the odds that feminist and, indeed, general societal notions won’t override all of the careful indoctrination that you have given them? Not so great, I’d wager. What happens when little Miss Trad Con says, “Oh Daddy, don’t be silly! I’m not going to get married until a long, long time from now! I’m gong to move to the city and pursue my career, post graduate degree, for, at least, a decade before I even consider settling down and getting married and having babies. And, no, sorry Daddy, there is no way in hell I could possibly even consider remaining anything close to a virgin for all that time. Don’t be ridiculous! With all the hard work I’m going to be doing in school and in my career, a girl has to have some fun too!” What will your life of Trad Conservatism have gotten you then, Mr. Trad Con? For part of one generation, you and your wife lived according to the values that you claim you want to see society-wide. And then? Apres vouz, le deluge.
Dalrock,
Thanks for the generally balanced tone, I’ll attempt to respond in kind. I won’t write a novel of a comment, as is my wont, but there are four items I’d like to touch on.
1) Regarding the exchange you referenced between my wife and one of our commenters about whether women should pursue education or careers:
The first was with his wife’s assertion that the trend we are seeing in women (in general) delaying marriage is driven not by feminist encouragement to women to prioritize education and career before marriage, but instead is being driven by women using careers to pass the time while eagerly looking for husbands. This is patently absurd. Reading her reply again, I realize that this might not have been what she meant. Women often take statements about the culture in general as personal attacks on themselves and the choices they made.
I think your problem here is basically in reading the discussion out of the context in which it was being had. Recall, the post which generated this discussion was one responding to a question (on another Catholic blog) about whether a Catholic woman could plan on not having children because she wanted to focus on her career. The answer I gave was that since the Church states one must be open to children in order to marry, if she really thinks she never wants to have children she would have to remain single and celibate. If she’s okay with that, not problem. (Clearly, this is already a question which even most Catholics aren’t going to be looking at this way, but you’re looking at an insider discussion.) To this, a commenter responded, “I don’t think the God of the living is much amused. There are only so many years of fertility that a woman has, and it seems the secularists have won a great victory with this education/career nonsense encouraging an awful lot of women to waste that time in dubious endeavors.”
Now, there’s a even farther trad faction of way-conservative Catholic thinking which holds that women should never go to college or hold jobs, because this tempts them to do things other than get married and have children. This often goes along with a line of thinking that if you don’t get married by your mid-twenties, it must be because you’re actively refusing to do so, rather than simply because you haven’t managed to find the right guy.
That’s the context in which she responded, “Until a woman meets the right man, what is she to do? Having a career sounds like a pretty positive option.” No claim was made that all women having careers are actively searching for husbands. You’re reading that in. Arguably an honest mistake given the topics that the manosphere tends to focus on as compared to what conservative Catholics tend to argue about, but the context is key here.
2) On banning GKC:
If I’m reading this correctly, he is suggesting that he responded the way he did to GKC not because he disagreed with GKC’s politely structured biblical and practical argument, but because he suspected that GKC had at some point read and/or commented on my site, and that others whom DC suspected may have read and/or commented at my site had made objectionable comments on a third party’s site.
I did not find GKC’s argument to be polite in the way it was phrased, and I don’t agree with it either. I took him to have been arguing (over the course of several comments) that a) any woman who ever had premarital sex is definitionally “a slut” and that b) no slut (by that definition) can ever get married — but men who have slept around can. I found that argument to be offensive (I do think that forgivess and reformation as possible for women as well as for men, though I don’t think they’re easy for either) and I found the repeated use of the term “slut” to be offensive as well. Overall, I find the whole “virgin/whore” dichotomy (as in, holding that every woman is either a virgin or a whore) to be pretty offensive. That’s not because I don’t think sexual sin is grave and destructive, but because I don’t think people are wholly reducible to their past sins.
Given that I was already in a beat-down kind of mood, I chose to respond as I did. All things considered, it’s certainly not the most cool-headed thing I’ve ever done as a blogger. Doing things to satisfy one’s anger usually aren’t.
3) On analysis of median marriage age:
He even misunderstood me as presenting mean and not median ages of marriage, even though every chart I shared had this prominently in the title.
It’s true, I glanced pretty briefly over the charts while reading the actual prose. Given that you said “Note: The red lines in the charts which follow indicate the average for the decade.” and that when I did a quick search for census data, I found a summary table of medians by decade, I assumed that my data would be slightly different from yours by decade since you had stated you were showing an average for each decade.
4) On sub-culture versus fighting for the culture: Look, it seems to me that if one wants to live one’s life according to norms radically different from the mainstream culture (which if you want to get married to a woman without a lot of baggage and stay married is essentially what you’re trying to do) you need to be realistic about what you can do. People can rant against the current marriage laws all they want, but the point of fact is that clearly a lot of people don’t believe that marriage is a permanent covenant — they think it’s an “as long as I want” contract. I tend to be moderately pessimistic about the ability of the law to make people do things they don’t want to do, and the majority of Americans are so incredibly far from wanting to marry “till death do us part” I’m not all that hopeful there’s chance of changing much at this time other than the most obscene abuses of power.
In that regard, I think that finding human-size communities of like-minded people and building a healthier culture from the ground up is far more realistic than imagining that we can turn the whole 300+ million person ship of the United States on a dime. Change will inevitably come, because mainstream secular culture is driving itself to extinction through the collapse of the family and simply not having kids.
But realistically, if a guy just wants to get married and stay married, I think he’d be far better off simply finding people who share his beliefs and looking for a wife there (it’s not as hard as it sounds, I’ve had to relocate several times around the country and we’ve always been able to re-root among like-minded people) than he is trying to change the whole world first. He’s also going to find himself feeling a whole lot less bitter if he deals with something he has a say in rather than battering himself to pieces against something that is just too big.
Then it’s from the grass-roots up that change can come.
Go away until you learn rational and logical argument. That begins with research. Men and women are not equally responsible.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/
Since you resort to calling us lame, well, at least we aren’t women.
@greyghost 3:28 pm
There’s no such thing as “involuntary childless spinsterhood”. To be more precise, there’s neither involuntary spinsterhood nor involuntary childlessness, discounting cases of medical infertility or serious physical disfigurement which render a woman unsuitable as a relationship partner. And definitely no woman is forcibly barred from becoming a mother, a girlfriend or a wife. Well, not in the West anyway. If some woman is either childless or a spinster, it’s a situation of her own making, a result of her inability or unwillingness to control her own hypergamy – because there’s definitely no shortage of potential male suitors, feminist indoctrination notwithstanding.
@Brendan 3:24 pm
It’d be helpful to point out to everyone that all talk of the „double standard” is just bunk. It doesn’t actually exist. Both men and women are expected NOT to freely contribute their most valuable assets to their potential partner when looking for an LTR. In women’s case, that means avoid sluthood, because the prized female asset is sexual fidelity (which translates into the ’offer’ of motherhood and paternal certainty). In men’s case, that means avoid being a supplicating doormat, becuase the prized male asset is emotional investment and physical commitment (coupled with previous experience with women to satisfy female preselection). The standard is the same, even though it manifests in different ways for men and women.
This is the same reason why all female talk of so-called ’manwhores’ is misguided. There are no manwhores. The male equivalent of the slut is the supplicating beta doormat, not the promiscuous cad.
In response to Darwin Catholic:
“Overall, I find the whole “virgin/whore” dichotomy (as in, holding that every woman is either a virgin or a whore) to be pretty offensive. That’s not because I don’t think sexual sin is grave and destructive, but because I don’t think people are wholly reducible to their past sins.”
The use of whore tends to refer to women who chose to ride the cock carousel through their prime years. The sane women that want to contradict the old adage “can’t make a housewife out of a whore” by turning on a dime at age 30 to marry some poor ignorant guy, then later complaining about not being haaaappppy. See? still whores even after perfectly normal marriage. Just not enough of the action of their whore days to keep them responsible.
“In that regard, I think that finding human-size communities of like-minded people and building a healthier culture from the ground up is far more realistic than imagining that we can turn the whole 300+ million person ship of the United States on a dime.”
Yeah I agree too. Problem is, human-size communities can’t just up and declare their own government. They are still bound to the laws of the state that currently perpetuate these scenarios. So shake my hand, lets go on a war party.
“Assuming that you might be trying to be serious here, it is easier for a woman to be promiscuous than it is for a man simply because all a woman has to do is offer sex to get it (unless she is so hideous that all men would be repulsed). On the other hand, I man must first attract a womans interest in having sex with him.”
Yep. Basically it’s the difference between entering a contest to win a prize (how men get laid) vs. holding your own contest and handing the prize to the winner (how women get laid).
Anyone who says that both sexes have fairly equal levels of sexual access is either focusing exclusively on alphas or being deliberately obtuse.
Chris
The problem is that the secular divorce laws actively undermine the rules of his separitist Catholic world — or the Amish, for that matter. The only way the community can function is to shun those who do not play by the rules.
That’s pretty much the case. And frankly, that’s the underlying theme of the Darwii – our tiny subgroup of a subgroup is fine, that’s all that matters.
This is moving from the theological position of universality (what ‘catholic’ means) to a functional counter cultural cult. Like the closed Brethren, Hutterites, etc.
Yeah, it is kind of a cross between the monastic movement and the Russian Old Believers in a way. Not that drastic, to be sure, but kind of in that separatist, world-rejection direction.
What most of you forget is this strategy works . Not for society in general, but for those who are in the group. It as worked for the Anabaptists for 400 years. But it will not preserve a society who sees the Amish as quaint, part of a tourist trail, and cathedrals as tourist destinations.
Well, it has worked in some cases, and failed in others. It only works so long as the larger culture basically inores you, or treats you as a kind of novel pet. One question I did not get to ask the Darwii has to do with the health insurance mandate portion of Obamacare. Viewed abstractly, it is another step in the centralization of culture. Niche groups may have no interest in the cultural conflicts rain around them, but it looks like there won’t be any easy way to stand aside from those conflicts in the years to come. And the Darwii are Roman Catholic, so they are part of a much larger group no matter how hard they may try to pretend otherwise.
The Anabaptists and other such groups did not / do not have to rely on outsiders for much of anything, and could raise their own pastors/preachers. But there is no way for any given Catholic parish to train its own priest. I could be wrong, but I believe that priests are sent out by the church authorities – so if a given parish does not care for a priest, all they can do is ask the bishop to replace him. And if the bishop refuses, that’s that. So if an activist bishop, maybe one who clings to liberation theology from the 80’s, decided to send a liberalized priest to the Darwii’s church, they’d be stuck with him. Sure, they could then go to another RC church, but in the end they are at the mercy of higher authorities whom they are theologically required to obey. Not to step on any toes, but this is the problem that many families in a lot of places have faced for 30 years or more with pedophile priests – there wasn’t any way to do much of anything so long as even one man higher up in the church organization was willing to protect such scum. Once corrupted, a top-down hierarchy is very difficult to reform absent drastic removal of the players at the top.
In the old Warsaw Pact countries, I recall, some of the churches were so shot through with government agents that there was little point in going to church – East Germany was one such case, although Poland was not. If and when the larger culture takes an interest in any sub group it becomes very difficult to continue to further withdraw, unless one physically leaves (which is what some number of the Russian Old Believers did, some went to Siberia and kept on going to Alaska). Therefore, I am of the opinion that the ultra conservative Roman Catholics are on shaky ground in terms of their ability to stand aside from the larger culture. They can throw out their TV set, they can limit their family ‘s reading, they can restrict contacts their children have to only other home-schooled ultra conservative Catholic families, but they still are part of the RC hierarchy, and thus vulnerable to influences that they cannot control.
So ti will “work” so long as the larger culture doesn’t care. If and when the larger culture cares, then they will have to resist in some way the influence being pushed upon them. A little demonization in the mass media will go a lon way to undercutting sympathy (see the cases of the Waco, Tx. Branch Davidians, or more recently the Fundamentalist LDS church arrests for a couple of examples) If that happens the “We’re all right, Jack” attitude will not serve them very well.
Oh, and a funny irony just occurred to me. On the one hand, the traditionalist Roman Catholics such as the Darwii, Laura Woods, etc. are withdrawing from society. They and their families and friends are going their own way, and proud of it. Yet aside from the players / PUA’s, the group of righteously angry men that they have the most scorn and contempt for is – the MGTOW’s.
In other words, the men who are doing on their own dime what the TradCon RC’s are doing, are the men that the latter despise almost as much as the Casanova PUA’s. Go figure that one out.
Sure, there are a lot of badly behaved women in the world. The solution, from my point of view, is simply to not marry women like that and move on. Why spend all one’s time winding oneself up about women in general? After all, we each only need one.
This is not only st**pid. It is also cruel. Imagine a guy talking about women killed by their husbands (domestic violence).
Sure, there are a lot of badly behaved men in the world. The solution, from my point of view, is simply to not marry men like that and move on. Why spend all one’s time winding oneself up about men in general? After all, we each only need one.
DC has been lucky to marry a good woman. Some people don’t have this luck, no matter how hard they try. It’s like a wealthy men telling poor men: “You only have to find money!”.
Haven’t read any comments yet.
Slut:
– Horizontally Accessible to Men (HAM)
– Kneeling Man Pleaser (KMP)
– Falls on Cocks a Lot (FCL)
– Women Who Just Wanted the Head In (WWJWHI)
– “Who Said Three’s a Crowd?” (WSTC?)
– Men’s Ejaculation Enablers (MEE)
– Not a Whore, I Don’t Charge (NWIDC)
– 78 is My Favorite Number Anyway (78MFNA)
Then some old favorites:
– Party Girl (PG)
– Easy Lay (EL)
Some of others I have I will be tactful and not write, unless you really want me to , Dalrock.
WTH? Doesn’t anybody read the articles? C’mon, I don’t mind winning hands down. I just want to see how feeble the competition is.
Dalrocks instructions were:
“Or perhaps they recognize the existence of sluts, but would prefer that commenters use an approved euphemism. Might I suggest the term grass widow, or a phrase I believe was coined by Badger, a woman who has had too many hot dogs in the babymaker. Feel free to suggest your own euphemisms in the comments section (here) so DC can consider them for his commenting policy.”
Courtesan
Legion – one from the past, “Better that butter”, because it “spreads easy”.
Anyone else notice how much it bothers the Darwii to criticize promiscuous women, and fond they are of criticizing promiscuous men? Isn’t it funny how similar TradCons are to sex-positive feminists in their defense of sluts rights?
This is an old one: round-heeled woman
characteristic of a woman who is prone to assume a supine position
@darwin
Of course a society that frowns on stable family units and reproduction can’t survive. At least, not in the long term. But it is at best escapist and at worst cowardly to decide “I’ve found this safe, stable enclave, so I’m not going to fight.” I tend to disagree with Dalrock on his position about anger, but that is just because anger is counterproductive in a fight, physical or otherwise. That a culture that values children, stable families, and productivity will win out in the end is a given. So? How many innocent men, women and children are going to be ground up in the machinery of divorce, false rape accusations, and child support? Why is it okay to sit back and watch it happen when it might be your voice that makes the difference in some other man’s life? Why is it acceptable to watch a nation fall apart just because you are serenely confident that the culture will return to the straight and narrow? To draw an illustration in a direction that is rarely used; it is prophesied that every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, on earth and under the earth, that Jesus Christ is Lord. Yet Christians are ALSO commanded to preach His name, feed the hungry, care for the sick, clothe the naked. Why bother? He’s going to win in the end.
Harlot? Woman astride the road? Loose? Libidinally supercharged female….
Dana says:
April 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm
“[D: Good idea little buddy].”
The best reply to Dana. You are the man.
[secession] only works so long as the larger culture basically ignores you… Niche groups may have no interest in the cultural conflicts rain around them, but it looks like there won’t be any easy way to stand aside from those conflicts in the years to come
To paraphrase Trotsky —
You may have no interest in Culture War, but Culture War is interested in you!
Oh, and a funny irony just occurred to me. On the one hand, the traditionalist Roman Catholics such as the Darwii, Laura Woods, etc. are withdrawing from society. They and their families and friends are going their own way, and proud of it. Yet aside from the players / PUA’s, the group of righteously angry men that they have the most scorn and contempt for is – the MGTOW’s.
Yes, of course, because the *form* and *content* of the withdrawal differs. The traditionalist withdraws into similarly-minded enclaves in an effort to preserve an oasis of pre-revolutionary culture and family life, whereas a MGHOW withdraws into a post-revolutionary world which lives very much in the present tense (and not the traditionalist one), but also is aloof from those aspects of contemporary culture he rejects. The difference is that enclave trads are engaged in the Quixote-esque struggle to hold back the dam of the *entire* culture, where a MGHOW is not — he accepts certain aspects of the contemporary culture which suit him and rejects those which do not. That’s the basis of the trad critique (nay, hate) of MGTOWs and MRAs in general — the latter seek to live in the present tense in a “customized” way which does not accord with traditional values (believing trying to do so is too risky, or that it is impractical or, in some cases, even undesirable … MGTOWs are diverse), whereas the former reject almost all of the present tense.
I was aware of the deeper issues at work, but was merely providing a simplified response to Jeanne-Marie, who’s motives I was highly suspicious of, and wanted to include a couple of “digs” at the aspect of women being the ones who actually serve to uphold the “stud” end of the double standard (just the stick for doing so, and no carrot of the hard-wired reasons as to why they do).
Oh I know you are. I just wanted to get some stuff “on the record” in the thread is all.
TFH – “Heh. Why not also disallow seatbelts while he is at it…”
Do horse-drawn buggies even have seat belts?
Brendan – “I just wanted to get some stuff “on the record”..”
Must be the lawyer in you.
@Brendan:
But,m seriously, I do very much appreciate your ability to provide clear and concise analysis.
I was just musing that I need to find where I saved your “Why are women so out to lunch on paternity fraud” essay.
I don’t know if DarwinCatholic will let it continue, but I seem to have derailed his “Contraception and Marriage” thread into a Paternity Fraud one. As I recall, that essay of yours was especially insightful.
But for even the Coelocanth/Tuatara denomination that the Darwii belong to, the divorce rate is 30%. That would be considered high even in New York City of 1947.
Yeah it’s hard to tell what it is for the FUS-esque subculture in Catholicism. It is likely a lower rate than among Catholics over all. Keep in mind, these are Catholics in the full sense, under the Pope and the hierarchy, but they tend to stick to certain parishes, certain communities and para-parishional groups so that they can keep their subculture going. I agree that it is fundamentally fragile, but in places like FUS they do basically teach people how to live in a subculture within their own “broader” church. I don’t think that undermines the critique of the subculture approach overall, but the specific divorce rate issue is a black box (certainly the Catholic Church of whom these enclaves are a part keeps no statistics on the basis of this subculture … at least none that are made public *wink*).
Thanks DC. At some point we will need to agree to disagree, and now strikes me as that time.
@Brendan
DC links to a study claiming Catholics who follow NFP have a 5% divorce rate. I haven’t even looked at the study so I wont offer an opinion on it, except that if only a small percentage of Catholics are following the Church’s teachings on sexual morality it would make some sense that it would be the same group which bucked the trend and followed the rules for both NFP and divorce.
@Brendan
The traditionalist withdraws into similarly-minded enclaves in an effort to preserve an oasis of pre-revolutionary culture and family life, whereas a MGHOW withdraws into a post-revolutionary world which lives very much in the present tense (and not the traditionalist one), but also is aloof from those aspects of contemporary culture he rejects.
It’s not that simple. If this were the traditionalist position, I would admire them a lot, the way I admire the Amish (for example) who follow this attitude or orthosphere blogs (http://orthosphere.org/ http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/). Pre-revolutionary world was the right world and future history will prove me right.
But MOST Christian traditionalists are not preserving pre-revolutionary enclaves. They are living in a world who has a mixed bag of pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary aspects. This is bad but this would not be that bad if these guys worked actively to
a) claim that their world is completely pre-revolutionary (that is, Christian).
b) deny any post-revolutionary aspects of their world (for example, Christian women slutdom or divorce of Christian people)
c) doing nothing to correct these aspects but excusing those who behave this way (she is a victim).
d) shame those who want to address these issues by labelling them as unChristian or with flaws of character.
So they excuse the wolves when misbehave and shame the sheep that complain against wolves misbehaving.
Hence, they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.
Höllenhund
Involutary childless spinsterhood is a resuts o a male birth control pill. With a male pill the lies belong to men. Most importantly a woman can be a mother only I the man she is getting semen from is willing to be her child support slave. 15 to 40 is the window is the fertility window and 15 to 35 is the sexual value window for a guy she wants. Think PUA moving on to MGTOW. With marriage at about 26 years of age we have a slut on her way to being kicked off the cock carousel. What happens is she gets knocked up and due to a few too much dick she can’t respect or even gina tingle her commitment to her vows. She becomes “unhappy” and at 30 to 35 decides to eat pray and love, ruining a man and possibly multiple children. Some women do this with out marriage. Now with a male pill individual men will decide who has a child even with lies and deceit as part of the mating ritual. As more men get the red pill and as statistics on rookie pro athletes with fewer and fewer unwed pregnancies more men will think before trust a woman. (mainly because they won’t have to) women will selfishly be nice or will be childless bitches. All based on what the man she is trying to sex thinks of her as the mother of his child. He will have full control of his sexuality with out having to “keep it in his pants” Only about maybe 10 to 20 percent of current cunt types would involutary childless but the chance is real. She will have to do more than just fuck she has to get a guy to not protect himself. PUA and wise betas on the red pill will be a tough sell and MGTOW tougher still.
Still pie in the sky Hoolenhund but a good goal for change. Because it doesn’t change the basic nature of women or men. MGTOW on steroids with regular slut sex..
What I see is DC repeatedly using the “no true Scottsman” falacy. No REAL Catholic girl would act that way. If a Catholic girl does act that way then shes not a true Catholic. Once a slut renounces her ways in the face of advancing years she should be treated as a true Catholic. Presumably when she divorces your ass, makes a pauper of you and takes your kids then she will once again be not a true Catholic…at least until the next time around. I am curious about this apparently uncorrupted community of Catholics that DC belongs to. How many families in that group exactly?
I would recommend that everyone read the novels of Michel Houllebecq. I have just finished his “The Elementary Particles”, and am preparing a formal review of it. But I would advise everyone to read him. He is an annoying, narcissitsic, philosophical, French novelist “of ideas”, but he gets the issues that animate people here, even from a different perspective.
More discussion is here: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/04/paragraph-to-ponder.html
We could call the sluts ‘the broken lock’ or ‘human pincushions.’ How about the anti-chaste?
It used to be that you considered all women to be a lady unless she proved herself otherwise. These days, the wise man should consider NO woman to be a lady until she proves otherwise. I still don’t think the womyns or their whiteknights have realized what they gave away.
Heathcliff, “No True Scotsman” and strawman, with a dash of ad hominem are very popular forms of “debate” among the TradCons. Perhaps this is why Mrs. Darwin was so unimpressed with androsphere logic.
We don’t use her pet fallacies nearly often enough.
I see she’s banned/moderated now, but I couldn’t post this earlier because of a power outage.
“Ha, ha, ha, you guys are so lame……Woman are not the only gatekeepers, men are equally responsible. Why don’t we all just keep it in our pants. I saved my virginity for marriage,my ex did not. We are still divorced.”
That is awful.
Which one of you is Wile E. Coyote?
You are–when you married a player, and he ran out from under you. Wouldn’t it have been better for you if there had been some external societal pressure pushing you to strongly favor one of the decent men you ignored instead of going for your future ex?
Wow Brendan, an annoying, narcissitsic, philosophical, French novelist “of ideas”. With that stunning review I’ll get right on that. (I may check it out)
@Greyghost.
Man, I don’t see a male birth control pill playing out that way. The 80% of women will still chase after the 20%. They’ll just double down and play dirtier. The 80% of men will still be stuck with the reformed carousel riders. Until there is a tangible downgrade in the lifestyle of these free agent womyn they will stay free agent. Until the womyn are dependent on a beta for food, shelter, or protection they will continue to ignore the betas. Male birth control won’t change that. It will just mean the womyn will have been rode harder and put up wetter when they climb off the carousel. It may diminish the cash and prizes mindset of divorce when they lose the leverage of child support, but it won’t increase the quality of available women. Those that we’re high quality before will still be high quality. Those who were low quality before will just be lower.
@ Heathcliff
Nice observation with the no real scotsman. I’ve noticed that in protestant churches. The divorced families are not properly represented anyway because when they divorce many leave the church. So you know they weren’t really Christians either. Couldn’t have been. We just won’t count them.
Wow Brendan, an annoying, narcissitsic, philosophical, French novelist “of ideas”. With that stunning review I’ll get right on that. (I may check it out)
In his case the “ideas” are very close to ours. His focus is on the post-revolutionary SMP. Very required reading, even if the French “context” differs from ours.
I don’t think DC realizes how fragile his place in his subculture inside a subculture is. The traditionalist subcltures that still exist are the very ones that put an emphasis on slut shaming. First of all, he is not praicing what he preaches since married a virgin. Lets say his oh so well chosen wife were to split on him. Would there be any pressure to preserve the marriage from his church or even his group of friends or would they assume that he was guilty of some sin and the church annull the marriage? How well can his plan hold up for his daughters? Could his family in its enclave of true Catholics preserve a traditional family free of divorce for three generations? No.
You are right mortarman the nature of women will not change. Betas are alays ignored until it is time to get a chump. The nature of women will not and doesnot change but the scene has changed. The sexual dynamic of motherhood will change. Betas while still being beta will as responsible guys they always are will be in a position to not be easy chumps. Social intertia will be exactly as you have written, PUA heaven.
Do not underestimate the power of the leverage of child support. Without hostages to hold against her husband a woman is just an easily gotten rid of burden. Women do know it. As time passes the hysteria of childlessness will creep in. Women will change their behavior in there own selfish interest. (her behavior not her) At present a woman is capable of murdering a child in her selfish interest. A woman can and will do anything in her selfish interest, anything. That is the one thing I have learned above all else.
“He is an annoying, narcissitsic, philosophical, French…”
You forgot the obligatory, “But I repeat myself…”
From my experience with the Steubenville Catholics, I think most of them are just kind of out of the loop on how far and how fast things are falling apart. Kind of like me not conceptualizing that there are mothers who because of their drug habits or other dysfunctions leave their six children without food and so hungry that they feed themselves and their siblings grass because they have nothing else to eat. (I spent tonight at a foster care parent training session on child sexual abuse and attachment failure.)
Honestly, the ones I know are good people and far too busy raising their eight kids and homeschooling them to have time to argue much on the internet or explore in depth, even virtually, how grim a place America is getting. And they tend to be sort of romantic – they like epic tales and fairy stories and the kinds of books where men were men, etc.
And there is nothing wrong with forming those kinds of families and trying to hang on to old ways. I genuinely admire how creative, hardworking, stubborn and brave the traditional Catholics I know are. The problem is, no matter how much structure they build and how much authority their patriarchs project, all it takes is one unhappy wife and one mediocre but greedy divorce lawyer to bring it all down and quickly.
How well can his plan hold up for his daughters? Could his family in its enclave of true Catholics preserve a traditional family free of divorce for three generations? No.
One family I know tried valiantly to be completely counterculture. They succeeded somewhat. All but the youngest couple are married. There are probably over 30 grandchildren so far. But of the half dozen girls, there was one shotgun wedding, one who partied, then reformed and conformed, and one who divorced mid-twenties.
I haven’t read much of the comments in this post, so I may be repeating after someone else:
Mr. Darwin says that women are marrying later because they simply haven’t found the right man yet. This is false. As Dalrock has said, they simply aren’t in a marrying mindset. When a woman isn’t looking to marry, “the man she will marry” just does not exist. She will not try and fill a job posting that has yet to exist.
That’s because marriage just isn’t in the cards for them mentally at 20, 22, or 24. And where it is, women get married at those ages (eg, Orthodox Jews). If nothing else, 22 year old girls could court hundreds of men each via online dating.
Why is marriage not on her plate at those ages? Because she has a career, she’s economically independent, she can have sex while forestalling conception, she can live without her parents… marriage gives her nothing she would want. All the things she wants she is getting, without resorting to marriage. Even children, if she’s trashy enough.
Also, the Darwins aren’t facing this yet. They’ve only been married 15 years and have five kids. They are 5-15 years out from finding out if things took with their own progeny. It’s easy to be secure and assured (heh) when you haven’t seen your own children possibly bring different information to the table than what you were expecting. And even then, there should be some care for what others are going through and have gone through. I find that lack of charity disturbing.
Looked up the FUS website. Haven’t read a lick, yet because I couldn’t get past the main image on the page. It’s a professor, a white guy (very white–pale skin, strawberry-blond hair) in long-sleeved button-down, tie, and a very worthy cookie duster. In fact, every person on the front page is white–not a PC care in the world. Combine this with their rejection of birth control; their adherence to tradition Catholic family values…these people ARE the 1950s..and yet a main focus of DC was that the 1950s weren’t such a great time for relationships.
Baffling.
“wanted to include a couple of “digs” at the aspect of women being the ones who actually serve to uphold the “stud” end of the double standard ”
Which is why you will never be able to shame promiscuous men the same way that promiscuous women can be shamed… because promiscuous men don’t suffer the same SMV penalty that promiscuous women do.
Of course, women could correct the double standard tomorrow by rejecting high-notch alphas in favor of omega virgins, but I don’t think that’s likely to happen anytime soon.
Grerp nailed it
I am aware of similar groups among Protestants. And I used to be more inline with them.. until 18 years into the marraige when it all fell apart. It is a good idea to remain friendly with them: they will survive hard times. The current bunch of elite (eloi?) won’t
And I expect that such groups are going to be hammered by the elite (who are functionally pagan) before the aforementioned bubble bursts.
In a true functioning patriarchy – like the early Roman Republic or the Early American Republic for that matter – anyone, a magistrate or not, who showed up a mans domicile for the expressed purpose of taking his kids away and driving him out from his home would have to have realized that they would most likely have been killed outright.
Jus sayin. Not kidding….It is Just a Long where from here to there.
Houellebecq is a genius. Nobody like him has described our society as it is. This is what pisses off the PC establishment. I can’t recommend it enough.
lol, I had the exact same though when I read that quote.
+1 Grerp.
You’re pretty smart for a girl, Grerp!
I’m going to get in on the Houellebecq love here. A brilliant passage of his that echoes my own observations:
“From the amorous point of view, Veronique belonged, as we all do, to a sacrificed generation. She had certainly been capable of love; she wished to still be capable it, I’ll say that for her; but it was no longer possible. A scarce, artificial and belated phenomenon, love can only blossom under certain mental conditions, rarely conjoined, and totally opposed to the freedom of morals which characterizes the modern era. Veronique had known too many discotheques, too many lovers; such a way of life impoverishes a human being, inflicting sometimes serious and always irreversible damage. Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for other sex in a single loved being rarely, resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag. And so one leads, obviously, a slag’s life; in ageing one becomes less seductive, and on that account, bitter. One is jealous of the younger, and so one hates them. Condemned to remain unvowable, this hatred festers and becomes increasingly fervent; then it dies down and fades away, just as everything fades away. All that remains is resentment and disgust, sickness and the anticipation of death.”
From “Whatever”
Gee, I wonder if this is how you meet a nice girl……
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/men-women/sex-and-the-modern-girl-are-we-witnessing-a-new-age-of-female-sexual-assertiveness-1727304.html
imnobody —
“But MOST Christian traditionalists are not preserving pre-revolutionary enclaves. They are living in a world who has a mixed bag of pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary aspects”
exactly — the vast majority are, and that definitely includes Darwin
Darwin is in voluntary denial about his culture and church, but the posters portraying him as some fringe-religionist amishite are completely off
the Darwins represent the MAINSTREAM in christianity, not some radical schism group
Mr Darwin is a feminist and an accomplice of the western matriarchies — nothing even vaguely to do with Christ of the God of the old testament
his christianity is a social (and possibly economic) front, same for his wife
his wife and daughters utterly rule over him, exactly as females across the West dominate their menfolk and their nations — State AND Church; this guy’s just another wall-brick
Mr Darwin wants a comfortable life in a society in which his daughters will win valedictorian (tho a dozen boys were far more bright), get the college scholarships instead of a male, get the jobs instead of the males, and go on to Great Careers . . . none of which Mr and Ms Darwin had to subsidize (usually while double-dipping, w Ms Darwin an employee of the matriarchy oops government)
the boys and men defrauded by the favoritism shown to Mr Darwins precious and perfect daughters, forced from education and employment, will be told by Ms and Mr Darwins Churches and States that they need to “man up”
youre a second-class citizen, we’re rubbing your face in it daily, but hey, you better Man Up or else
Mr Darwin does not hate his matriarchal nation and world, as the Master he claims to follow commands
Mr Darwin loves the current set-up
he loves the world because, like his father, he is of it
he blusters in with guns blazing, ready to kick ass of Those Evil (other) Males, in defense of his mammyboss, and his perfect daughters — there are no more ardent feminists than the pseudo-christian fathers of daughters, full of happy lies from their sissified pastors and fem-States
Darwin reeks of white-knight coward
if his daughters end up 35 and unmarried, he and Ms Darwin and their “churches” will be blaming, shaming and criminalizing men, and demanding Grooms be found
the guys shunted aside so his daughters could be Supreme Class Citizens here in the Homeland? no job, no fatherhood, no future, nobody cares — except when the economy croaks b/c Mr Darwins Precious Daughters dont innovate or create or produce anything except demands for More Privilege
certainly Mr and Ms Darwin wont care that yet another boy somewhere in the west wont have a daddy, and has no male protection present from the emotional instabilities of mothers and female caretakers, and no man to guide him through life
I am not normally a consumer of Novels, let alone French Novels, but I read Houllebecq’s Platform, and the rather similar but shorter Lanzarote. Powerful stuff.
Slag: That is another great word for Slut (which is used in the Houllebecq passage quoted above by Basil Ransom) – but not used in America, I suspect?
———————————————————————-
I wanted to say something about Slut-walks and the women who attend them. It might be assumed that these women are trying to de-fang the term, but I think that they are doing quite the reverse. They are clearly women who cannot attract male attention, and so, as with invitees to a ‘Vicar and Tarts Party’ they dress in garish costumes and protest against an interest that is just not there, and thus imply that they are as desirable and risque as those women who might adequately fit the term (and who do attract male attention). Even if I were wrong about that, the slut-walker hedges her bets, by demanding the respect appropriate to a girlfriend yet at the same time demanding freedom to act promiscuously whilst complaining should anyone judge her aversely as a Tart (another great word for Slut – over here).
@ Pirran
I read the article. There’s been a lot of talk in the media about how the ‘end of hypergamy’ is near and how women are going to settle down with betas and men who make less and be happy with their woman-husband/man-wife relationships (Liza Mundy, I’m looking at you). Articles like that put the lie to all of it. You have huge sex parties with hundreds of women…and few high status men like bankers and footballers.
I wonder if DC would encourage guys to marry these women—as long as they repented, of course. And what would he call their behavior, since “slutty” is off limits?
An interesting UTexas Austin study was done among college students in 1939, 1956, 1967, 1984, 1996. They asked the students (men and women) to rank 18 characteristics desired in a mate.
According to this study, neither sex cares anymore about chastity of their mate. Out of 18 characteristics in a potential spouse, men now rate chastity as #16 and women rate it #17.
See link below. The conclusions start at page 9 (numbered page 499). See the characteristics that have changed in rank the most over the years. (indicated by dashed lines between the columns.)
@ FT
The decline of ‘chastity’ is a classic example of making the necessity into a virtue. The reason ‘chastity’ has declined so much is because men know it’s not an option in any event. And they knew it in the 1939 as well, as even then it was 10th on the list. It’s my view that men have always known that a significant number of women wouldn’t be “chaste” on their wedding night and that a better interpretation of this is that men know their chances of getting a “chaste” woman to marry are practically nil, so they don’t bother to attach any value to the option (as the probability is near zero). But I’ll bet my left nut if you presented a study of men with a hypothetical where they were asked to select the most desirable sexual history of their ideal mate—virgin, one cock, or five…that five would come in a distant third.
The intelligence choice is also not really what it appears. This isn’t to say that men don’t value intelligence in a mate—we absolutely do. But the level of intelligence men think is desirable is usually a bit lower that what women think is desirable. And in some ways, the intelligence choice is yet again an example of making the necessity a virtue. Women are getting 60 percent of college degrees with the numbers rising. Part of the reason men are valuing intelligence is because of cultural signals telling them to do so and it is extremely difficult to say you don’t particularly value intelligence without being ridiculed or having you manhood questioned or some such.
While I value intelligence it certainly doesn’t rank higher than physical attractiveness, which is what the study is saying. I’m extremely skeptical of this and believe that, to some extent, men were saying what they were expected to say.
Men value some one that is pleasent to be around period. Empathy and and awareness and understanding of others works wonders beyond physical appearance and social status.
Good Old Bill Bennett is at it again: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/opinion/bennett-modern-women/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
This time, blaming men for things like “50 Shades of Grey” — um, Bill, it’s *women* who are turned on by that book and buying it in droves, not men, and it was a woman who *wrote* the book, dammit.
When in doubt, blame the men — that seems to be Bennett’s motto. Oh, and of course it’s coupled with a call for a return to Victorian values.
Just so bloody useful, isn’t it?
Bennet is an insufferable ass and a stereotypical pseudo-intellectual blowhard.
FWIW, in the Eastern Orthodox Church(es) there are no official divorces or annulments. The GOC (Greeks) may be an exception, I’ve heard they keep official records of secular divorces.
However, what we do have to seek from the Church is a blessing to re-marry. Second marriage ceremonies are different and briefer than the first, and a third even more so. There is no “official” provision for more than that. There are also fees involved as part of the repentance required to receive these blessings from a bishop. Others may view this as some kind of corrupt graft, but I see it as a way of separating the talk from the walk, in order to recognize the solemnity of the situation.
However, local bishops and priests have much discretion in interpretation and application of our cannons, so it is at best clear as mud. Churches are populated and administered by imperfect people.
This is my understanding, I’m sure someone else from an EOC will pipe in to correct me, heh..
Keep up the fight guys, I may not agree with or like everything I read here, but the challenge to view and live with the life around me as it is and not as I want it to be is very refreshing and valuable to me.
[D: Welcome Patrick.]
Brent, Bill Bennet is those things, he is also one of the more visible social conservative, traditional types around. And really, there isn”t that much difference between what he pronounces and what many, many less famous socon;/tradcons say. I do not know what the Darwii would think of “50 shades of grey” if they knew about it, or “the story of O”, but feel fairly confident that they would also find some way to cast the blame on “men”, in another example of the apex fallacy. You may not recall that late last year, Escoffier eventually proclaimed he/she did not like hypergamy. I suspect that sort of ignorance or denial (or both) of women’s inherent nature is at work in Bennet.
Because, garsh, if one actually understands “50 shades”, then women and men are not the same, and women have their own dark side…which means they might not belong on a pedestal at all. Better to deny reality than take women off their pedestals.
(It is interesting to me that tradcons are as prone to the apex fallacy as women. Wonder why that is?)
@dragnet:
The study has one big problem: it’s self-selected to college students. They’ll over value intelligence due to the dichotomy of view to the rest of society. Even then, it’s likely more a proxy for “consistency”, which is the biggest key to a stable marriage. Also, those numbers spiked up, firstly, in 1977.
On Bennett, this is actually an improvement. Give him a few more years (and maybe a long conversation with Roissy) and he’d come around. Or convince him to read Dalrock. That might work too.
Looking Glass, maybe it is improvement for Bennett. Maybe. Like many another flavor of conservative, I think he is very heavily invested in the tradcon notion that “women civilize men”, though, so it could be he just is not going to be willing to face certain facts, ever. Also, he just is not as intelligent as he’s often portrayed by fawning writers, such as some at “National Review”. I’m not sure he’s up to the task of understanding the difference between “civilize” and “socialize”, for example.
It’s worth remembering that Story of O was *also* written by a woman, not a man.
I think he is very heavily invested in the tradcon notion that “women civilize men”Whereas, a study of history demonstrates the opposite…
I’m not sure he’s up to the task of understanding the difference between “civilize” and “socialize”, for example.
That’s the rub. Most SoCons don’t understand the difference. An immoral woman who hypergamously goes from alpha to alpha in search of greater protection and wealth–always trading up to the one who demonstrates more raw power and strength within the social group–is fully socialized, but totally uncivilized. This is precisely the kind of behavior one observes in wild animals, not civilized human beings. But since she can talk, and since she looks to everyone like a “social butterfly,” and since she’ll want to bring her mate along in her social situations (to show him off to other women), people assume she’s “civilizing” him. Much the opposite.
I read the article. There’s been a lot of talk in the media about how the ‘end of hypergamy’ is near and how women are going to settle down with betas and men who make less and be happy with their woman-husband/man-wife relationships (Liza Mundy, I’m looking at you). Articles like that put the lie to all of it. You have huge sex parties with hundreds of women…and few high status men like bankers and footballers.
Exactly. All it means is that more women will have fewer potential male mates. Sure, some women are going to marry hypogamously, but not many, and the ones that do will be a very, very high cheat risk. Almost none will *fuck* hypogamously, either. Feminists like Mundy and Stephanie Coontz are out there trying to actively convince women to select mates hypogamously, so there will be some women who buy into it. But it’s not going to be very many. Most women would rather raise a child alone than mate hypogamously. All you have to do is look at the middle and lower classes in the US (and even in the UK) to see the proof of that.
That’s the rub. Most SoCons don’t understand the difference. An immoral woman who hypergamously goes from alpha to alpha in search of greater protection and wealth–always trading up to the one who demonstrates more raw power and strength within the social group–is fully socialized, but totally uncivilized. This is precisely the kind of behavior one observes in wild animals, not civilized human beings. But since she can talk, and since she looks to everyone like a “social butterfly,” and since she’ll want to bring her mate along in her social situations (to show him off to other women), people assume she’s “civilizing” him. Much the opposite.
Right, like our 28 year-old friend “Paloma” in the article linked above. Highly educated, articulate, very social, but acting like a primal animal — even worse than a primal animal, really.
Wow, philadelphialawyer hit home!
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Holy Week Edition « Patriactionary
Brent, excellent exposition on the difference between “socialize” and “civilize”, very well done example.
@Brent
Ah, but you are overlooking her fashion sense and her interest in interior decorating, which make her oh so complex, not to mention innately good.
@Dalrock
Oh, yes. The old TradCon double standard. It is ironic, isn’t it, that the TradCon/SoCon whiteknights, in the name of not having a “double standard,” end up creating an unstoppable double standard by never allowing anyone to comment on any woman’s moral sexual culpability? It is also, of course, a logical fallacy, but they don’t teach logic in schools anymore. Too masculine. Logic is for men (or so the thinking goes), and therefore it is misogynist. If both A and B are engaging in immoral behavior, and I point out that A is endangering herself and society, this does not mean I am implying B is somehow morally justified. But yeah, logic is for boys. They’re stupid. Throw rocks at them.
Perhaps it’s because the truth is sometimes too awful to contemplate. The truth about female sexuality is not at all what tradcons and socons and religious conservatives tell us. And this isn’t misogyny; it just is.
1. Women like sex. Most women like vigorous sex. They not only like it, they really get off on it.
2. Given the right man, right time, right circumstances, and perceived low risk of detection, many women will cheat on a husband or boyfriend. Certainly not all will. But many will.
3. Women are not attracted to kindness, honor, dignity, steadfastness or loyalty. They are attracted to confidence, dominance and displays of power and authority.
4. Women learn at an early age they can use sexuality — as enticement, as inducement, as manipulation, as currency. its withholding as punishment. Many women view sex as a tool to be employed for gain or manipulation; and certainly all women understand sex can be used in that fashion.
5. Many women will shade the truth, dissemble and outright lie about sex and their sexual history if they deem it to be to their advantage. Corollary: most women are extremely adept at assuming the role of the “good girl” or the “nice girl” and can act coy, demure, and submissive while concealing a high partner count and crass, coarse language and conduct.
6. Many women will also close ranks around sluts and defend slutty behavior — even if their defenders are not themselves sluts. Team Woman is exalted above all.
After reading through these past three posts I get the impression that DC suffers from the same ego affliction that Mark Driscoll does – both fervently want to feel validated in the socio-sexual decisions they made (early marriage) for themselves after becoming aware that conditions and social environments have changed (or were never what they believed they were) since the point at which they made those decisions.
For all of DC’s suggesting isolationism (retreating to a like-minded echo chamber) for others, he actively engages in the same grandstanding of purpose that Driscoll does on a larger stage. And like Driscoll the latent purpose is to reaffirm his own doubts in the decisions he made in his youth in light of a broader understanding social and sexual dynamics.
Both seek to calm an internal conflict now that blissful ignorance of women or social trends is no longer a shelter for their egos.
Thanks for the link and the mention, Dalrock. Keep on trucking!
7. Most women want to be dominated and told what to do in the bedroom. Corollary: most women initially lie about this.
7. Most women want to be dominated and told what to do in the bedroom. Corollary: most women initially lie about this.
Corollary 2: Even the most ball-busting, in-your-face, workplace dominatrices who will deny this till they are blue in the face are like this once the bedroom door is closed, and in many cases even *moreso* than the average woman is.
deti:
All that is true. But that’s the Red Pill. Our religious leaders, sadly, keep their head in the sand with their talk about how women are innately good or what have you. Worse–they’re looking at women through rose-colored glasses.
(I’ve noticed that that isn’t even compatible with biblical teaching! What happened to all of us falling short of God’s glory?)
Great one, Brendan.
8. All women are hypergamous. This applies to all women at all times everywhere. A woman’s hypergamy is a constantly running subroutine, operating in the background at all times. This means she wants the best man she can get. This also means that unless there are checks on her hypergamy, she will stay with one man only until a better man arrives with a more attractive offer. There are NO exceptions to this rule. ]
9. A woman’s ideal form of mating is not lifelong monogamy. It is serial monogamy, in which she perpetually seeks to trade up. Most women believe in their deepest hindbrains that they can do this, when the reality is that all but the most attractive women are completely unable to do this. This is similar to men’s preferred form of promiscuity, which is a string of one night stands and flings. The difference is that nearly all men are painfully aware and are reminded every minute of their lives that they are wholly unable to do this; and that only the most attractive men can do this.
The truth, basically, is that women (as a group) AREN’T good. If men realized and understood all that’s being said here, it’d be probably EASIER for them to find a truly chaste wife (or at least to understand where they are).
TheMan:
It’s a myth, I think, that women somehow have “better” or “stronger” controls on their sexuality, or that they are inherently better able to avoid infidelity than men.
I’m married. Suppose another, more attractive man could make a play for my wife. It’s a sobering thought that, unless she has strong guardrails on her hypergamy, she will be quite tempted to take what’s being offered. And why not? If she believes he is more attractive for whatever reason, there’s really nothing restraining her other than her internal sense of obligation to her marriage vows.
For many women, an internal sense of obligation and the gravity of marriage vows simply are not sufficient restraint and they cheat. I suspect many women run the risk benefit analysis and decide the risks of cheating don’t outweigh the benefits of fidelity. This is why ultimately. marriage is a risk management proposition — you have to do the best you can with the information you have. If you choose to marry, marry a woman who disdains dishonesty and values integrity, and have a little Game.
I don’t believe my wife’s been unfaithful. But I’ve had to steel myself with the realization that if she ever is, I would still be OK in the subsequent divorce shitstorm.
Eh.
Should be: *** risks of cheating DO outweigh the benefits of fidelity; i.e. some women decide cheating is worth the risk.
@dragnet
Precisely. I think it’s the industrial strength projection of these women that infects a lot of the thinking behind DC (and Bill Bennett et al.). They really can’t get their head around the difference between what women say and what women do. The following paragraph from that Independent piece is an exemplar of this. Young(ish) “Paloma” manages to combine her vision from My Little Pony with Hard Core Porn with no difficulty at all. The cognitive dissonance involved is profound and made me LOL:
“Not that she isn’t interested in finding a partner in the long term. On the contrary. Getting married and having children is a priority. Paloma’s own parents have been married for 29 years, and the secret of their relationship, she says, is that they both waited until they found the right person. “Many women get involved in unsatisfactory relationships just because they believe that any companionship is better than none. But that is not what I want for myself. I want to wait until I meet the right man, and when I do, I’ll concentrate my efforts on making our relationship last.” Until then, she says, she will continue to ensure that she still gets her thrills, whenever and however she wants. And it seems she’s not alone.”
After going to one of those parties, that poor little pony is never going to be the same again. He’ll stop grooming his pink mane, ignore his friends and start snorting angel dust from a very different spiritual being to the one he’s used to….but at least Paloma and her friends won’t notice……
I’d be curious to read DC’s take on the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/word-is-getting-out/
@ Deti
Man, I always look forward to your comments. They are like the red-pill booster shot. So much truth and articulated well – but damn it gets depressing sometimes. I guess thats the part of me that still wishes the pretty lies were true even thought I know they’re not. Had I only known about this 25 years ago…
The pretty lies are just so… well, pretty. I didn’t give up on them easily. It was a painful transition. The Driscolls, Bennets, and Darwins of the world will likely never take the red pill. Pink Floyd ‘The Wall’ comes to mind. They have built the female pedestal one brick at a time over their entire lives. Tearing down that pedestal is more traumatic then they can face.
Deti – ”9. A woman’s ideal form of mating is not lifelong monogamy. It is serial monogamy, in which she perpetually seeks to trade up.”
I suppose that you’ll next be telling us that they will find all sorts of frivolous reasons why they need to get out of their current relationship/marriage?
Seriously, women always have a good reason to want to divorce. And, here’s a perfect example:
Kate Schermerhorn: ‘The Moment I Knew My Marriage Was Over’
deti:
Well, that is exactly what I’m saying. Women in general aren’t better, morally, than men. Women (just like people in general) will cheat if they’re able to. The key is finding a woman who’s actually good. I think Dalrock is assisting men with that.
And it doesn’t hurt to have game.
Note that by “people in general”, I’m not saying “men do it too” so as to give women a free pass–I’m just pointing out that people in general will do what’s “wrong” if they want to and if they know they’ll get a free pass. So, as Dalrock as said before, you need to find people who have a conscience.
Why Catholics Leave the Church : A Commentary by Fr. Barron
Clueless?
I suspect many women run the risk benefit analysis and decide the risks of cheating don’t outweigh the benefits of fidelity. This is why ultimately. marriagen is a risk management proposition — you have to do the best you can with the information you have. If you choose to marry, marry a woman who disdains dishonesty and values integrity, and have a little Game.
I agree with that advice, most definitely, but I think that the way women find their way into cheating isn’t as much of a risk/benefit analysis as simply becoming unattracted to their husbands. Helen Fisher has written that this is “normal” and that women have wiring that causes them to seek to remate after 4-7 years. A part of that wiring can cause a sudden lack of attraction for their husbands (along the lines described in that video that slwerner just posted), although in other cases it is more gradual. But in any case, there is a pulling away from the husband. Most women don’t perceive or experience this as a “normal” phase in their committed relationships, but rather as an indication that something is wrong, indeed *very* wrong, with the relationship, perhaps to the point of being irreparable. They often also have difficulty pinpointing this, so will mention various things that are annoyances (leaving the seat up, socks on the floor, not drying the dishes the way she likes and so on) as being reasons for why she is feeling distant from her husband, when it is, in reality, her genetic makeup trying to get her to seek a new mate with new seed so that she doesn’t take the genetic risk of bearing all of her children by only one man’s genes. Of course, this is going to be much less of the case where a woman is really with one of the very top men, genetically — but, as we know, most women are not.
So when the wiring hits home, the only real block against that are (1) being attractive enough to your wife so that the wiring isn’t as intense (i.e., doesn’t turn her completely off from you) and ( 2) choosing a wife who has moral rules and a moral sense so that she, herself, strongly resists these urges when they come along 4-7 years in — preferably *both* to be on the safer side, if you are married.
slwerner:
Schermerhorn’s video was lulz. Toast? Seriously?
If my wife ever got to that point with me, I think I’d just say “I’ll take the kids while you pack. Here, let me call you a cab. I’ll be resigning my very lucrative, high stress job tomorrow, so the property distribution will be minimal. You can explain to your kids why daddy is in jail for being unable to pay the support. And have fun making the house payments on my new salary as a discount store greeter. Have your lawyer call mine.”
I read the linked article in the Indie about 29 year old, 16 hour-a-day-workaholic Banker, Paloma (not that I have ever met any English woman with that name) and frankly I don’t believe a word of it. Not that I doubt the existance of the Kitty Kat Klub or its afficianado’s but firstly you have to ask where the Indie gets its stories from. The answer is of course from a friend or a friend of a friend, so its obviously pay per story sensationalism to people just like the journo’s who write this soft-porn stuff, to entice the chaps on the 7.19 am from Worcestor Park after they have said good-bye to their wives and children on their early monring commute into the City.
I’ve never been to the PussyCat club but I have (purely in the interests of research – you understand) attended something not entirely dissimilar and I can tell you what will happen. Firstly the women will be modest and coy. The men (the few there are, will double down their white-knighting), and if there are any spare women, those will play very hard to get, just as in real life. Should there be an Alpha Male around that would of course be an entirely different matter, but being a true Alpha he will treat them so casually as the next woman is lined up.
Kitty Killing is obviously a psuedo-lesbian establishment for straightish women who won’t submit to a man – yet – and probably never. A six figure salary a year and with the little free time they have, that is the height of their fun. More a libidinous Convent than anything else. They are merely to be pitied. Lesbianism is just another fitness test for men.
Brendan:
“Helen Fisher has written that this is “normal” and that women have wiring that causes them to seek to remate after 4-7 years. A part of that wiring can cause a sudden lack of attraction for their husbands ***”
Now that you wrote this I seem to remember this (and have a bit of experience with it myself). I’ve also read somewhere that once marriages make it past the 10-year mark or so, there is a sharp dropoff in divorces — the idea being the marriage has “survived” the wife’s sudden loss of attraction for whatever reason.
@Brendan
That Bennett article you linked to doesn’t blame men for the books. He blames feminism, and it seemed to me that he was sympathetic towards men, for a change. Actually, I thought the article was pretty even-handed for a hard-core so-con like Bennett.
@Rollo
I’m glad you brought this back up, because I thought a lot about this when you made the original comments on Driscoll. I thought you might be right, but that the reasoning was weak. More likely in my opinion it’s not that Driscoll regrets his choice and is now engaged in justifying it, but that his own alpha nature still leads him to try to control other men (through women) as best he can while not explicitly violating his faith. Implicitly, of course, he’s wooing the whole female congregation. He’s a narcissistic psychopath who happens to be a preacher.
In reading your post “Pseudo-Virginity”, it occurred to me that someone could make a similar argument about your reasoning that a low N-count wasn’t a good indicator of fidelity; that you just had to take the top spot on her internal alpha-rankings board. Why wouldn’t the argument against that go, “Rollo is merely engaging in justification for why it was a good decision for him to marry a woman with an N-count far over the danger limit.”?
“Most women don’t perceive or experience this as a “normal” phase in their committed relationships, but rather as an indication that something is wrong, indeed *very* wrong, with the relationship, perhaps to the point of being irreparable.”
Brendan, as you’ve cogently written before, most women aren’t being taught about the ups and downs of marriage, attraction, good times and bad, having and raising children as the primary purpose of marriage, etc. Instead they are steeped in the “hedonic” view of marriage, i.e. a marriage which serves their interests and needs, and brings them love, sex, and pleasure. So when the rough times inevitably come, they simply bail, because their view is that:
“Marriage is not supposed to be like this. If I am unhaaappy or things are hard, it is because I have married the wrong person.”
Deti – ”Schermerhorn’s video was lulz. Toast? Seriously?”
Well, to be fair, in the discussion thread she does try to explain that his toast eating noise was more of a “straw that broke the camels back”. It seems she realized that she didn’t like anything about her husband. And, while it appears to have been a sudden realization that she was entirely un-attracted to her husband, she was probably pulling away from him for some time prior to that moment. (see Brendan @ April 4, 2012 at 2:11 pm).
But, what it more broadly suggests to me is just how shallow a typical woman’s “commitment” to marriage can be. That she can just stop liking everything about him shows that she is far more driven by her basic biology than by either morals or even rational thought.
And, still, women (and self-imagined White-Knights, like William “Dice” Bennett) will go on and on about men being the ones unwilling to commit and/or make themselves worthy of marrying.
It has been often said that women want to get married, but they don’t want to be married. Kate Schermerhorn makes a strong argument that this is true. How little effort does a woman really put into a marriage if her husbands chewing can reveal to he that she must divorce him?
That Bennett article you linked to doesn’t blame men for the books. He blames feminism, and it seemed to me that he was sympathetic towards men, for a change. Actually, I thought the article was pretty even-handed for a hard-core so-con like Bennett.
I certainly didn’t read it that way.
Bennett talks about the articles by Dowd and Bruni as of a piece with each other — he isn’t really distinguishing and saying “well, the book is feminism’s fault, but this stuff is men debasing women” — he runs them together, more or less, as that was the gist of the editorials he was talking about as well:
Dowd’s colleague, Frank Bruni, reflected on a similar subject in his column, “The Bleaker Sex,” on Lena Dunham’s new HBO series “Girls.” In this unglamorous, dull version of “Sex in the City,” Dunham stars as a contemporary, twenty-something woman playing second fiddle to the bizarre, dominating sexual fantasies of her boyfriend. Her first sex scene opens with her back to her boyfriend, inertly and joylessly submitting to his commands.
Bruni recoils at the idea of this. He writes, “You watch these scenes and other examples of the zeitgeist-y, early-20s heroines of ‘Girls’ engaging in, recoiling from, mulling and mourning sex, and you think: Gloria Steinem went to the barricades for this?”
Bruni goes on to grapple with Dunham’s loveless sex scenes and wonders whether today’s onslaught of pornography and easy sex has desensitized men to the point where they view women, to recall the words of an earlier day, only as objects. Even the act of sex itself is boring to some men unless it is ratcheted up in some strange, deviant fashion — all at the expense of the thoroughly humiliated and debased woman.
In the act of degrading women, men are also degrading themselves.
Again, the discussion is about men degrading women, men being desensitized to women, men viewing women as objects. It seems lost on Bill that the book was written by women and for women and that most television is likewise produced for *female* consumption, not male consumption (because there are substantially more female viewers of television than there are male viewers). The point is that Bennett is never saying “women are debasing themselves, women are degrading themselves” — no, it is always men degrading women. Women are pure, and men degrade them. It’s the same Bennett script: things would be fine if men didn’t debase women so much, manned up, and acted better. Sure, he blames feminism for permitting (or encouraging) men to debase and degrade women, but the point, again, is that he never blames the women themselves (i.e., for doing what they are doing, reading what they are reading, enjoying the TV they are enjoying and so on), many of whom are quite happy to be so “debased and degraded” or at least to fantasize about it while reading books like Grey and watching TV.
@7Man
Why Catholics Leave the Church : A Commentary by Fr. Barron
Clueless?
Yes as most all clergy are. I heard one of them droning on about how the total population of his denomination has gone down 40% in the past 10 years and how despite planting tens of thousands of churches in that time that they were down 4000 churches in aggregate. All I could think was what I think of DC: “How completely and totally clueless.” The answer is out there. They are just too arrogant to see it.
@ Brendan
I quite agree and it’s been nothing short of surreal watching Mundy peddle the obviously ludicrous assertion in her newest book to an all too credulous mainstream media. It’s interesting to watch this scramble on the part of feminists to get women to marry hypogamously. I can’t tell if it’s a total lack of knowledge regarding the reality of female attraction or a panicked realization that large numbers of unattached women with children and disaffected, uninvested men is a recipe for disaster.
Whatever it is, the hamsters are working overtime and the torrent of public ‘splaining and feminist self-justification has only just begun. I think it’s a good sign that they even feel the need to make the case for stuff like this so publicly and strenuously.
Means they’re feelign the heat.
I can’t tell if it’s a total lack of knowledge regarding the reality of female attraction or a panicked realization that large numbers of unattached women with children and disaffected, uninvested men is a recipe for disaster.
Actually, in my view, this is, for them, the next stage of the revolution — from men leading women, to a brief period of rough parity, to the endgame of women leading men, completing the total role reversal that feminists have always dreamed of even though they were also always careful to claim that they were only seeking “equality”. That cat was out of the bag when women began to vastly overtake men in college matriculation and graduation and organized feminism’s response was simply a collective disinterested shrug, coupled with such witticisms from the AAUW as “anyone who is concerned by this can only be motivated by a discomfort with changing gender roles” and the like. I think Hannah Rosin is a prominent example of this kind of triumphalist feminism — i.e., “When it came to competing with men freely, we kicked men’s ass, hahaha! Now it’s time for you to be led by us, you lesser beings, for the next 10,000 years, hahaha!,” and so on. She, and many like her, clearly see women as superior to men, and think it is therefore natural and right that women lead men, period, as is the case in her own marriage where she laughs at and belittles her husband and son as being inferior to herself and her daughter. One fundamental way to consolidate female leadership over men would be to make female-led marriages normative — and that, in my opinion, is the goal. It’s not about helping women find love, it’s about consolidating female power in a sex war with men. It is a fundamentally political act.
In any case, I agree with you that this is going to be mostly a futile effort. We can expect a small percentage of marriages to be like this (perhaps even as high as 15-20%), and we can then expect that these marriages will be endlessly profiled, highlighted, touted, written about, played up and down and so on in an all out, full-court press to increase the number of such marriages through social pressure. I don’t think women will bite in large numbers, however, because we have already seen what women in the lower half of the spectrum do when faced with the option of hypogamous mating — they opt out. I see no reason why most of their sisters in the upper half of the spectrum won’t do the same if they can’t find a man who is at least their equal.
“I don’t think women will bite in large numbers, however, because we have already seen what women in the lower half of the spectrum do when faced with the option of hypogamous mating — they opt out. I see no reason why most of their sisters in the upper half of the spectrum won’t do the same if they can’t find a man who is at least their equal.”
I think this is right. Given the choice between a chance at an alpha or equal, or a guaranteed kitchen bitch, I suspect women will keep holding out. They’ll roll the dice and hope for the best for at least an equal.
“Mr. Mom” is a fantasy. “Kitchen Bitch” is the reality.
@ Brendan
Good points. I would add that I think the project to render female-led relationships normative is part of a ethos that necessarily misunderstands the nature of female attraction (and men as well, to a degree).
But I think this is where TFH’s bursting misandry bubble may fit in. People like Mundy & Rosin make the core mistake of believing that the rise of women relative to men is organic when it isn’t. It is in large part the product of gov’t intervention in the economy. To the extent that a combination of overzealous regulation and debt-fueled growth is sustainable, then women will be able to consolidate their new found power over the long-term. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
Feminism is not an engine of prosperity–it’s a side effect. Mundy & Rosin may live long enough to see this core truth play out.
Feminism is not an engine of prosperity–it’s a side effect. Mundy & Rosin may live long enough to see this core truth play out.
I think this is very true as well.
Today I wrote this post at Patriactionary: Sanger’s Plan to Enslave Men and Subvert the Family
It includes a video from Infowars explaining how putting women in charge as oppressors is an old historical technique to controlling a group of people.
@Brendan
Spot on. We can also expect the women this is being marketed to to talk about it endlessly, as they are greatly tempted by the idea of being in charge yet perpetually baffled as to why they are so turned off by the prospect of it whenever faced with a concrete option to do so. Mass chasing of tails will ensue, all feeding the media hyped frenzy. Yet, as you suggest, at the end of the day very few women will be able to hold their nose and pull the trigger, and the vast majority of those who do will not be able to stay married.
@ 7man
Yes. In this context, Isaiah 3:12 immeidately comes to mind—and I say that as someone who isn’t religious.
I think there is another angle here that perhaps has not been discussed yet or maybe I just missed it. Is this “newly forgiven” woman going to actually tell the truth about her past, particularly in a place as judgemental as an organized religion? The chances of that are probably about as high as me having won the recent lottery.
I use only my own experience to tell my story. My first “real” high-school girlfriend I met when I was age 16 and she as well. She was sitting at the edge of a pool in a mostly see through white bikini just doing what hot young girls do best. I was the lifeguard at the pool at that time and well, you know how that works. I was in her pants in a matter of I think about three dates. She gave head like someone who had done this LOTS of times before, I didn’t know it at that time but as I got much older I just couldn’t beleive how a girl that young could be so skilled at that age. As time passed people started to say odd things to me, “Why are you dating her?” My reply was a look of confusion. Eventually, someone just said it at a party after some drinking “There is no point in dating her because you can fuck her without any problem without having to make her your girlfriend.” Cognitive dissonance in 3…2…1. In spite of that warning, I did keep her as a girlfriend for a year or so more but the walls are thin in high school so I heard the good, the bad, and the ugly. She had started her carousel adventures at age 13 and had already become rather proficient by 16. She had screwed the maintenance man at her apartment complex when she was 15 he was in his mid-30s. I think you are getting the overall picture here right? She use to come see me BEFORE going to see her new boyfriend because I was the alpha that gave her what she wanted in just the right way every time. He and I lived 2 blocks from each other. I’d warm her up for her time with him. She use to laugh that he would sometimes be getting more than he knew as far as protein when he went down on her. She continued this type of behavior into her 20s. Swapping men with one of my other female friends she would pal around with, threesomes, you know the drill… By her 30s I managed to reconnect with her much later on Facebook. She had “found Jeebus”, which quite frankly, had I lived such a decadent and sinful life I may have wanted to find him to. So now, she chants the party line but let me tell you one thing, I STILL get the really naughty texts from her how her God fearing hard working beta husband “cannot keep up with her” sexually. Do you think for one moment this poor man has any idea that he is married to the Whore of Babylon? Methinks not.
@Canecaldo
“That Bennett article you linked to doesn’t blame men for the books. He blames feminism, and it seemed to me that he was sympathetic towards men, for a change. Actually, I thought the article was pretty even-handed for a hard-core so-con like Bennett.”
I’m in line with Brendan’s thinking here. Even-handed ain’t in his vocabulary. Bennett’s emphasis is still on the cold, soulless, exploitative nature of men and referencing Hanna Rosin as “insightful” (the man could take game lessons from Gilligan) as well as Lena Dunham’s “Girls”. He might have soft-pedaled the hating on men a little (presumably in response to the avalanche of laughter and ridicule his “manning up” piece elicited), but the central theme is still there. We’re still the creators of the “bleaker” sex. It’s still our foul, debased nature that caused these lovelies to fall from their pedestal and he’s still dumb enough to believe that Hanna Rosin isn’t a trite, bigoted female supremacist. He’s still Bill the Buffoon.
“The point is that Bennett is never saying “women are debasing themselves, women are degrading themselves”
Wait a minute, if he’s faithfully representing Dowd’s and Bruni’s sentiments, then they’re the ones who are blaming men. And then he goes on to say this is what we should expect more of feminism.
Anyway, I think many here would describe situations of men degrading women as a positive thing; as the right of a dominant man in his proper role. Roissy and others wrote have written many posts about how “she asked to be degraded, and I earnestly obliged.” That doesn’t mean Roissy didn’t degrade them just because she asked for it. It just means that it was an ethical degrading, if you will. There was no crime.
We ought to be taking this as a good sign–even a crusty old so-con like Bennett had stopped (at least for one article) outright blaming men. To expect him to come out as a MRA is beyond hopeful.
Might be worthy of a fisking: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2125259/I-dated-50-men-months-STILL-didnt-love.html
pb
Thanks for the link. I think I already fisked that with SMP searching costs and the unmourned death of courtship. It is a good thing because I’m all fisked out. Still, she is flat out insane. First she expects us to believe that she is only 38. Seriously? I’d be willing to believe 48. Maybe. We also need a term for women who fail miserably at something and think this makes them an expert (hamster hubris?). She has utterly failed at finding a man, so she writes a book and columns advising women on how to find a man.
“They opt out.”
That has been my observation, particularly post 30, I have two women waiting for me to ‘man up’ and I know if I don’t take the bait they will be life long spinsters or turn lesbian.
Jay in DC, stories like that make me want to pound dirt!
@TFH
Why is it only men that can relate economics to the societal and the sexual?
Oh yeah, it requires future thinking about implications and consequences.
Jeanne-Marie says:
April 3, 2012 at 2:43 pm
@
I am deadly serious. If someone wants a real relationship, they would not waste their time on casual sex, especially with a man that they do not know. What would be the point? It would lead to nothing. Why would women be more willing to have that kind of sex than men? They stand to lose much more than the man given that historically society has looked on casual sex for men as sowing their wild oats; women are considered promiscuous.
I know several promiscuous women who are forever rebounding after the latest sperm donor dumped them. They are always heart broken and asking “why” and I ask them, why are you having sex with guys before you really get to know them…their answer…if I don’t put out, he’ll dump me for someone who will. So in their mind, the girl slut club is forcing their sexual hand if they hope to attract and perhaps keep a guy.
I try to tell them that being easy is not a path to long term commitment, but it requires “faith” to believe being chaste is a path to their goal. Now, of course, because they have large partner counts, they have so degraded themselves in the SMP/MMP, that being a punch board until they hit the wall is the best they can hope for. Cheap easy sex with the CAD of the week at least gets them “I have a boy friend” status…I guess that means something in girl-world!
Brenden,Deti,and dragnet you all have just had a discusion on what I had in mind with the phrase involuntary childless spinsterhood. What you all were discussing was voluntary due to hypergamy combined with policies of misandry. And not neccesarily childless. I just like the idea of making it worse. Stand by Dalrock the MRM will be sending you a bunch of hysterical spinsters. I hope you have something along the lines of eat shit for them. As soon as all of the womens mags go from glorifying getting “re-singled” and sex in the city, to Kate Bolick types. When the articles go to the hysteria of hypergamy fueled spinsterhood and the horror of the marriage to non tingle inspiring beta men we will almost be there. That will be the time go full court press and rub salt in them wounds. It is the young girls that will be most influenced by the spectacle. The sad thing is they are going to pay for their mothers unchecked hypergamy.
“the horror of the marriage to non tingle inspiring beta men”
More men are waking up to the horror of marriage to a woman who lives her life to find fault with him, spend his money, cheat on him and steal his assets.
Which is why, even when they “settle” for a beta … he will alpha-up in some cases and trade up.
A pre-emptive strike against someone of a questionable past with shady intentions and an inability to be honest, is not something I find fault with.
Pingback: One bread, one church. | Dark Brightness
“if I don’t put out, he’ll dump me for someone who will.”
And yet the obvious policy of looking for “dads, not cads” still doesn’t appeal to them. They would rather have the “excitement ” of an alpha cad and have their hearts broken repeatedly, then date a boring old “dad material” guy.
Which yet again proves my point about women: They LIKE the emotional roller coaster of cad dating. They LIKE the wild, crazy sex. And they LIKE the drama. It’s like a damn drug to them. As I said to Dana on another thread:
No other logical explanation: Sluts are sluts ’cause they like being sluts.
Wow, more talking past one another.
Dalrock thinks DarwinCatholic is defending the status quo, which is patently untrue. No traditionalist wants anything to do with the status quo, and from reading Darwin’s post I find this to be clear.
DarwinCatholic on the other hand, thinks Dalrock and Co. are making mountains out of molehills while being unfair to the ladies. This is also patently untrue. The problems are real, and women are not angels.
As someone who is both comfortable with both traditionalist moralism and manosphere pragmatism, I find this particular battle both amusing (its like they’re both firing at straw dummies) and horrifying (because they’re both actually on the same side, facing different trenches).
@greyghost 8:13 pm
„Involutary childless spinsterhood is a resuts of a male birth control pill.”
That won’t be the case. Women can still go to sperm banks if they want to.
@Brendan 8:26 pm
„I would recommend that everyone read the novels of Michel Houllebecq. I have just finished his “The Elementary Particles”, and am preparing a formal review of it.”
I’m eagerly anticipating it. Where will it be posted? This reminds me that I floated the idea of doing a guest post somewhere by reviewing Otto Weininger’s main work.
Without getting overtly political who here thinks that the government can continue to deficit spend and prop up the nonsense? What happens when the wealth reallocation comes to an end in a dramatic and “draconian” fashion? I think it is too easy to be sucked along by the hubris of the feminist, in their paradigm that things will continue on as they always have regardless of the fact that they are kicking out the last props of our civilization. There is going to be a sea-change and this femmo-Marxist edifice is going to come crashing down around all of our ears.
It’ll happen here faster than in Greece, seeing as how we are a much more diverse country with both a widely held sense of entitlement that will be exacerbated by race/cultural/national divisions and a broader range of economic and social expectations (Red/Blue States).
Waiting for the crash……
BTW, bskillet81=Brent
You have class mr dalrock
Promiscuous men “sluts”? How many promiscuous male women do you people know? “Whores”? When’s the last time you actually saw a man sell sex for money?
Why don’t you guys come over to my house for dinner? We’re having pork. Don’t worry,my Jewish and Muslim friends… it’s not pig pork… it’s the kind of pork that comes from chickens!
TFH: “That is why this chart is extremely perilous for women who are heavily propped up by the government (which are far greater in number than they realize).”
From what I can see, most of the jobs that Women do in the private sector are non-essential to the productive bottom-line (at least in terms of the number of people employed) typically in adminastrative positions or working in Goverment or Goverment-funded NGOs all of which will be severely effected when the debt bubble pops. Add to this the number of Women who are either totally dependent on welfare or in part and the problem is HUGE. Add to this the number of Women who rely on income from husbands/ex-husbands/ex-baby-daddy and the problem is even bigger when these Men lose their jobs and can no longer pay.
That’s fine that he doesn’t believe in divorce, but he better hope that divorce doesn’t believe in him. I know a lot of men who walked down the aisle with the “one and done – commitment for life!” attitude, and it hit them hard the day their wife reminded them that commitment is a team sport.
@WillFrom what I can see, most of the jobs that Women do in the private sector are non-essential to the productive bottom-lineWomen work in Human Resources, where their focus is almost entirely on crafting and revising “policies and procedures” ad nauseum. These policies and procedures are usually ignored by the men because they are logically unworkable.
Or they work in Marketing/Sales, where unlike men who work in Marketing, their entire focus is constantly scheduling meetings to make sure “everyone is on the same page,” which prevent the men in Marketing from doing what they want to do: Closing deals.
But occasionally you’ll find a woman, like one I work with, who manages to have a focus on accomplishing real tasks, but at the same time doesn’t sacrifice her femininity by becoming a ball busting feminist. Perhaps not coincidentally, said woman was not born in the West.
And another one gone….
Long time “most stable couple, least likely to divorce”…I learned yesterday that she walked.
She was an athlete big time, winning the city women tennis championship once when she was 7 mos preggers. Fast fwd 20 years, she joins a swim team, they excel….they begin to travel, she trains day and night, well, turns out at night she was REALLY training.
She delivers papers to him over Christmas, abandoned her kids, etc…at least my friend got that.
This is 2 of these in my inner circle, the other woman left with her salsa teacher, for competitive salsa dancing….leaving 2 kids and a husband
and another one gone and another one gone, another one bit the dust
“That won’t be the case. Women can still go to sperm banks if they want to.”
Only if the sperm bank will pay child support and the woman will be seen as a heroic single mom struggling to raise her child will that happen. Even welfare,foodstamps,housing voucher,and exemption from responsibility is good enpough for some women. As long as there is some benefit to mom.
empath:
Just laying bare another false meme peddled by feminism.
Feminism lies that women never, NEVER leave their children. Only the selfish cad of a man dumps his wife and kids for the young hottie.
And so we as a society must affirm, validate and celebrate the “heroic” single mom, trudging onward and ever upward against all odds in Search of a Better Life, and always carrying Hope in Her Heart that Someday her Prince Will Come. (Cue music swell)
I have a friend whose wife left him after 15 years of marriage. They have two kids. She left him and their two sons after things “failed to improve”. She was fine living without her boys for a year. But now that the divorce has gone from very real possibliity to unstoppable juggernaut, she needs money. She asked for and got a court order for primary custody (and the chilimony attendant to it). She’ll get permanent custody of course, to let them remain in school where they are. But of course that’s not why she wants custody of two pain-in-the-ass teenage sons. She needs the cash so she can coop them up in her 2 BR walkup, not so she can actually mother and parent them.
Now is the time when they need to be with their father, mostly because they are boys. But she won’t have it — because she’s all about the f**kin’ money.
@jtsharpe
I suspect to some degree this must be the case.
If you can offer any links to posts of his where he seriously criticizes feminism, I would be in your debt. I don’t mean just the easy stuff, criticizing the new changes feminists are pushing, but criticism of parts of feminism which have become part of mainstream thought. Otherwise I would say you are assuming that Mr. Darwin can’t actually be defending the status quo, he is merely attacking those who are fighting the status quo. And some of his and his wife’s attitudes in my view are downright feminist. This is of course their right, but this is something different than us simply talking past one another. I don’t see any other way to interpret this comment from his wife (even after reading his clarification above), nor his disparagement of women who marry and have children without having first attained a degree and a suitably “interesting” career. Another example would be age of marriage for women. It could well be that Mr. Darwin sees the ever advancing age of marriage for women in this post sexual revolution era as very troublesome. Yet I don’t see him actually writing this, while I see him spending a good deal of his time and energy defending it in his marry a nice girl post. It might be that he is deeply troubled by the ever lengthening gap between age of majority and marriage for women, and simply set that concern aside in order to score debating points in his post. But how can we know if he doesn’t tell us?
This is provably untrue, unless you invoke the “no true scotsman” argument. A very large number of people who present themselves as traditionalists are deeply invested in feminism and the feminist mindset. I’ve shown this repeatedly, with very well known traditional conservatives. Most recently I did this with the Director of Family Formation Studies for Focus On The Family. How many times do I have to do this before the “No traditionalist” argument is invalidated? One would seem enough, but I’ll point out more if you prefer.
I agree we should be on the same side, and I hope it can be the case. But why then did he open fire on us?
IN reference to Dalrock’s at 9:49 am above:
When a tradcon or socon espouses views with some feminism, the feminist is many times quite subtle and difficult to see, I think. Many times this is couched in terms of “equality” and “equal pay for equal work” and that women have as much right to work and have careers as do men.
it also appears in the Christian tradcons’ arguments, many of which seem to be “women are intrinsically good and men are intrinsically bad” and “single moms are heroes, single dads are deadbeats” and “man up and marry the sluts”.
When you express and expose it in the stark terms Dalrock and others use, the feminism becomes clearer. The obfuscation is in the presentation through religion and through absolutes, I think.
“Women can and should work” becomes “these women need something to do while searching for good husbands.”
“Man up and marry the sluts” becomes “who the hell do you think you are, sleeping with your girlfriends! You know it’s wrong! You men have to do what you know is right! The women would not sleep with you unless you were demanding it!”
“Women are better than men” becomes “we all just kinda sorta know that women are good, because they’re gentle, and soft, and nice, and they are all good at fashion and interior decorating, and they just want to ‘nest’ and make good homes, and if you just leave them as they are, women naturally gravtitate to marriage and motherhood. I mean, EVERYONE knows that. Right?”
And: this subtlety has even infected some theology.
Some interpret Eph. 5 (the wife respect, husband love instruction) to mean that the man must love his wife unconditionally. But the woman need not respect her husband until he has EARNED it by his sacrifical love; and the woman is the sole arbiter of whether his sacrificial love is sufficient.
Thus, the faulty thinking goes: Wife is entitled to love. Husband must earn respect.
The talk about reducing women to “reproductive potential” is a feminist talking point that is often mentioned by pseudo-traditionalists (the kind with legged fish icons). I’ve been told by trad women that wanting a younger more fertile woman is “equating women to cows” – that if you don’t pursue 32 year old women, you’re evil. Catholicism teaches that motherhood is the highest natural vocation. Yes, women getting careers, only to marry and then be stay at home mothers, are engaging in dubious ventures. No one cares about a woman playing the French horn, writing grant proposals, or managing theater companies. Those are trivial, dubious ventures. Their education for career has nothing to do with their ability to educate their children, on the contrary, it is liable to interfere with their vocation as mother. There are some women who are genuine artists who are dedicated to their art, but more often than not what’s going on is that these young women are seeking adulation or are being given advantages in getting positions that should go to men. It’s understandable why women go into nursing as a possible career, but I wouldn’t marry a nurse, given the environment they are exposed to. Devout men should be able to marry chaste women giving the best years of their lives to their husbands. And pseudo-traditionalists seem determined to deny that to them. I think we know why. Because they believe devout men aren’t good enough for their best years. They’re good for being beta providers. Seem determined to insist that men should be content with “repentant” aging women of declining fertility. I don’t know why they think like that, but it is absolutely certain those views are totally non-traditional. Ostensibly religious women need to be judged by their actions, not their pretenses of commitment to traditionalism. Although their words, more often than not, expose their real priorities.
When a man works in a career to support a family – the reason he does it IS for the family. What is the reason women go into careers? To prove they are talented? To take advantage of a system that is geared towards promoting women at the expense of men? To make daddy proud?
If a woman wants to be a Catholic mother that raises her children in the home, what is the value of seeking a career? A man in seeking a career has the goal of supporting a family. It’s pretty clear, the women are eschewing family, and in all likelihood, in most cases, regardless of what they claim, they are eschewing Christian sexual morality as well. When a man seeks a career it is absolutely in harmony with and directed towards the support of a family. When a woman does it, it is absolutely opposed to it, directly in her own case, and indirectly in the opportunities she is denying to men.
@deti
And: this subtlety has even infected some theology.
Some theology? I have always posited that churches (all of them) are feminist organizations (even strongholds) for a number of reasons which would require multiple blog posts. To that end, feminism has for most part thoroughly infected all theology and practice thereof, rendering much of the current theology impotent (the churchy word for that is apostate).
A short example out of many is the false feminist gospel that pervades most churches today. The original call to discipleship in Jesus, deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me (Matthew 16:24-27) is non-existent. What Jesus meant by “Follow me” brings to mind more the stuff that you see in martial arts films between students and masters than what you hear and see in churches today.
That’s been replaced with such feminist diatribe as having a “personal relationship” with Jesus, having an “intimate relationship” with Jesus, or the most gut-turning is having a “love affair” with Jesus. In other words, this is the “Jesus is my boyfriend” garbage that many are spewing forth. Despite making a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-12), this accomplishes the goals of many of redefining God to be like men (Psalm 50:21) and enabling sins such as redefining marriage to be an acceptable thing, and allows the unregenerate (both men and women, but especially women) an avenue to defend themselves against those that might know what they are about (the willful deception of the Darwii, Driscoll, and Glenn Stanton for instance), and even redefine doctrine as described above.
And to that end, this redefinition of self, others, and God (which no man or woman has the right to do) is the evil of feminism. Any church or person that partakes in it is not a follower of Christ.
empathologicalism says:
April 5, 2012 at 8:15 am
And another one gone….
@
I could go on and on with stories of this sort …it’s almost always the same… Cupcake meets Mr makes-me-tingle, abandons everything to satisfy her moist panty problem, gets pumped-n-dumped and comes crawling back or worse storming back with a lawyer in tow.
What always stuns me is the willingness of stupid guys to take her back.
I’ve known a small handful of guys who were smart enough to keep their head about things; they allowed cupcake to chase her new sperm donor, got her to sign off on houses, kids, etc while she was still in the afterglow of her latest romp.
In one case, the shunned hubby became friends with the new guy, and after he dumped her…and they always do…the hubby and cad hung out sharing graphic lewd stories about cupcake at the local watering hole they all frequent, to the eternal annoyance of cupcake…LOL
Question…if the guys who banged you got together and hoisted beers toasting your slutiness, would you, as a women, continue to frequent that pub??? (she did)…hahahaha
When a man works in a career to support a family – the reason he does it IS for the family. What is the reason women go into careers?
Because some idiot somewhere along the line told them that being in the career world is “glamorous” and “exciting,” when in fact, quite frankly, it’s pretty damn taxing, stressful, and unpleasant. I say this as someone who works in the “glamorous” financial markets and is considered relatively successful in my career, for my age. It has it’s fun times, but it ain’t that great.
Ive had to defend myself many times because I claim to be tradcom. Thats sad, but not because the men in the manosphere are paranoid, rather its because its painfully easy to see the useful idiots and separate them from the clear thinkers. Tradcoms who are still gynocentric just hide the water damage under the doily then yak about the fullness of the glass.
These are the hardest to convince. When they fall prey to the system they then become powerful mens advocates, but must have to suffer, personally, before they can see anything. It must be especially hard to do so together with a wife. I know it would be for me, as mush as we see eye to eye and there is clearly way way more we agree than not, we could not share space on blogs long before we were accentuating the disagreements, which would be revealed because the man gets caught between defending the wife and agreeing or disagreeing with other men.
Or, the guy may just be a typical tradcom gynocentrist and I wasted the space above
jtsharpe
Traditionalism today is enabling feminism and hypergaming. The church has become pleasing to man and not pleasing to god. Does the church want real marriage and relationships or does it want to be able to label itself as traditional with out any reguards to reality. DC may not be be in support of the status quo in his belief of his actions. His actions of keeping up the appearance moral tradition is not only supporting the status quo but gives it a false christian indorsement.
Bill Bennet has openly blamed men for a book written by a woman raed and purchased by women that when read fails to properly pedistalize women in it’s story line. But rather than actually trying to understand why women are atracted to 50 Shades of Grey he keeps up appearances of his traditional stature and blames men.
Does the church want real marriage and relationships or does it want to be able to label itself as traditional with out any reguards to reality
The “church” wants tithes. Two-thirds to three-fourths of all active church members, regardless of denomination, are women. They’re just playing the numbers.
“The Greeks got the Gospel and turned it into philosophy. The Romans got the Gospel and turned it into government. The Europeans got the Gospel and turned it into a culture. The Americans got the Gospel and turned it into a business.”
To clarify something I wrote above in light of what has been said here: Traditional/social conservatives are indeed mostly feminist and except for the abortion plank march in lockstep with their secular feminist counterparts. The only substantial difference is the language that each uses to express the feminist tenets and designs. Deti gives some wonderful examples of such language.
Deti: Do you mind if I send you an email to the address associated with your most recent comment? If you prefer another address don’t post it but include it in the email field with a comment indicating your approval to be contacted (so it isn’t public). I’ll double check your IP first to make sure someone else isn’t pretending to be you. If you aren’t ok being contacted, that is of course fine and no reply is required.
@greyghost
Does the church want real marriage and relationships or does it want to be able to label itself as traditional with out any reguards to reality.
In the minds of most traditional church-goers, the establishment mindset is “traditional”, whether it passes the litmus test of the Bible or not. As was stated, availability of funding is one of the major factors behind the definition of what “traditional” means. To that end, most of them want “real marriage and relationships”, they just don’t want BIblical real marriage and relationships. This is especially proven by their crying over the “sanctity of marriage” when it comes to homosexual marriage, yet denying the deviation from the Bible regarding redefinition of marriage gender roles, the rampant existence of frivolous divorce within their ranks, and the rampant promiscuity (fornication & adultery) within all the ranks.
When a man works in a career to support a family – the reason he does it IS for the family. What is the reason women go into careers?
Women abandoned home and hearth for careers, in order to “find fulfillment” like men. They never bothered to ask men, if careers are actually fulfilling. LOL! Overwhelmingly, most men say, “No!” Careers finance fulfillment, only in rare cases are the careers fulfilling in themselves. Duh.
@buck
Laughable. Thanks for sharing.
@Brent
Do you have the source of that amazing quote?
“Women abandoned home and hearth for careers, in order to “find fulfillment” like men.”
We both know what that “fulfillment” consists of. Financial independence isn’t about buying what she wants to buy, it’s about freedom to have sex with someone other than a provider.
@imnobody
The late Biblical scholar Dr. Richard Halvorsen said or wrote that somewhere. Can’t find the exact book, but it’s been quoted in other books and sources. Exact quote (I tried to re-produce it from memory) is:
[D: This page states that it is from “Richard Halverson, quoted in Reimagining Church by Frank Viola”.]
@Joe Sheehy
I don’t think it is always about sexual empowerment. I don’t doubt that some are remaining virgins until marriage. No doubt some of those virgins til marriage career women really were passing the time until they found the right husband. For many others however I think it is clear it is about establishing one’s girlpower/moxie credentials. It is an exercise in separating herself from those wives and mothers “whose only accomplishments are long hair, lack of makeup and prairie skirts”.
But why then did he open fire on us?
They generally open fire, in my opinion, because they have not swallowed the red pill. They have “traditional values”, but unfortunately they also have, in many cases, Victorian or neo-Victorian views about women themselves. This is why you have various of them saying things along the lines that women are more moral than men, more finished than men, ore civilized than men, less problematic than men and so on — and that it is men who are degrading women, rather than women degrading themselves. This is why you have the hero-ization of the single mother by trad cons — again, women are good, it’s just that some creepy man didn’t man up to his obligations. Remember, the Victorians were very, very, very pro-woman, almost to the point of it being referred to, at times, as “woman worship” (not in fetishistic terms, of course, but in moralistic terms. It’s this same mentality that flows like a relentless, stormy river through most social conservative thought about women and issues between women and men. Their dislike for feminism, therefore, is not based on the reality that it enables women to act on their base desires, but rather that it prevents/discourages women from being the “better half” of the species that socons see them as being — that it basically forces women to act in ways that are not natural to them.
The red pill view has none of this. Red pillers see women for being what they are: creatures of their own devices and desires just like men are. Women are not better than men morally, nor more finished, more civilized, more mature, more serious — they are creatures of their own devices and desires who simply act out on these differently than the way men act out on their own. And, because we live in a culture that both (1) perpetuates the neo-Victorian idea that women are in many ways “men’s betters” while at the same time (2) freeing up women to act on their own base natures without calling them on it (see (1)), many of the red pillers in the manosphere focus on calling women out for their own shit. After all, no-one else is doing so, not least of which the social conservatives and traditionalists — sure, they criticize “feminism” as an ideology, but almost never criticize what women, as a sex, are actually *doing* in the wake of feminism, while being perfectly comfortable criticizing men as a sex for any number of reasons. They see such criticisms of women’s behavior as a sex in the wake of feminism as “misogyny” — mostly because it refuses to give women “their due respect” per the neo-Victorian view which keeps cropping up again and again in various social and traditional conservative commentaries on these topics. They repeatedly blame men, men and more men, and “feminist ideology”, rather than women themselves, for the bad behaviors being exhibited by women.
From the perspective of the neo-Victorianism that plagues these groups, this must be true — because women are not intrinsically this way, only men are. Women are good, therefore, and are only being “debased and degraded” by men (per Bennett) or leaving intrinsically good women in the lurch as single mothers (per Stanton). In this view, because women are not intrinsically like this, anything they are doing that is discomfiting must be because the”badness” that is in men has somehow seeped out and infected our pure women, and the catalyst for this is the evil ideology of feminism. A red piller, by contrast, sees feminism as simply empowering and enabling the very dark side that exists in every woman, and doesn’t see how pointing this out, particularly in a culture which resolutely refuses to do so, is in any way misogynist, but is instead simply realist.
Right, I don’t mean to suggest all women go into careers in order to have sexual freedom. What I think is clear is that the underlying motivation of feminism has always been sexual “fulfillment” of women, and that the motivations for delaying marriage are ultimately about that fulfillment. The young woman who speaks of the feeling of being “left behind” being deadly? What is that really a reference to? Can we really think that going to work is so “exciting”? Feeling as though they are socially important, which means, more than anything else, being able to get attention from high status men.
“sure, they criticize “feminism” as an ideology, but almost never criticize what women, as a sex, are actually *doing* in the wake of feminism, while being perfectly comfortable criticizing men as a sex for any number of reasons.”
Yes! Even when it comes to abortion, it’s the same. “Abortion hurts women.” As though they aren’t responsible for it.
@brent
Thank you Brent for your answer. Great quote. I will find more about Dr. Richard Halvorsen.
@dalrock
For many others however I think it is clear it is about establishing one’s girlpower/moxie credentials.
It is also an exercise of hypergamy. Going to the career route means knowing men of highest calibre and refusing to accept men who earn less than them.
So, in summary, there are four causes (who can be combined or not):
1) Having sex with hot alphas
2) The “you go, girl”/moxie/pride (I am valid. I am a strong independent woman).
3) Getting better men in the office environment (“the Cosmopolitan effect”) and increasing their expectations about men .
4) The herd/classist mentality. It’s what every other girl (in their environmnent) is doing. Only low-class girls don’t go to college and have careers.
Not all women may want to ride the carousel, but if they’re delaying marriage and interacting with other modern women in the work-place, they are carousel watchers. Women watch soap operas, and they enter the workplace for the same reason.
Dalrock: Sure. send me an email at any time. you may use the one in the email field that I customarily use.
[D: Thanks.]
“Women watch soap operas, and they enter the workplace for the same reason.”
I’m talking about the professional white collar work force, or nursing, any sort of job where a woman’s job is basically catering to high status men (that includes music).
Dalrock,
I don’t mean just the easy stuff, criticizing the new changes feminists are pushing, but criticism of parts of feminism which have become part of mainstream thought.
Okay, here’s the problem with your demand. You are essentially asking the man to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Here’s the thing. Feminism did not pop out of the void full-grown like Athena, as much as these moronic feminists wish it were the case. As it stands, feminism borrowed a lot of ideas, and a good chunk of these came from old Western traditions. Feminism, to the traditionalist mind, is not an invading army of ideas. It is a corruption of many good and noble things. A traditionalist will criticize the corruption, but not the ideas that were taken and corrupted.
Now, I can already hear the screaming “ahhhh, traditionalist = feminist! ahhhhh!!!”, which pretty much happened the last time I tried to explain this. This is patently untrue, because Feminism wrenched these ideas out of their context and lobotomized them in the service of ideology. Feminism is only interchangeable with Traditionalism if you’re willing to accept that a zombie is interchangeable with a human being. Take for example, that comment you “don’t see any other way to interpret”. You see mrsdarwin standing up for the achievements of the sisterhood, because you’ve never seen any other way to stand up for the achievements of women other than in the context of feminist cheer-leading. Mrsdarwin’s remark, on the other hand, would not be out of place in the 13th century, where a nun can browbeat a Pope to come back and take his rightful seat as ruler of Rome, or where the work of women as scholars and administrators were highly regarded. The difference is that women then understood the sexual contract. If they wanted a family, they had to sacrifice. (Those scholars and administrators were mostly celibate nuns.) Even a queen knew that the king was entitled to his romp in the hay. Now, feminism has taken the “strong woman” and discarded the sexual contract, with disastrous results. Expect the traditionalist to shoot at the discarding of the sexual contract, but don’t expect him to shoot at the “strong woman”, who may well have just as easily been a mother ruling a brood of seven in his imagination as she is a feminazi bitch in yours.
As for Mr. Stanton, if he were a traditionalist, does he cite Thomas Aquinas in his work? Church Fathers? Any Councils in there? Lateran? Nicaea? Any Doctors of the Church in there? Or does his “traditionalism” find its home in the 50’s, which was about as traditional as the 80’s was disco? This isn’t a “no true Scotsman” argument. The traditionalism that animates DC has far deeper intellectual, spiritual and historical roots than the laughable simulacra that Mr. Stanton is bandying around. If you’ve read Mark Richardson’s “Oz Consevative”, you should be able to recognize Mr. Stanton as a “right liberal”, rather than as a traditionalist conservative. Heck, even Bill Bennett is a “right liberal”. In the church of liberalism, “right liberals” are mere heretics. We traditionalists are apostates.
But why then did he open fire on us?
For the same reason you open fire indiscriminately at traditionalists. A huge misunderstanding.
And don’t say that isn’t true. I got howled down the last time I commented here defending traditionalism. Both you and DC can’t hear the other over the machine gun staccato.
@Dalrock
[D: This page states that it is from “Richard Halverson, quoted in Reimagining Church by Frank Viola”.]Yeah, it is also in Viola’s book Pagan Christianity. I don’t recommend Viola’s theology. Also well, he’s a feminist WhiteKnightMangina, but I love that quote. As a former church treasurer, I can confirm it has some validity. Privately, our pastor talked to me about how we needed to do evangelism to “grow our offerings base.”
“A red piller, by contrast, sees feminism as simply empowering and enabling the very dark side that exists in every woman, and doesn’t see how pointing this out, particularly in a culture which resolutely refuses to do so, is in any way misogynist, but is instead simply realist.”
Yes. There is a difference between (1) hating female nature; and (2) accurately viewing and understanding female nature and simply reporting those views and understandings in a cogent, matter of fact manner.
Identifying and reporting female nature is not equivalent to “hating” that female nature — except, perhaps, to those who might wish to see its concealment and obfuscation continue.
Feminism, to the traditionalist mind, is not an invading army of ideas. It is a corruption of many good and noble things.
In fact, feminism (and in fact, all liberalism) is the logical conclusion of theological development of Puritan thought. The development goes like this:
Protestant reform -> Puritanism -> Great Awakenings -> Temperance movement -> Suffragettes -> Second-wave feminism
Every step adds something that we associate with feminism. The Protestant reform devalued celibacy as a worthy goal for men. The Great Awakenings brought a religion of feeling and personal relationship with Jesus and rules were jettisoned. Temperance movements tried to further women’s sexual interests against men’s sexual interests (men should not go to bars and prostitutes, because they should be working to feed women and kids).
The first feminists were women in church. Methodism was especially active.
For mainstream Protestant conservatives, feminism is like the son who misbehaves. They don’t approve it but it is part of the family. With exception of abortion, belief in God, Church’s attendance and gay marriage, it is hard to distinguish between an evangelical and a feminist. Protestantism is the moderate wing of the pedestalization movement and feminism the radical wing.
I have written more about the pedestalization movement here
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/why-a-womans-age-at-time-of-marriage-matters-and-what-this-tells-us-about-the-apex-fallacy/#comment-13039
The 50s were far more traditional than today. The departure of the last 50 years is not a matter of changing music styles. As for feminism being based on traditional ideas. No. It’s based on a liberal rejection of traditional authority, in particular, inside the family. Not on equality.
Professor Mentu says:
April 5, 2012 at 7:33 am
That’s fine that he doesn’t believe in divorce, but he better hope that divorce doesn’t believe in him. I know a lot of men who walked down the aisle with the “one and done – commitment for life!” attitude, and it hit them hard the day their wife reminded them that commitment is a team sport.
In bold, the money quote of the day.
Tradcons say they haven’t forgot that, but their actions say different.
deti said:
April 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm
“Most women don’t perceive or experience this as a “normal” phase in their committed relationships, but rather as an indication that something is wrong, indeed *very* wrong, with the relationship, perhaps to the point of being irreparable.”
…
“Marriage is not supposed to be like this. If I am unhaaappy or things are hard, it is because I have married the wrong person.”
And I have found one who admits in print that she was wrong to think that at
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/marry-divorce-reconcile/201011/amazing-grace
When she found she was unhappy with the new ‘soul mate’ she found out why, and reconciled with her husband.
@imnobody
You’re actually forgetting to go all the way back to Bernard of Clairvaux, when Christian doctrine began to be overwhelmingly explained and grounded in metaphors based on eros love. Podles discusses this in The Church Impotent, which I am currently reading.
As for the reformation, Luther specifically tended to be a counter force against this eros phenomenon. His confrontational style, and his emphasis on struggle (“man between God and the Devil”), and his tendency to make use of the concept of tension to deal with seemingly contradictory texts, was more masculine than feminine. Of course, it didn’t stick within Protestantism, for whatever reason. Despite the fact that I attend a Presbyterian church, I’ve always been a bit skeptical of Calvin. As opposed to Luther’s aggressiveness, assertiveness, strength, and emphasis on existential struggle, Calvin comes across as quite bland and mild and therefore, in my mind, more feminine.
@imnobody
Also, Eastern Christianity does not require priestly celibacy, but Eastern Orthodox Churches are more equally male and female, with maybe slightly more males. On the other hand, Western churches–both Protestant and Catholic–are overwhelmingly female.
UK Fred:
Good story of the author’s divorcing her husband, marrying a second man, then divorcing him and remarrying her first husband.
Can’t think of anything more beta than accepting back into my life a wife who left me for another man. I’m pretty sure Mrs. deti wanting a divorce because she’d met her “soul mate” would be crossing the Rubicon for me. I don’t think I’d take her back.
To accept her back would also be adultary on your part if I recall
JTsharpe:
The traditionalism that animates DC has far deeper intellectual, spiritual and historical roots than the laughable simulacra that Mr. Stanton is bandying around. If you’ve read Mark Richardson’s “Oz Consevative”, you should be able to recognize Mr. Stanton as a “right liberal”, rather than as a traditionalist conservative. Heck, even Bill Bennett is a “right liberal”. In the church of liberalism, “right liberals” are mere heretics. We traditionalists are apostates.
—————————————————————————-
Oh
Far deeper intellectual roots, and no doubt things are better…..if…..they are older. I don’t care what you call it, the debate isnt about nomenclature, nor are any debates of consequence, so fiddling about with nomenclature as a form of self promotion is not really relevant.
He could be saying “the vorvgh isnt flarb enough”, and if the context sufficiently isoltes whats referred to by vorvgh and flarb, the statement is either true, or not, based on solely whats contained within it and what it means, regardless if in the 12th century a vorvgh may have been a chamber pot and a flarb is a modern term meaning the hair cut from the ear lobe.
Now, other than pointing out that some folks don’t really know what a traditionalist is, and that feminism corrupted the good ideas that made strong women….what’s your point? I happen to completely disagree and dont see the two as separable, that which is wrong with the so called strong woman is also wrong with feminism and the reverse is also true.
“Feel free to suggest your own euphemisms in the comments section (here) so DC can consider them for his commenting policy.”
H. L. Mencken wrote about the type of women who, according to him, “played heavily with love before giving up as a bad job.”
By the way, you should read this, Dalrock: Feminism and Female Suffrage. The problem faced by Elusive Wapiti and others, concerning the sex-favoritism we see today in the courtrooms, are not a new phenomenon at all.
@ Myself
Also, Eastern Christianity does not require priestly celibacyApparently I was wrong on this assertion. I stand erected.
jtsharpe
You see mrsdarwin standing up for the achievements of the sisterhood, because you’ve never seen any other way to stand up for the achievements of women other than in the context of feminist cheer-leading. Mrsdarwin’s remark, on the other hand, would not be out of place in the 13th century, where a nun can browbeat a Pope to come back and take his rightful seat as ruler of Rome, or where the work of women as scholars and administrators were highly regarded.
It is axiomatic that a difference that is no real difference, is not a difference.
Here is an example:
You are saying that the modern number 13 is so very, very different from the Roman
numeral XIII or for that matter, the combination of letters that spells “thirteen”. But it does not matter what you label it, the integer greater than “12” and less than “14” exists no matter what you call it. The number is independent of the name or label.
A “difference” that is actually not a difference, is no real difference.
Mrs. Darwin’s “You Go, Girls!” may be couched in slightly different words than, say,
Gloria Steinem’s version, but the actions turn out to be the same: young women feeding their hypergamy and adding yearly another ten bullet points to their 400+ point “must have” requirements for a suitor to meet. In those rare cases where such a woman actually does not engage in sex, the damage is less, but it is still there. “Career first, marriage when I feel like it” is the motto of a carousel rider, or a carousel watcher, not of a woman who actually wants to be married “one and done”. So all this really means is Mrs. Darwin’s rationalization hamster knows a few phrases in Latin. It is the same, otherwise, as any other critter running in the wheel.
And that is the heart of the matter. Game has taught me to pay more attention to the actions of a woman than to her words. Because the actions tell the truth. If she says that she really is waiting for a Good Man who is a Nice Guy but in the mean time she’s riding Harley McBadboy’s motor scooter on a regular basis, I ignore the words and pay attention to the actions. Traditional Conservatives then will predictably vituperate me for “hating women” because I was sooo much a He Man Woman Hater as to ignore her honeyed words.
The same principle applies to you tradcons. Your words say “I Oppose Feminism” but your actions and your inaction say “I Support Feminism”. And you demand, over and over again, that we ignore the many ways in which you provide support for feminism (tacitly, passively or actively) & focus only on your honeyed words. It’s not working. The mask has not only slipped, it fell down onto y’alls neck and is dangling by a thread. We can see that gynocentrism has many names, but the effects upon men are always the same.
And please spare us yet another round of “That’s No True Scotsman, Only Me And My Friends In The Back Booth At Denny’s Are The True Scotsmen!”. It is really getting old. Really, really old.
Time for an analogy.
Suppose a serious wildfire was burning, like the one in central Texas a while back. Houses are going up up smoke across the landscape. People are doing what they can to save their property, their livestock, themselves and their neighbors. Men are leaving their houses to go run the volunteer fire department pumpers. Men are loaning chainsaws to neighbors in order to help them get trees and brush cleared away from buildings. Women are helping neighbors to get children and older people away to safety just in case.
And what are the tradcons doing? They are sitting, snug and smug, in their gated community. If anyone comes and asks them for help, or tries to warn them of the wildfire in the county, the reply is the same: “We are OPPOSED to wildfire! Good day to you!”. They won’t lift a finger to assist a neighbor, and smugly insist that they are not in any danger from fire.
And they wonder why some of their neighbors don’t much care for them anymore…
Time for a second analogy.
Because the divorce machine is not a natural disaster, like wildfire. It is more like someone deliberately setting a fire.
So let’s say that Mr. and Mrs. Tradcon live across the street from Dr. Smith, who teaches at the local junior college. And next door to the Tradcons lives a cranky bachelor named Mr. Ghow. One night, there’s a loud clamor from the Smith’s place. A gang of young and middle aged men who are angry at Smith are bashing up his car in the driveway, with hammers, tire irons and they are getting out a Sawzall. Meanwhile, their girlfriends and a couple of middle aged men are pouring gasoline into buckets, and yelling “Be sure to douse the front door! Be sure to douse all the windows!” to each other.
Mr. Ghow steps into his yard, and sees what’s going on. He looks next door, and sees Mr. and Mrs. Tradcon on their front doorstep. “Hey! Neighbors! Look what’s going on! We have to stop them!”. The Tradcons make no response, they just stand there, staring. Mr. Ghow becomes impatient. “Damn it, can’t you see what is going to happen? Those a$$holes and their sluts are going to burn out our neighbor!”.
With these words, Mrs. Tradcon stiffens, glares at Mr. Ghow and spits out “Well! We certainly don’t have to associate with anyone who uses that kind of language. Do we, Mr. Tradcon?” and she turns on her heel & stomps back into the house. Mr. Tradcon stands first on one foot, then on the other, his hands in his pockets. From inside the house comes a screech, “Are you coming inside, dear?”, and Mr. Tradcon turns to go inside. He stops, looks at Mr. Ghow and, shaking his finger, says “You shouldn’t use that kind of language around the ladies! It’s not right. It’s not manly . You should man up and be nicer to women. And for the record, we are OPPOSED to arson of an occupied house!”. Then Mr. Tradcon goes in his house and slams the door, while Mrs. Tradcon draws shut all the drapes so that she does not have to run the risk of seeing something that is sure to offend her, like Mr. Ghow.
So the Tradcons have abandoned Dr. Smith to his fate. It’s up to Mr. Ghow to save his neighbor. And he can count on Mr. and Mrs. Tradcon to heap abuse on him however things turn out.
I fear that my analogies may be too obscure for our tradcon readers. So I’ll offer a third.
Once a man was set upon by divorce thieves. He was badly hurt, emotionally, and beaten up in the process of his false arrest for DV and time in jail. He was left by the side of the road, with a few belongings in a gym bag, and no money. A Tradcon came along and seeing him, crossed to the other side of the road in order to hurry by so as not to be late for Mass. Later on, another Tradcon came along, saw him, stopped and said, “You should man up, and get better!”, then hurried on to get to church. Later still, another Tradcon came by, looked at the man, and said, “What did you do to her? You must have done something really bad to her! You need to stop hating women”, and then hurried away to his world-wide ministry devoted to protecting marriage.
Then down the street came a middle aged man in worn jeans and a denim jacket. He was a righteously angry man, from Samaria. The Tradcons always crossed the street to avoid him, and refused to even look at him. This man stopped, and looked down at the beaten man, and said, “I know what happened to you. And I can help you deal with it. Let me help you up. No, I’ll carry your stuff for you. C’mon, there’s a diner down the block. No, no, you don’t need money, I’m buying”. The two men went to the diner, where the beaten man cleaned up in the bathroom. Then he got the first hot meal he’d had in weeks. Once he had eaten, his benefactor said to him, “Ok, now, before we talk, you need to put these on” as he took a pair of plain, black, plastic rimmed glasses out of his pocket…
Tradcons: of all those who saw the beaten man, which one actually did something to help him?
Anonymous Reader – “Once a man was set upon by divorce thieves. He was badly hurt, emotionally, and beaten up in the process of his false arrest for DV and time in jail. He was left by the side of the road, with a few belongings in a gym bag, and no money.”
Kinda sounds like you might be describing this poor guy, a good Christian man, who did his best to be faithful to God and family.
@Anon Reader
Brilliant.
Kinda sounds like you might be describing this poor guy, a good Christian man, who did his best to be faithful to God and family.
All I can say, after reading that, is that there is a reason the Torah required certain people to be stoned to death. That’s all I have to say about that.
Nice one AR (x 3).
The trouble is, they don’t understand because they’re too mentally weak to handle the truth and they know it, so they just go into denial.
What I really can’t forgive them for, though, is encouraging more men under the bus. That’s unforgiveable. Surely the bible is against it?
@AR
Absolutely spot on. That is exactly why I criticise the Church (all denominations) for being too nice but not sufficiently good.
@Deti
While her husband might be too Beta for your taste, the fact that she realised she had made a mistake and was prepared to admit it privately and publicly, and to try prevent others from making the same mistake, to point out the evidence of the damage that divorce does makes her a far better person than some of the women on, say, CF, who simply say that it does not matter what Scripture says, I will listen to my own feelings because my god does not want me to be unhaaaapy. In the series, I particulartly liked the article, “How I Got My Ex Back: The ‘Oh Sh*t’ moment…”
And for the slow learners regarding divorce theft:
“Comment of the Week: A Life Not Worth Living”
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/04/05/comment-of-the-week-a-life-not-worth-living/
Never mind the comment stream, it’s just bitter woman haters. But I challenge anyone to read the essay by commenter “walking in hell”, then tell me there’s no real big problems facing men who marry in the US at this time. I dare traditional conservatives to read this essay, and justify what has been done to this man. Go ahead. Explain yourselves. Use as many words as you want, include all the Latin you need.
But explain why you won’t life a finger to do a single thing for men like this.
Anonymous Reader
That story from the Spearhead is why I am an MRA. I may not be as effective as the next guy on blogs as a commenter. I have no large pool of money or political power. But I am a father and I walk daily with a cocked gun misandry to my head. I will always do the best I can to see to it my son doesn’t live the life of any western man today.
But explain why you won’t life a finger to do a single thing for men like this.
I hope Dalrock doesn’t mind me linking to my own new blog, but it is precisely for this reason that I am starting a blog that will serve as a place to confront and educate the Christian community, and to support Christian men like this who have been so victimized.
Christian Men’s Defense Network
My hope is eventually to have this as a multi-contributor blog that also has more I depth articles and a forum for Christian men to discuss these issues.
[D: I don’t mind at all. Get a few more posts up, and once you have one that you think “Dalrock’s audience really needs to see this one” leave another link in the comments as well.]
@AR
And for the slow learners regarding divorce theft:
“Comment of the Week: A Life Not Worth Living”
This made my blood boil. But as DC says,
Sure, there are a lot of badly behaved women in the world. The solution, from my point of view, is simply to not marry women like that and move on. Why spend all one’s time winding oneself up about women in general? After all, we each only need one.
and
“this does not affect me much because I don’t believe in divorce in the first place” (so much for loving the neighbor in traditional Catholic doctrine).
So why are you so bitter? You only have to not believe in divorce and to find a good Catholic woman who doesn’t believe in divorce. It’s easy.
“this does not affect me much because I don’t believe in divorce in the first place”
I guess this is what was in mind when the phrase “burying your head in the sand” was coined.
@jtsharpe
My disagreement with the Darwii on educated/career women isn’t that women shouldn’t be educated and have careers. As I’ve written before I’m fine with that*. Some women were born to be CEOs; more power to them. What I disagree with is the extremely feminist not to mention snobbish idea that women who choose to become wives and mothers without a formal degree and suitably impressive career are lesser for having done so. I’m all but certain that doesn’t come from Thomas Aquinas.
*With the caveat that they shouldn’t be given special treatment and that no one should run around shaming men who elect not to marry such women if they don’t wish to. Women should have the right to make their own life choices but so should men. I also think there is something extremely wasteful with large numbers of women pushing equally large numbers of men out of professional tracks only to abandon the profession once they have their feminist merit badge. For some women it merely worked out that way, they changed their mind and decided to become a full time wife and mother. I’m not referring to them, but the ones who did so deliberately to avoid being seen as just another housewife whose only accomplishment is to have long hair and wear prairie skirts.
It surprises me that in an argument like this between chistians about what is – in fact – a point of doctrine, no-one is quoting the Bible, no-one is referring to the promulgations of dogma by the church. Surely shutting down pro-slut christians is as simple as demonstrating that the writings that the my believe in specifically contradict their positions?
I mean – you’re a catholic, right? So is DC? Isn’t fornication mortal sin, i.e.: you got to permanent hell, not purgatory? Don’t you actually have to repent to be absolved from sin? It doesn’t just come automatically from doing penance, etc? What kinds of penance are these sexually promiscuous women doing, anyway?
Isn’t that what the catholic religion more or less revolves around? It just seems damn strange that your religion doesn’t inform the argument between you two beyond a general attitude-ness.
What I disagree with is the extremely feminist not to mention snobbish idea that women who choose to become wives and mothers without a formal degree and suitably impressive career are lesser for having done so.
I saw that in a documentary about Hassidism in the History Channel. There was a girl who has got out from Hassidism and was being helped by the Footsteps organization to become secular. She said: “Hassidic women don’t want to do anything important. They only want to be wives and mothers”.
I wondered: “What important thing this girl is going to accomplish? To discover the vaccine against cancer? To write “the new American novel”? To end gangs fights in New York? I guess nothing of this. Why working as a cubicle slave shuffling papers is so important? I have a good job (and I have been somewhat important in my country) but I don’t think this is more important than having a family.
OT: I have come from Mass in this important day. I’m glad I don’t live in America so the homily has not been a feminism speech but a Catholic sermon.
To be accurate: I don’t have anything against this girl thinking her future job will be important. But I don’t share her assessment of the mother role being unimportant.
There’s a lot that goes into it Paul Murray, but essentially, it comes down to women telling men they have no right to judge a “repentant woman.” What doesn’t seem to compute, is that they those women have no right to insist that men disregard their sexual histories, or to deceive men who would marry them about their pasts.
Traditionally, yes, Catholics men generally would have expected to be able to marry young Catholic maidens who were virgins. There was a time when if a woman lied about it before marriage the marriage could be annulled. What the white knights and the femitrads tell us is that the modern girls are delaying marriage while maintaining their purity. And if not we have to believe them when they tell us they’re truly repentant, and “forgive” them. As though believing someone in someone’s good faith, that they are truly contrite means you have a moral fault if you refuse to marry them. As though being in a state of grace means she’s as good as virginal again. While no one would deny that is possible for young women to delay marriage and remain virgins, you’d have to be extremely naive to believe that’s what’s generally happening, no matter how traditional the girl’s family. And of course, that naivety, and the naivety of believing that the girl your with is the exception, is what lets them get away with it. And of course, anyone who mentions this will be hated.
I fear that my analogies may be too obscure for our tradcon readers. So I’ll offer a third.
They’re not too obscure, Mr. Reader. They just all miss the mark.
Its not a “no true Scotsman” argument. There really are different kinds of traditionalist (because, you know, there is more than one tradition). Roissy, for example, in his latest post about when to call women out, uses the term “traditionalist” in a different manner than how he usually uses it. (In this case, the traditionalist is the he-man who slaps a bitch around, when the usual depiction is the guy who thinks everything women do is precious).
What I disagree with is the extremely feminist not to mention snobbish idea that women who choose to become wives and mothers without a formal degree and suitably impressive career are lesser for having done so.
I read the comment you object to. It seems not so much that mrsdarwin is objecting to women who become wives and mothers with no degree, but rather to the notion that women doing anything else is “unsuitable”. While I have some reservations over this (I agree with you that women nowadays do take jobs from more competent men), it is not entirely unreasonable. After all, St. Catherin of Siena browbeating the Pope took nothing away from Papal authority. Joan of Arc did not displace any French generals. In the traditionalist mind, for as long as the sexual / social contract is in place, momentary female participation in the res publica enhances, not diminishes, and complements, not displaces, male authority.
There is also a celebratory element. Believe me, the woman who stays at home is common enough in traditionalist circles to be practically banal. But women who eschew the route of grrl power independence to become stay-at-home mothers (the examples cited in mrsdarwin’s comment) are seen as triumphs. I remember Brendan commenting on Oz Con that the traditionalist mindset is a “hard sell” to the modern, financially independent woman. These women for whom the message got through is, to the traditionalist constantly under siege, a reminder that things are not so bleak. Even if the message came through relatively late. As DC put it, the traditionalist believes in forgiveness. Now, I know that “no quarter” is a common belief around here, and I do share that sentiment from time to time, but if you are to understand this particular kind of traditionalist, you must understand the place sin and redemption occupy in his mental landscape.
I fear that my analogies may be too obscure for our tradcon readers. So I’ll offer a third.
jtsharpe
They’re not too obscure, Mr. Reader. They just all miss the mark.
Yes, of course. Never mind that deadly accurate bullseye, right? Merely a flesh wound…
And yet, I predict that not one Tradcon will step up to assist the next man who is hit with divorce theft in the next cubicle, the next pew, the apartment down the hall, the house across the street. While some eeeeevil Man who is Rightly Angry will, maybe, do so. Therefore, I must ask: to which “mark” do you refer? Because from where I stand, y’all talk a good line. And that’s all. Talk. Did you read the linked article at Spearhead? If not, please do so. Then come back here. Tell us what you have done for a man like that, ever.
Its not a “no true Scotsman” argument.
Yes, it is. That is precisely what it is, an endless, circular parade of logical fallacy.
It’s a game that you Tradcons play with the rest of us. Perhaps it provides you with entertainment, I don’t know. I do know that I’ve played No True TradCon more than enough times. Just as I’ve played No True Feminist more than enough times (the hairsplitting minutae in deciding who is a True Feminist during any given nanosecond-long interval of time is very, very similar to the game that TradCons play). You won’t define your terms, the rest of us are supposed to some how “just know”, but yet, every example of a traditional conservative that we encounter in the real world is just never quite up to your apparently very long list of requirements. Thus we are back to a group so tiny, it can meet in a single large booth at a chain restaurant. And this is the Wave of the Future…a burgeoning movement that will come to sweep all before it, yet seemingly only consists of a handful of people who meet a 400+ point bullet list.
Have I mentioned lately how odd it is that tradcons seem to argue just like women? The endless circularity, the refusal to ever define anything, the petulant demand that the rest of us should “just know” what is meant…isn’t it strange? Not to mention tedious.
jtsharpe
In the traditionalist mind, for as long as the sexual / social contract is in place, momentary female participation in the res publica enhances, not diminishes, and complements, not displaces, male authority.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the sexual / social contract has been demolished for at least a generation if not longer. This fact is self-evident to anyone who can turn on a televisor, listen to a radio, or merely walk down the street of any city in Western civilization.
So perhaps what traditionalists really reject is reality? Perhaps that explains the communications problem. We men who live in the real world are angry about certain aspects of it, while traditionalists who have simply decided to reject reality can’t seem to fathom what’s bothering us. Brilliant stuff. I have one question:
What happens when reality rudely intrudes into the traditionalist bubble?
jtsharpe
As DC put it, the traditionalist believes in forgiveness.
Words. More accurately, traditionalist actions make it clear that they believe in unlimited forgiveness for women. For men? Eh, not so much. But they can just Man Up and endure anything, right? Say, did you read the article at Spearhead yet?
What happens when reality rudely intrudes into the traditionalist bubble?
Denial and endless rationalizations until hell freezes.
See this video after second 40. The right part is reality. The left part is what a tradcon perceives.
Devout men are to be treated as fools. That’s what it comes down to. Not good enough when they’re young, obligated not to judge when they’re older. Fools who are expected to submit to lies, abuse, rejection – FOR BEING DEVOUT. To be burdened down like pack mules with the baggage and risks inherent in accepting an older woman with a past, to be treated like creeps for being attracted to younger more innocent girls, to be lied about with impunity, told they’re rejects when the reason they are rejected (yes, quite literally, though the doubters deny it) is that they don’t take advantage of the chances they’re given, but restrain themselves out of Christian morality. Don’t ever believe for a moment that most of these Trads are serious about traditional morality or theology. Don’t ever go by what they say. Modernism, feminism, and old-fashioned hypocritical obscurantism have infiltrated just about every traditional Church. It’s just another life-style option for the woman, to be to be indulged by the hapless Christian male, who is expected to contribute to the clergy, whose job is to tell the women what they want to hear.
Anonymous Reader says:
April 5, 2012 at 3:33 pm
“And they wonder why some of their neighbors don’t much care for them anymore…”
Beautiful. Just needs a refence to “hey little buddy” to project the sheer contempt we have for them.
Anonymous Reader says:
April 5, 2012 at 3:59 pm
“I fear that my analogies may be too obscure for our tradcon readers. So I’ll offer a third.”
Allow me to explain it to the TradCons so they understand: Pull your heads from your asses you useless shits. Your making the problem worse by only caring about a small part of it : The part were men want nothing to do with sluts except pumping and dumping them as the sluts want.
Caring only about the part where the sluts want to change their lives on the back of some man that has been ignored for decades is part of the problem.
To make it so simple even you idiots can understand: You are the problem now.
Paul Murray said:
April 5, 2012 at 8:37 pm
“It surprises me that in an argument like this between chistians about what is – in fact – a point of doctrine, no-one is quoting the Bible, no-one is referring to the promulgations of dogma by the church. Surely shutting down pro-slut christians is as simple as demonstrating that the writings that the my believe in specifically contradict their positions?”
I frequent three specifically Christian forums that deal with marriage, as well as this onewhich I see as not being specifically Christian but not counter-Christian either. I tend not to quote Scripture here because very little on this board is contrary to Scripture.
Growthtrac is very slow and vey gentle on people, but never seems to ask the difficult questions.
Look elsewhere on this blog for comments on Christian Forums. There are plenty. I would be tempted to rename the married section there “Silly Little Girls and Manipulative Women’s Forums” and the mods there do not take lightly to pointing out to a woman who actively promoted divorce on one thread that she had failed to declare an interest in that she was a divorce lawyer. In one forum, there was a woman who posted “If you do not believe in divorce amd remarriage, don’t bother to post on this thread because I know in my heart what I am going to do” or word to that effect. In other words, Just affirm me in what I have already decided. Go have a look for yourself. My bad, over there. I have used expressions like “pussy pass” and had a warning for that too.
The Marriage Bed has vigourous debate, and people get called by other contributors if they say something stupid or if their theology is contrary to the Bibe. Except that there is more theology, it is a bit like here in that if something sounds stupid, someone will tell you to give what you have just posted the duck test.
I would suggest that you go look at some of the threads on these boards.- if you haven’t already been there.
Off-topic, but latest… validating “I’m not haaapy!”
“When It’s Just Another Fight, and When It’s Over,” by Elizabeth Bernstein, Wall Street Journal via Yahoo! News, 3 Apr 2012
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/just-another-fight-over-040100241.html
“After his wife blurted out that she wanted a divorce, Mr. Silberman pleaded with her to talk about what was wrong. She refused. They both cried. She stormed off to bed. … A new type of therapy, called “discernment counseling,” breaks with traditional couples counseling, which seeks to solve relationship problems. Instead, discernment counseling, … aims to help struggling couples decide whether to divorce or remain married. …”
Yes, of course. Never mind that deadly accurate bullseye, right? Merely a flesh wound…
Hey, as long as we’re moving the targets around…
And yet, I predict that not one Tradcon will step up to assist the next man who is hit with divorce theft in the next cubicle, the next pew, the apartment down the hall, the house across the street.
Why don’t you do it, then, if you’re so high and mighty? The traditionalists like DC and Oz Conservative have done something for those who might be victims of divorce theft… they’ve created small enclaves filled with a culture that ensures it is less likely to happen. It may not seem much to you, but I certainly appreciate what they’re trying to do. And, it’s something.
Yes, it is. That is precisely what it is, an endless, circular parade of logical fallacy.
You repeating this like a broken record does not make it any less false. The line is not arbitrary, or even limited to “my friends in the backroom”. Traditionalists are attached to tradition. There are different traditions, hence different traditionalists. Catholic traditionalists (like those Orthosphere guys) are of a different vein from those of more recent vintage, like those traditionalists whose traditions do not extend beyond the 19th century…or worse, the 50’s…
So perhaps what traditionalists really reject is reality?
Ah, so we’re playing this game now. No, we do not reject “reality”. We simply reject the underlying premises that make the contemporary culture what it is. Sure, the contract is demolished in the wider world. It doesn’t prevent us from trying to live it among ourselves. To put it in manosphere-like terms, we’re going TGTOW.
And we certainly do not endorse the contemporary culture, which is the most patently untrue and vicious slander the denizens of the manosphere have leveled against us.
More accurately, traditionalist actions make it clear that they believe in unlimited forgiveness for women. For men? Eh, not so much.
You’re talking to traditionalists for whom St. Augustine, who was Tucker Max before Tucker Max was born, is not just a hero but a foundational thinker. A saint whose “grant me chastity, but not yet” is quoted with affection. Even the deeper of the Protestant traditionalists feature John Donne as an inspirational figure, a former slaver who repented. So don’t talk shit about the lack of forgiveness for men.
To make it so simple even you idiots can understand: You are the problem now.
Yeah, real deep there, genius. No, we’re not your problem. We’re not the ones making you marry sluts. If you don’t want to, then don’t. I have yet to meet a traditionalist of any stripe making men marry against their will. If you want to reform no-fault divorce out of existence, we won’t stand in your way. We might even help. If you want to reform family law, go right ahead.
Let me make this clear. We are not the ones standing in your way. We hate the same things you hate. If we handle them differently because we have a different intellectual, cultural and spiritual foundation, that does not constitute opposition to you. We’ll do it our way. You would do well to even define what your way is.
We’re easy targets, so if you just want to bitch at us, go ahead. When feminism rolls both of us over, stand proud, because you’ve bitched at traditionalists and they “had it coming”.
jtsharpe
You have your head buried in the sand and are damn proud of it.
“Traditionalists are attached to tradition. There are different traditions, hence different traditionalists. Catholic traditionalists (like those Orthosphere guys) are of a different vein from those of more recent vintage, like those traditionalists whose traditions do not extend beyond the 19th century…or worse, the 50′s…”
This is pure deflecting bullshit. You have made your choice. But other young men can see what you have to offer.
Yeah, real deep there, genius. No, we’re not your problem. We’re not the ones making you marry sluts. If you don’t want to, then don’t. I have yet to meet a traditionalist of any stripe making men marry against their will. If you want to reform no-fault divorce out of existence, we won’t stand in your way. We might even help. If you want to reform family law, go right ahead.
Let me make this clear. We are not the ones standing in your way. We hate the same things you hate. If we handle them differently because we have a different intellectual, cultural and spiritual foundation, that does not constitute opposition to you. We’ll do it our way. You would do well to even define what your way is.
“We’re easy targets, so if you just want to bitch at us, go ahead. When feminism rolls both of us over, stand proud, because you’ve bitched at traditionalists and they “had it coming”.”
This is the most cowardly thing I have ever seen written so proudly, infact this is embarrassing to witness. Let me help you on this. Tradition is making it a norm to do soething that handle a cultural issue that even those bliss fully ignorant and unaware had it taken care of Example no sex before marriage and only fuck the one you are married to. imagine the problems that solves, one could live in a world of std, aids, jealous lovers with murder on their minds. And guess what a tradition like that you would never know and don’t need to know. Now with BC pills condoms medical science police and government we can ignore that “tradition” I hope you get the point and not argue the details.(that true scotsman thing)
What todays traditionalist,chistians,social conservatives what ever have done is ignorately parrotted what looks like tradition as I have defined. There is no mature man thought to the purpose or results. It has become a social status label as being known as a christian woman has the same social value has lipstick ,high heels or “coach” purse. Because in an effort to show you were not oppressing women you have followed womens lead. Pleasing to man.
“When feminism rolls both of us over, stand proud, because you’ve bitched at traditionalists and they “had it coming”.”
so, what’s up with just ignoring the problem?
@ Dalrock:
“no one should run around shaming men who elect not to marry such women if they don’t wish to. Women should have the right to make their own life choices but so should men. I also think there is something extremely wasteful with large numbers of women pushing equally large numbers of men out of professional tracks only to abandon the profession once they have their feminist merit badge.”
Couple of points:
1. There seems to be many women who believe a career makes it easier to find eligible marriageable men. Doesn’t seem to be the case. If it were they should be marrying and staying married at more or less the same rates as less educated counterparts. It appears that many career first women are not marrying at all. They seem quite surprised that sinking all that time and effort into a career gets them little more than an ego wall.
2. And, traditionalist women seem to think that women need something to do until the men are ready to marry them. But as we’ve noted before: a man sees a career women and thinks “competition. I don’t want to compete with my GF; I want to complement her.” These women and Mrs Darwin don’t seem to notice the gaping gunshot wounds in their feet.
Yeah, real deep there, genius. No, we’re not your problem.
You conservatives are not pàrt of the solution but part of the problem. With your denial about the feral nature of women, with your selective application of tradition, you are only the right-wing of feminism. With exception of abortion, the Darwins sound like feminist people during the 60’s. You are preserving the tradition of five decades ago.
Do you want tradition? I’ll give you tradition. Two thousand years of Christian writings telling the evilness of vomen, beginning with the Church Fathers. Oh! You don’t like this tradition, do you? So you swept it under the rug, while saying big words about tradition.
Tradition is when a single mom or a non-virgin woman was considered a social pariah (I’ve seen it with my own eyes, when I was young). This could be uncomfortable for the single moms and non-virgin women but it made less likely for other women to follow their path.
Tradition is not to marry a woman with kids that are not your own.
Tradition is stigma. http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_bring_back_stigma.html
Nothing of this belongs to the modern tradcon, who picks and chooses the parts of tradition that he does like and leaves the rest. It is “Cafeteria Tradition”.
@jtsharpe
This is the fundamental problem; there is no good faith, only a pathological need to rationalize whatever women choose to do. I offered in good faith that some women who appear to be getting their feminist merit badge might have fallen into that path truly by accident. You immediately seized on this as a means to shove all such women through the loophole, and change the story to one of Trad Con triumph. This is very much like those who won’t accept the possibility of frivolous divorce, even when the woman outright declares she had no good reason; she must have had a valid reason, she just didn’t understand it.
Mrs. Darwin wasn’t talking about redemption. She spoke in standard feminist language, beginning with:
and ending with:
Her whole circle did exactly the same thing, and her husband speaks with open disdain about wives and mothers who didn’t accidentally on purpose get their feminist merit badge. She flat out says she thinks it wasn’t a waste of time, it wasn’t a mistake. As I said, this is her right. But you insist on slavishly jumping in and declaring it something entirely different, entirely unaware that everyone sees exactly what you are doing. It isn’t clever, it is foolish. You aren’t fooling anyone but yourself.
By the same token we can declare all unwed mothers “heroes”, because they are women who would have had abortions but at some suitably dramatic moment following conception they “chose life”. All carousel riders looking for a sucker beta provider are similarly stories of redemption, they don’t even have to spin a compelling tale of contrition. This kind of slavish bad faith makes any reasonable discussion impossible, and it also makes those of us trying to be honest extremely hesitant to offer any quarter. Any act of good faith on our part is instantly used as an opportunity for bad faith against us. It is bad enough that the women doing these things have their own rationalization hamsters in charge. It is far worse that we have a group of slavish white knights openly coaching their rationalization hamsters to spare them the trouble of making up a BS story to cover their own bad choices, and making up a rationalization to insert into place in the cases where the women are defiantly unrepentant.
For the record I don’t see Oz Conservative doing this, so I do agree that not all Trad Cons are like that. But the ones who are are in profound denial about it, and they from what I can tell are very much in the majority.
“We’re not the ones making you marry sluts.”
Last time I checked the tradcon party line marrying sluts was pretty high up there, unless of course, feminist body snatchers in tradcon drag have been pumping out the man up theme. If that is the case we sincerely apologize……
You say nobody forces a man to marry a slut and this is true. But, by avoiding social stigma for sluts, this makes the number of sluts grow so it’s harder and harder to find a non-slutty woman to marry.
(Read again . http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_bring_back_stigma.html)
It is as if the government stopped doing food controls so half of the food produced food poisoning. The government could say: “Hey! We don’t force you to eat this food!” This would be so cynical.
“We’re easy targets, so if you just want to bitch at us, go ahead. When feminism rolls both of us over, stand proud, because you’ve bitched at traditionalists and they “had it coming”.”
You are really silly. Feminism has already rolled us over. Its victory is total. I know that you like to live in a virtual world but this is the true.
This victory would have been impossible with the help of traditionalists and conservatives who have consistently sided with the feminists “for the help of women and children”.
Having said that, between a feminist who calls herself feminist and a feminist who calls herself Christian, give me the honest feminist, any time. At least with the latter, you can call her BS. With the former, it uses the Christian dogma and rationalizations to hide her feminism behind. Like the women at Christian forums, justifying divorce because they are unhappy. Another fixture of “tradition”. After all, the eleventh commandment is “Thou shalt not be unhappy in your marriage”.
Yes tradition is stigma.
The tradcons who are like sharpe are as blind as they guy an manboobz, they have taken their blue pill lives and framed them with just enough seemingly “balanced” language to convince themselves that they are, well,…….balanced. Balance is a word we like to use…nothing more, and especially women love it.
This bouncing around redefining terms, and saying “you just dont get it because you dont get it” is sadly also present among game adherents so sharpe should be used as an example for some reflection on technique, regardless the subject
Exactly.
I admire some of the guys on this and similar blogs who are willing to constantly take the time to rebut content-less counter-arguments from tradcons. Our offer of the red pill is met with the response of a four-year-old who won’t eat his vegetables: instead of eating them, he picks them up with his bare hands and throws them all over the floor. How do you have a meaningful dialog with either one? It’s just maddening, and I’ve for the most part given up. If tradcons and feminists want to dish up bread and circuses, I guess all that’s left for me to do is enjoy my bread and circuses until the Visigoths are on the horizon.
jtsharpe – ”They’re not too obscure, Mr. Reader. They just all miss the mark.”
Really!?!?
Did you seriously NOT at least get the “Good Samaritan” one?
Anonymous Reader – ”What happens when reality rudely intrudes into the traditionalist bubble?”
If DarwinCatholic is any sort of example, they pretty much just shut down, hunker down, and wait for the (sh*t)storm to blow over. Sure, DC himself will engage for a short while, and an ankle-biter might try to run-off the invading thoughts spilling over from the dreaded Manosphere, but rather than fully engage, they pretty much just try to ignore anything which doesn’t seem to fit nicely with what they are used to encountering in the echo chamber.
Anonymous Reader – ”More accurately, traditionalist actions make it clear that they believe in unlimited forgiveness for women. For men? Eh, not so much. But they can just Man Up and endure anything, right? Say, did you read the article at Spearhead yet?”
As for myself, it was an especially tough read. I don’t think I could have made it through back in my old Churchian days. So, I doubt that anyone who calls themselves any sort of a Traditionalist Christian will actually bother to read it through. They’ll start, but soon discover that it hit’s the nerves. They skim through the rest, and make a pronouncement of “that’s a shame”, perhaps adding in an “I’ll pray for him”, and even if they don’t say it, you can bet they’re thinking “he just chose badly, and made many mistakes, so he’s still mostly at fault for what happened to him”.
Personally, I used to be that way too. As a Churchian, I saw plenty of marital breakdowns, from the guy (whose wife had been hitting on me) publicly apologizing to his cheating wife for failing her once her affairs became public knowledge, to a guy who had been a friend of mine until he dumped his wife and four teenaged children for his office assistant. But, I lacked true sympathy for the men. I did hold scorn for unfaithful wives (but I was probably the exception, even among the men); but I never really allowed myself to identify with men who divorced. I saw them, I could see that the ones who’d been the victims were truly hurting. But, I couldn’t be bothered to care about them. Like everyone else around me, I just left them to “man up” and deal with it. No wonder none of them stayed around long. They must have felt like pariahs (no doubt because that’s the way people treated them).
And, I really didn’t bother to grasp the hypocrisy of their being quite a bit of support extended to women who divorced (both victim and victimizer), especially by other women who seemed to instinctively “circle the wagons” (all that stuff that’s being discovered about women’s innate in group preference for other women – unlike men’s lack of same – was “Team Woman” playing out before my dull eyes).
Men were hurting – we didn’t care. Woman were hurting, or needing “protection” from being called-out on the hurt they’d caused, and they got plenty of care.
Looking back with “Red Pill” opened eyes, I know that in those times that men really could have used my understanding and support, I failed them. Like most who self-identify as some sort of Traditional Christian, I have much to repent for via-a-vis the lack of compassion for men. It really is a damned shame that those who still cling to their self-righteousness fail to understand how very un-Christ-like they truly are.
One of the issues I see in dealing with tradcons like jtsharpe and the Darwii is not so much bad faith, as:
(1) They don’t see no fault divorce, frivolous divorce, the total lack of restraint on female hypergamy, and the bandaid of “reformed sluts/born again virgins” etc. as problems.
(2) If these are problems, the solution is to “turn on, tune in and drop out” of mainstream society and join their tiny sects and enclaves.
Take the “reformed slut” issue. I am all about redemption and forgiveness. These are action words. Any person, whether Christian or not, does not just say “I’m redeemed and forgiven” and then goes her way. It involves change, education, learning, turning. It involves a turning away from old ways and living out new ways. It has to be walked out. It has to be integrated into one’s life. It has to become one’s life. In order to do that, one has to learn it, and one cannot learn it unless someone shows her.
A slut cannot reform by herself. Someone has to teach her, counsel her, support her and help her. It is NOT enough to sit in a confessional or pray a few times. After she prays the prayer, she will have to do things to get better. Someone has to show her what to do and how to do it, and what not to do. But tradcons can’t be bothered with that.
I post to the Darwii about it, suggesting a point by point plan for how a slut can reach true reformation. In this way a slut can get at least a fighting chance at getting a spouse, or, if not, making the best of what remains of her life. DC’s response is to reaffirm his conservative cred, but he gets squeamish and creeped out about helping sluts. Mr Darwin thinks a point by point plan or a church getting involved in it is “creepy” and he then summarily dismisses it as “unrealistic”.
Another commenter on the “how to find a nice girl” thread says that the manosphere is populated with whiners who sit in corners, rocking to and fro and muttering darkly about how awful everything is, as if manosphere men are the only men who have ever faced problems and are expected to rise above them. And hey, if there is a problem, just join one of our enclaves!
Not exactly. The people in the manosphere are saying “There’s a problem. No fault divorce, frivolous divorce, divorce theft, and “reformed slut/born again virgin” are problems. We need to do something about them.”
And I’d also point out that the men the tradcons claim need to “rise above” their problems – someone want to tell John from “A Case For Anger” that he just needs to “rise above” it? Someone want to tell “living in hell” from that Spearhead thread that he just needs to “rise above” it? These are men who did EXACTLY what the tradcons told them to do – “Don’t you dare fornicate! You horndogs want sex, you better get married and have babies.” So they followed the rules. They did what the tradcons told them to do. And what they have received in return is a life of never ending hell. “living in hell” married a Christian virgin woman. He did what the tradcons told him to do. But what they didn’t tell him was that he was playing craps with loaded dice. He rolled the dice, and he lost.
The tradcons say “no there’s no problem, and if there is, it’s not our problem because we don’t live there. If it’s your problem, just join us. See? No problem!”
Perhaps we should just face that tradcons want to retreat further and further into their enclaves. They don’t want to do the work their ostensible faith calls them to – minister to the sick, the lost, the broken, the hungry, the maimed.
The stupidity (well, one of them) is the small picture thinking. Yea maybe the small picture where you move into this community of geniuses is better, but the entire relational infrastructure failing around them WILL affect them. Whistle past the graveyard all they want, it will affect them in economics, heath care, crime, unchecked liberalism in politics and the requisite stupidity budget wise, laws and policy based on feelings at realities expense.
Even those most set apart like Amish will have marauding packs of criminal unemployed destroying everything in the feminist dystopian future, while these morons sit and talk down their nose about academic vintage
@Deti
Do you not see the example I provided, jtsharpe spinning the openly admitted feminist merit badge into a story of Trad Con triumph over feminism as in bad faith?
I don’t think all Trad Cons are acting in bad faith when they spin complicated yarns explaining why we can’t trust our lying eyes. Part of it strikes me as a sort of psychosis, pathological denial. Yes they have a long and complex explanation for why the law and society should enforce paternity fraud, and yes they have similarly complex explanations for pretty much every other issue. But at some point they aren’t just being immensely deluded and dense. I just can’t fathom that jtsharpe is so entirely lost in his own pathology that he can’t see what he did there.
The thing is, though, tradcons aren’t really retreating into their enclaves. In a very curious and perversely funny way, they are cafeteria-taking from the culture in ways similar to the UMC or liberal Christians with lady pastors and all that. They have weird and non-traditional interpretations of ‘traditional gender roles’ that are strictly enforced– until everyone is shipped off to college because they believe in the cargo cult of college same as the rest of the culture. They appear to have a fair amount of ‘leading from the neck’ in the women, which undermines any claims of patriarchy.
They’ve been totally co-opted by individualism and self-focused autonomy (why else would you ship your girls off to school and get huffy at the idea that their sweet spirit and Godly mindset alone could keep a husband for life?) and they can’t really see it. It’s like talking to someone who can only respond with ‘But I like cabbage’, as if it has anything to do with what you said to them.
In this world, you are at a massive evolutionary disadvantage if you don’t become a hard-core religionist of some kind. People are analyzing mainline Christianity. Forget it.
The Amish, fundie Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Quiverful Christians, Moonies, no-birth-control Catholics etc. are all at a huge evolutionary advantage to the rest. Not just them but their descendants, so long as they too adhere the faith.
I think these cloistered groups have plenty of the kind of women meeting Dalrock’s tough requirements, but you have to be all in. The world is in extreme disequilibrium, with the applecart of 500 million plus years of evolutionary history having been overturned by easy birth control. The arrival of easy birth control stands alone in world history. In 200 years it would seem that most people would be part of some such strong faith group, if for no other reason than that everyone else is dying out. If you want your lineage not to go extinct I don’t see any comparable path.
Radical secularism is like Communism at in the 1970s. It seems to dominate everything and lots of people conclude that its all over, but the radical secularist heartland (i.e. Europe, parts of young America) is dying on the vine due to its own sterility.
If you want to win at the evolutionary game, it is very hard, as it has been for most of human history. Now its just hard in a different way: you have be willing to march to a religionist tune that may seem ridiculous to you, but at least globalization gives you a number of choices. Plenty mock, but they seem to be the only only ones winning the evolutionary game. Who is really alpha? A real alpha learns new rules. How badly do you want your lineage to thrive?
Devout men are to be treated as fools…who are expected to submit to lies, abuse, rejection – FOR BEING DEVOUT… to be lied about with impunity, told they’re rejects when the reason they are rejected… is that they don’t take advantage of the chances they’re given, but restrain themselves out of Christian morality.
Ahh., the memories of my wonderful single days /sarcasm>. This pefectly accurate description of single Christian female behavior, brings back a lot of painful memories.
Thank God for the Manosphere. Here, I know I’m not insane, I’m not the only one seeing this. And, although I’m happily married to a GCB (good Christian babe) now, in the unlikely event she does turn on me, the Manosphere has prepped me on how to handle it.
In this world, you are at a massive evolutionary disadvantage if you don’t become a hard-core religionist of some kind….they seem to be the only only ones winning the evolutionary game. Who is really alpha? A real alpha learns new rules. How badly do you want your lineage to thrive?
Amen, brother. The seed of the righteous is blessed.
@ Dalrock:
I sense another Dalrock post coming on: “The Bad Faith of Tradcons” or something like that.
I suppose I saw jt’s statement there not so much as bad faith, but rather as a reluctant, grudging acknowledgment of how pervasive and pernicious the forces we’re up against are. I suppose I want to give tradcons some benefit of the doubt because there’s much we agree on.
The tradcon delusions and, perhaps, bad faith, are extremely subtle and it takes a discerning eye to see them. We agree on much: fornication and adultery are bad, divorce is bad, families are good, etc. But manosphere denizens see what tradcons don’t, largely because the former populate the “real world” and tradcons retreat to their enclaves where “real world” problems don’t reach them as easily.
slwerner: Looking back with “Red Pill” opened eyes, I know that in those times that men really could have used my understanding and support, I failed them. Like most who self-identify as some sort of Traditional Christian, I have much to repent for via-a-vis the lack of compassion for men. It really is a damned shame that those who still cling to their self-righteousness fail to understand how very un-Christ-like they truly are.
deti: Perhaps we should just face that tradcons want to retreat further and further into their enclaves. They don’t want to do the work their ostensible faith calls them to – minister to the sick, the lost, the broken, the hungry, the maimed.
Jesus ministered to the sick, to the Gentiles, to the Samaritans, to the tax collectors, to the beggars and prostitutes, to the lepers, to the deaf and blind, to the fishermen. And spoke truth to the powers of his day. You didn’t see Jesus staying in his small town; no he roamed far and wide to spread his message.
I am a Catholic, but … I am also a fallen Catholic who lives in the real world, not some tiny fantasy enclave unreachable by most of us. I have ministered not just to old folks and children as tradcons might, but also to men who have suffered from divorce far more than I have. The stories I have heard would curdle your blood worse than that comment of the week from Spearhead, they would have tradcons covering their ears (and mine too) before they might be forced to admit to the evil present in too many women out there. I have hugged these men as they cried on my shoulders. I have given them my ear as the Christians among these men cried out about the unequal treatment between them and their ex-wives in their congregations.
But the tradcons I know won’t go there. Unless of course it happens to them. Because they “don’t believe in divorce” so they can skip all the hard consoling work and they can tell us in all sanctimony “well don’t go there, but if you do, it’s all your fault”. And then stand there transfixed like a deer in the headlights when the wife sets the divorce train in motion at them. As has happened to slwerner. DC has not a compassionate bone in his body for divorced men at all and jtsharpe give no indication that he does either. Tradcons who want credibiliity in the manosphere need to start caring about the male victims of divorce as much as they do about the women and children victims. Because depriving children of their fathers is a form of child abuse.
Dalrock
I once had a thought on a situation like this when you corner someone with logic or anything else. What we are doing here is violating the essence of who they are. They are human and of this world and see what is going on and have coped with a vail of lies and denial. Fear and helplessness are are terrifying emotions and bring on a lot of primal insecurities 9may be even comparable to burning or being eaten alive) They saw the church dieing and abandoned god to save the church. (bad move) Just as a woman will never take responsibilty as we have discussed here the socon traditional christian types only have their delusions to cling to are you are removing that. Do not under estemate the emotion energy generated by such a thing. Friendships logic and the facade of faithe is first to go. These traditional men desire wives and family the same as you and me and just as family law was written based on hypergamy they have interpreted the bible and the church based on hypergamy. Old school would say they have sold their souls to the devil.
We of the manosphere are and will be the foundation of civilization. Everything else is gone. I will lose any biblical scripture memory contest with any of these guys but I feel i have a much stronger faith in god than these guys. Seeing these fellas here and exchanging ideas with them as shown a lot. This exchange also explains the blanket just shutting out of anything coming from men of the red pill.
+1 greyghost.
Also, when you’re NOT a member of such a “faith-based enclave”, it’s hard to truly know *how fully* traditional they are. For example, as commenter deti has discussed in the past, how do we know their wives are truly practicing Biblical submission? Because it seems, from the outside, those women are in a state of *rebellion* against, rather than submission to, past tradition (as noted by Mrs DC’s quoted comments).
deti wrote:
“But manosphere denizens see what tradcons don’t, largely because the former populate the “real world” and tradcons retreat to their enclaves where “real world” problems don’t reach them as easily.”
I would argue that those who ‘retreat to their enclaves’ as you say probably understand the real world better than most. You say they go ‘where “real world” problems don’t reach them as easily’.
Yup. That sounds smart to me. One of the best things you can do is not be part of the dysfunction.
I don’t think most of these strong religionists are traditional conservatives, at least I wasn’t. I was taking a jaundiced look at the world a decade ago from a brutal manosphere perspective long before the manosphere existed. I was terrified of marriage.
It clicked, I knew I needed something radical. Now my personal tribe is already substantial, and my marriage is probably much better than it would have been.
The world is carnage, especially for men. I am not suggesting broad traditional conservativism at all. That doesn’t seem to be nearly strong enough medicine. As I said: Amish, fundie Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Quiverful Christians, Moonies, no-birth-control Catholics and so on.
@deti
I am an open book. I’ve been thinking about writing a post on the basic issue, but I don’t see it as specific to Tradcons.
There is a very female way of debating: spin, denial, reframe, accuse… Tradcons for whatever reason seem very susceptible to falling into this, perhaps because it is how they were browbeaten into their views in the first place. It is my habit to patiently take apart this kind of argument. Maybe habit isn’t right, because I just can’t help it even when the signs are there and I’ve seen it all before. I naturally assume the other side is arguing in good faith, and so I’m gullible enough to keep going on as if this were a real discussion. As gullible as I may be, this turns out to be exactly what those employing this tactic don’t want to deal with. They want me to get exhausted and go away, scratching my head wondering why logical discussion won’t work. But I hang in there, and eventually they slip up, change course 180 from what they said all along to get out of their present fix.
In a verbal discussion this can at times work. One can say they weren’t understood, or are being misquoted. In a written discussion this tactic fails miserably, and is trivially easy to refute. But once this happens there is no longer any way to weasel out of it. The weasel has left too long a paper trail, and I have to admit that it offends me that they weren’t acting in good faith all along. Obviously not everyone falls into this category, and I’m not accusing all tradcons of doing this. But at the same time there should be a limit on how far they are willing to go to score debating points. I don’t see much agreement on this. When given the opportunity I try to make my points as best as I can and then agree to disagree. But some won’t leave it at that. They have to keep denying, reframing, accusing, etc.
Dalrock… this is worthy of its own thread:
Teen Sex May Affect Brain Development, Study Suggests
The study, which was carried out on hamstershow social experiences during adolescence when the brain is still developing can have broad consequences, say the researchers from Ohio State University College of Medicine….the animals that mated earlier in life had higher levels of depressive behaviors, changes to the brain and smaller reproductive tissues….Having a sexual experience during this time point, early in life, is not without consequence..
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/12/02/teen-sex-may-affect-brain-development-study-suggests/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1rHaoa2xn
What species of hamster was used in the study? Mesocricetus rationalis ?? /evil grin>
Dalrock,
This is the fundamental problem; there is no good faith, only a pathological need to rationalize whatever women choose to do.
Where did that come from? I guess now it is me that’s not seeing something. How did you come to this conclusion? What do you mean by “rationalizing whatever women choose to do”?
All i was saying is that we tend to celebrate the few times our “hard sell” culture manages to penetrate a thick modern skull.
How is this bad faith? Nobody is celebrating a feminist triumph. What we celebrate is a feminist reversal… women who have seen the dark side and turned back instead of embracing it. Or are they not allowed to? Nobody is trying to deceive anybody here. We’re not asking you to disbelieve your lying eyes. Only that they be cast wider.
Yes they have a long and complex explanation for why the law and society should enforce paternity fraud
Excuse me? Where did you get this? I sense that we are seeing one of those points where we talk past each other.
All right, I’ll go through the comment you highlighted to give a more proper explanation of our perspective.
I am sorry that the education of the women who bear and raise the next generation is considered little more than a “dubious venture” to some. Women can’t be reduced to their reproductive potential, any more than they can dial up a proper mate in their chief reproductive years.
Okay, so she’s mad that some people consider female education to be a dubious venture. I can see why you’re feminist red flags are raised. But at the same time, the education of women has been a Catholic traditionalist idea, stemming back from the imperial days wherein Christians were one of the few groups who believed that women should be educated because they possess the same rational soul that would benefit from education. Of course, feminists perverted that particular idea in support of the creation of the careerist monster. We will attack the careerist monster, but the idea of the educated woman is not something we will turn on.
Someone recently took a survey of a homeschooling group I’m in, to see what the various mothers did before leaving jobs to raise and teach their children. One woman had a Ph.D in music and had been the principle french horn player in an orchestra. One wrote grant proposals. Several had been nurses. One woman had been an editor at a publishing house. I myself, who married and bore children in my early twenties, was a theatrical stage manager and production assistant. Were all of these “dubious ventures”? I think not.
Alright, I can understand your complaints about the “feminist merit badge”. There is some credential waving here. However, in a tradition that produced female “Doctors of the Church” long before there were feminist PhD’s, we’re just not that uncomfortable with female achievement. What you see as the attainment of the “feminist merit badge” before imposing themselves on a man, we see as women who are now part of a homeschooling group (you can’t work and do homeschooling, which is a traditional gender role as far as we’re concerned) because they’ve given up their merit badge. Again, this is not bad faith. This is two different perspectives looking at the same thing and coming away with different conclusions, both of which hate feminism. You don’t want them waving around the feminist merit badge. We’re just happy they threw theirs away. I guess part of the misunderstanding between us is whether or not they still have it. For you, because they took the time to get it, they’ll always wave it around. For us, it became null and void the moment they stopped being academics, french horn players, stage managers of whatever. As a tradition that has a place for figures like Mary Magdalene, we don’t subscribe to the “once a whore / feminist, always a whore / feminist”.
But you insist on slavishly jumping in and declaring it something entirely different,
Because it is, if what you are insisting is that this is feminist. It is not, at least, not from where we’re coming from. Ideological feminism certainly does not have the monopoly on the idea of the educated woman. It didn’t even come up with it. So far, the only “bad faith” I’m seeing is in the fact that we see the world differently. I’m willing to acknowledge the difference.
Of course, if I got your perspective wrong, please correct me. And, as I suspect this is also an underlying assumption, do not take my outlining of the traditionalist mindset as a condemnation or refutation of yours. As I said, I agree with you that there is a problem that we in the subset tend to gloss over because it falls outside our experience.
By the same token we can declare all unwed mothers “heroes”, because they are women who would have had abortions but at some suitably dramatic moment following conception they “chose life”.
Granted, this is a problem. Choosing life is a good thing. But often, we gloss over the problems that brought life to the brink anyway. It is good to rejoice in repentant sinners, but that doesn’t necessarily make them heroes. If we give off that impression, then that is a problem. Apparently, the “go and sin no more” part tends to get left off, because mostly because we assume that its a given. Not a safe assumption for the wider culture.
All carousel riders looking for a sucker beta provider are similarly stories of redemption, they don’t even have to spin a compelling tale of contrition.
That’s one way to put it. I can understand this perspective, especially since people do lie. I think the different interpretations we have of this particular phenomenon buttresses the misunderstanding. We see a repentant sinner, you see a con job. One must be wary of carousel riders looking for a beta sucker. The traditionalist insistence on marriage probably comes off as pressure to say yes when there has not been enough discernment done.
The thing is, we don’t want to be taken for suckers either, much like the rest of you guys. Each of us has individual means of trying to screen for carousel riders looking for a sugar daddy, but our biggest screen is often the community itself. As I said before, this kind of traditionalism is a hard sell, and we like to think (probably erroneously, probably not) that your average carousel rider would have to make more of herself if she is to make it in. In the end, we simply profess that we cannot read hearts. The red pill may be a solution, and I do see the application there, but I doubt it’ll fix all our problems.
To be honest, this is where traditionalists tend to be vulnerable. We’re supposed to believe in original sin and redemption, but so love the latter that we can miss the former.
Deti,
(1) They don’t see no fault divorce, frivolous divorce, the total lack of restraint on female hypergamy, and the bandaid of “reformed sluts/born again virgins” etc. as problems.
(2) If these are problems, the solution is to “turn on, tune in and drop out” of mainstream society and join their tiny sects and enclaves.
Well, first off, we do see no-fault divorce as a problem. Actually, we see any divorce as a problem. As for hypergamy, the concept hasn’t penetrated yet. Explaining hypergamy to other traditionalists is difficult (I tried). It is a matter of ignorance, but give it time. Its just alien to the usual traditionalist experience. The culture itself still assumes the hypergamy restraints that modern society has lost. This may explain the gulf of understanding over the “reformed slut”.
As for 2, it is the only option if we want to have children and raise them with our values. The world changes slowly, and time is limited. Besides, we need a foothold somewhere. Even the Gramscian march had to begin in its small enclaves.
In any case, I suspect that once these enclaves grow large enough, many will be thankful that they exist.
If we wish to play label the group, it should be time to understand that a label doesnt innately carry some inference of good or bad, or at least it doesnt have to. In that way, WE are therefore the TradCons, and by we I mean those who share the beliefs in God AND have the red pill awareness however it was come by.
Dalrock does a great job of including all that see the issues he chronicles here, whether the reader is a Christian or not….doesnt matter. But a very large number of us, in fact ARE the REAL TradCons, and its way off kilter to take their (the “bad” tradcons) behavior and silly beliefs and let them spoil a term that should easily describe a group that is FOR marriage, FOR sexual responsibility, FOR kids staying in birth families, FOR men providing and loving and protecting and women supporting them….etc etc. These so called tradcons are not trad cons at all. They are feminists first and foremost. They have sickeningly distorted reality to make it fit their verson of tradcon, which is nothing more than wrapping the status quo in ribbons that pander to women.
Granted, this is a problem. Choosing life is a good thing. But often, we gloss over the problems that brought life to the brink anyway.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Right here….thats a feminist rhetorical trick. Its employed by those who would say “oh yea, well pro-life doesnt stop at birth”. This kind of moral relativism is problematic. If someone , in your words, glosses over the problems that brought it to the brink, they have glossed over ONE moral infraction…..that hasnt a wit to do with the OTHER moral infraction of abortion. They are two, they are separate. Same with the little ditty I quoted, implying pro-life people are mean and stingy and would not care for orphans or something….even if true, its TWO separate infractions, one the abortion, verses another, the abandonment. One makes no point germane to the other.
Women use this tool when discussing divorce, saying “sure divorce is bad but we must focus on those things that lead up to it, not the divorce so much”
Guess what both of these tricks do, at root. They take the action potentially perpetrated by the woman…..aborting or filing a divorce…..and shift focus to the action that COULD be perpetrated by a man or men…..he pumped and dumped (abortion), he was emotionally abusive (the divorce)
For me, seeing this blame shift tells me all I need to know. There is no amount of explanation to get around that. Usually when i see that stated, its being parroted, its not an original thought, rather its an emotion based repetition of a concept that seems to steer her (and the male “her” also) past the danger of being singled out as doing a unique and sole wrong action. Oddly even bright people play this trick and dont even realize how utterly forensically flawed it is.
slwerner says:
April 5, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Thank you for the article. It was sicken in itself and, worse, more sickening in the confirmation of events by other men. Again, I will tell my son not to marry.
jtsharpe, how will those enclaves grow? The closest secular analogue, the UMC, with its highly educated, not-divorcing women, does not have high birthrates. There is nothing about the tradcon path of college, more college and then settling into hausfrau mode that guarantees the 4-6 kids that offer a shot of subverting the mainstream. The Mormons, just like everyone else, had high birthrates until they started encouraging college for the girls and now they are having their share of birth control use and delayed childbearing reducing the birthrate too, though there is a trailing effect. College is fine, but it was never, traditionally if you will, the norm for large numbers of women. The expectations about what they needed to maintain a marriage for life never seemed to include a college degree. Funny how despite no college degrees, they actually managed to stay married for life a sight more often than even some traditionalist enclaves manage.
@van Rooinek:
One of the interesting data points to pop up is the advice “don’t have sex until your 20”. It pops up in a lot of sociology work. After 20, pretty much all of the indicators for “lesser life outcomes” become no different from random chance. Now, it’s not directly causative, obviously, but it’s one of the funny ones. It’s always interesting to see that logic pop back up a lot. (It pops up because it’s a sign of self-control, which is the single biggest predictor of solid outcomes in life)
Women and education, by itself in a vacuum, is not really the issue. Women and COLLEGE may well be however , the problem.
Women displacing men in the workforce because of this crazy merit badge garbage is another form of oxidation weakening the family steel.
No one cares how “smart” she gets. The “smarter” the better, in my opinion. Heck, my wife has gone to college now as a 46 year old, kids older and in college too, and I admit she is conversant in a whole batch of new things, and I like that. Maybe online courses if education is wanted, or even the degree, but the whole career before kids and the 45 year old parents of one absurdly spoiled and doted kid is what we see as the new new traditional family, and its ridiculous if done by design that way. Sorry….it just is.
@jtsharpe
I appreciate your response, and I’ll explain my frustration. Nothing, absolutely nothing Mrs. Darwin or her husband could say would ever be interpreted by you as feminist. You will always see it as something else. In this case, they both clearly look down on women who don’t go to college and have a suitably important career before becoming a wife and mother.* I’ve shared the quotes. They are very clear. Mrs. Darwin didn’t start off on the career path only to see the error of her feminist ways, and neither from her description did her peers. She is telling us this is part of the essential path to motherhood. Just in case we missed this, Mr. Darwin sneers at women who don’t do this. But you won’t trust your lying eyes. They must not have meant what they write, because that sounds downright feminist. The thing is this isn’t the biggest deal in the world. I don’t question their right to be this way, but the denial is tedious. It is exhausting.
I’ll put it another way. What could either Mr. or Mrs. Darwin have said to have convinced you that they saw college and an impressive short lived career as essential credentials for a wife and mother? What could they possibly say to convince you that they actually feel this way? I can’t imagine how they could be any more clear on this. To me it is the same exact type of denial I describe regarding frivolous divorce in this post.
* I should have clarified above that this specific path of having “played career woman” before becoming a wife and mother is what I had in mind when I referred to the feminist merit badge. Starting off as a career woman and then changing course is the very signature of the merit badge (as I describe here). I have some sympathy for women for feeling this way, because both feminists and Tradcons like DC will disparage women who choose to be wives and mothers without first obtaining this merit badge.
I just find it really interesting how completely the merit badge consumes everyone, from tradcons to UMC denizens to single moxie-moms.
“I just find it really interesting how completely the merit badge consumes everyone, from tradcons to UMC denizens to single moxie-moms.”
It’s a simple matter of the alternatives of shame and praise. Christian women and their parents aren’t supposed to care how the pagan world judges them, but let’s face it, they do.
A woman who posts about her teenage daughter getting married will be treated to scornful comments from self-described “conservative Catholics” – because the feminist attitudes are socially dominant.
Indeed. Exactly what would the Darwins have to say for jtsharpe to believe what they are actually saying?
I’m always hesitant to attach a bad-faith label to anyone—especially in an online forum where you don’t really know someone, and to a certain extent you have to trust them. But this back-and-forth with jtsharpe has been incredibly revealing. The bad-faith sophistry and stiff-necked denial is breathtaking. Rather than acknowledge the obvious strains of feminist thought in the mindset of the Darwins, he prefers to argue that they are not saying what they are, in fact, saying.
I was reading a piece from Welmer on The Spearhead the other day where he held up tradcons as the great anti-feminist hope of the future due to their fecundity (relative to most liberals anyways). I was skeptical. But reading the Darwins and the jtsharpes I feel more than ever that my skepticism is well-founded if this is the kind of denial and rot that runs through the whole demographic.
From what I understand, among those tradcons who have kids old enough to marry, the sons are more likely to marry in their late 20s, often to converts (so not even sticking to the enclave-group) and the daughters are more likely to be 35 year old virgin spinsters. And that is of the children who continue on the path and don’t bail entirely for non-Christian or liberal Christian paths (which pretty much definitely doesn’t= 5 kids per woman).
From what I understand, among those tradcons who have kids old enough to marry, the sons are more likely to marry in their late 20s, often to converts (so not even sticking to the enclave-group) and the daughters are more likely to be 35 year old virgin spinsters.
An odd inversion of this dynamic can be found in the Evangelical community, where the daughters are more likely to marry in their late 20s, often to rich nonbelievers (so not even sticking to the enclave-group) and the sons are more likely to be 35 year old virgin bachelors….
There is a very female way of debating: spin, denial, reframe, accuse… Tradcons for whatever reason seem very susceptible to falling into this
The use of this approach really depends on whether you have facts and logic on your side. If you don’t, then spin.
I once had a thought on a situation like this when you corner someone with logic or anything else. What we are doing here is violating the essence of who they are.
I have thought long and hard on this problem, where your logic is irrefutable and they have lost the argument, but it will never be acknowledged. They will double down instead. Any ideas on how to break through “wall of ego” in order to get to people?
Darwin says, But realistically, if a guy just wants to get married and stay married, I think he’d be far better off simply finding people who share his beliefs and looking for a wife there
I agree with him there. Practically, this means searching not in the Western World
Thank God for the Manosphere. Here, I know I’m not insane, I’m not the only one seeing this.
I agree. In terms of Anti-Idiotarianism, it is the best place on the web. Too prove it to yourself, watch the flick Idiocracy, then immediately read a thread from Dalrock’s site.
Empathologicalism,
This kind of moral relativism is problematic.
That’s true. Abortion is wrong, full stop. Sometimes, we get do caught up in the war to end it that we sometimes forget that abortion is a symptom of a wider disease. A defense of abstinence and a condemnation of contraception must always go hand in hand with any war against abortion.
Tradcons are simply playing another version of team woman except its team Catholic, team Protestant, team white culture etc. Identity preservation is their goal which means they can’t alienate women or anything that threatens that preservation.
They fall into the same trap that the Pharisees fell into and forget Abraham’s covenant was spiritual and not identity based, they have kept to the small things but forgot weightier matters, they are ‘blind guides’.
Presumably what pisses them off the most is that despite years of theology, learning biblical Greek and decades of churchianity they are getting called out on their bullshit by no namers who pierce through their convoluted ‘traditions’ and actually make sense.
Dalrock,
You will always see it as something else. In this case, they both clearly look down on women who don’t go to college and have a suitably important career before becoming a wife and mother.
Here’s the thing. It’s not “clear” at all. You have to acknowledge the difference in perspective and accept it for what it is. What frustrates the traditionalist in this dialogue is that you won’t even accept that his perspective is legitimate, preferring to tell us that we’re not “believing our own lying eyes”. It’s not that they did not mean what they wrote. It’s that what they wrote means something else to them as it does to you, because the context is different. Ask them if they are feminists. They will say no (and if not, then I will concede your point that something is dreadfully amiss). Now, instead of accusing them of being in denial, like your commenters have already done, try to see why this is so. You see strains of feminism. They see old, good ideas that precede feminism… that feminism stole from them and corrupted. Now, to say that they must abandon these ideas that have already been corrupted is one thing (there have been huge traditionalist debates, for example, over whether a woman ought to be allowed to wear pants…). It is another to accuse them of being in league with those who stole from them in the first place.
To be honest, this is like arguing with sola scriptura Protestants. “It’s right there in the Bible! Read it and weep!” “Have you read it in Koine Greek?” So on and so forth. If it was as clear cut as what you see with your eyes, there wouldn’t be over 20,000 denominations in the first place. I can understand your frustration, as a Catholic who reads apologetics and the debates they engender. There are many cognitive barriers, mostly due to experience (there’s that context again), that prevent people from reading the same phenomenon the same way. It is hard, for example, to get a traditionalist to admit that a manosphere denizen isn’t a whiny wimp, just as hard as it is to get you guys to see that the traditionalist is not a feminist. (I remember reading here once that you had no real beef with a traditionalist like Bonald, because you understood that he grew up in a different social order. If you can see where the cognitive difference between Bonald and yourself comes from, then maybe you can see where the cognitive difference between you and the Darwins comes from.)
WRT the comment you cited, I never got the impression that she’s, as you put it, looking down on women who never got the merit badge. Rather, I see her being defensive about the fact that she, and some others, got one in the first place. (She seems to be defending herself against the notion that her so-called “merit badge” was a “dubious venture”.) Now, you may conclude that the one means the other, but I’m going to need more steps before making that logical leap. If you have other examples, that might help clarify things. Because as it stands, there is nothing explicitly condemning women who didn’t get a college education before becoming a wife.
Presumably what pisses them off the most is that despite years of theology, learning biblical Greek and decades of churchianity they are getting called out on their bullshit by no namers who pierce through their convoluted ‘traditions’ and actually make sense.
Actually, what pisses us off, other than the general decline of Western civilization, is this notion that we collaborate with civilization’s enemies. Your “call outs” of our “bullshit” hardly registers. A lot of us are already resigned to being small and misunderstood, and that it will take time for the pendulum to swing around again.
jtsharpe, it is really just that simple, watch with you eyes and not your preconceived notions. I was once like you, but now I see.
Actually, what pisses us off, other than the general decline of Western civilization, is this notion that we collaborate with civilization’s enemies.
It was not intentional, but it happened and is happening still. Many of us on this forum have blood on our hands, and are trying to make amends
jtsharpe, I gather you are a Catholic like me, and I agree with some of what you say. I am an older man, and I see things from an older man’s perspective. Also, as an Australian, I have never felt the full brunt of American feminism.
I do think that some of the problems discussed on this very good blog are peculiar to American Protestantism. Take Sheila Gregoire. It is hard to imagine a woman like her flourishing in the Catholic system. Also, debates about whether looking at porn rises to the level of adultery (a real stretch, in my opinion) are beside the point if one’s church does not allow divorce for adultery.
That said, the she-elephant in the room that Trads often don’t want to notice is what was referred to above: the volcanic desires of almost all women for what is crudely called alpha cock. This is not a fantasy. It is true. I am sorry to say I would not be surprised if many of today’s good Catholic girls have been through the mill. Until Trads come to grips with this reality, they will not be taken seriously.
In fairness to, say, the Latin Mass priests I have heard homilies from, they do seem to understand that women are also subject to Original Sin and will occasionally preach on women’s specific moral weaknesses and on the proper subjection of wives. I suspect they read old moral theology manuals.
@jtsharpe
But it isn’t just the comment from Mrs. Darwin. As I keep pointing out, Mr. Darwin also weighed in expressing disdain for Trad Con wives and mothers who don’t have the requisite merit badge. The same quote I included in the OP (emphasis mine):
He looks down on wives and mothers who don’t have the merit badge, ridiculing them for lacking accomplishment.
I’ll stand by for the latest excuse explaining why his words don’t really mean what they mean.
Why can’t there be a happy medium? I know several conservative and traditional Catholic wives, and only two of them wear prairie skirts. And of the two who do, one has a degree in accountancy.
The ideal for a Catholic wife might lie somewhere between no tertiary education and a doctorate. My wife has a bachelor’s degree with a masters in librarianship. That kind of level seems a sensible one. Able to contribute, if necessary, to the family coffers; but not having spent her best years stuck in apprenticeship to a consuming profession like medicine or law, which will probably take her best years.
Should read, “The ideal for a Christian wife …”
“The ideal for a Catholic wife might lie somewhere between no tertiary education and a doctorate. ”
The ideal Catholic wife gives her best years, and a chaste maidenhood, to her husband. Full stop.
Joe, I got my wife’s best years and her chaste maidenhood. But I also wanted a girl who was educated enough to keep me interested in her.
Being educated has nothing to do with going to college.
Women can figure out how to do that with or without college. Plenty of women are college educated and not interesting.
@ David Collard, jtsharpe
The problem isn’t that women are pursuing advanced education and careers—it’s that they’re doing it independent of responsibilities to their husbands & children by delaying marriage until after their careers. Yes, women have always worked even in the most patriarchal cultures—after all, Solomon spends a great deal of time talking about the job and economic contributions of the virtuous woman at the end of Proverbs. But those economic contributions were always made in the context of her family and not solely for her own personal (and I daresay frivolous) consumption, as we have today.
If tradcons like the Darwins want to be consistent with the “old, good ideas that precede feminism” like the notion of women working, then they would have to push not only for women to have job, which they vocally support, but also for them to marry young and to acquire education and contribute economically in the context of family life, on which you hear nary a peep.
My wife wanted to be a librarian. This requires tertiary training. It has been a good profession for her to combine with wifehood and motherhood. And higher study in the humanities is suitable for women, and many of them like it.
Four years of exposure to an undergraduate program is the last thing a woman needs to be married. The last thing she needs to have an open mind, or to learn how to think. Four more years of exposure to this culture and its values: values contrary to our values. Why do so-called Christians despise Christian suitors for their daughters, but have no problem sending their daughters to corrupting institutions?
This idea that anyone necessarily needs to go to college is just wrong-headed, but especially the idea that young women need to go, as though they will really be more sophisticated and intelligent, and not just more jaded and indoctrinated, by going to a typical college.
My wife has worked to help support the family. Mostly part-time. Women who want to be wives should pursue careers in areas that allow for a family.
@ David Collard
The bolded part is what is operative. Your wife acquired her career and education in the context of her contributions to her family. She didn’t pursue these things to acquire a feminist merit badge or to differentiate herself from “lesser” women who opted for motherhood & wifery minus the student loan debt and cubicle farm gig.
But that very feminist differentiation is exactly what Darwin was promoting with this quote:
I’m really eager to hear jtsharpe’s defense of this…should be a tour de force in excuse-making & sophistry.
She lived at home and went to the Australian National University, as my daughter will probably do. She did subjects like Religious Studies and Mediaeval Studies. Not dreck like Women’s Studies (yes, we have this in Oz too).
Me
Yes, of course. Never mind that deadly accurate bullseye, right? Merely a flesh wound…
Hey, as long as we’re moving the targets around…
You tradcons are not moving targets. You’re fat, inert, and appear happy about it. I’ll return to this in a moment.
Me referring to “walking in hell” at Spearhead:
And yet, I predict that not one Tradcon will step up to assist the next man who is hit with divorce theft in the next cubicle, the next pew, the apartment down the hall, the house across the street.
jtsharpe
Why don’t you do it, then, if you’re so high and mighty?
First, I do what I can when I can, and it’s not enough. Anonymous age 69 did far more in the 80’s than I can ever hope to do, and it wasn’t enough. But when a man is clearly being beaten down by a legal system stacked against him, it is only human decency to try to help in some way. But not, it seems, to you.
Second, I am neither high, nor mighty. Nor am I likely to be. Besides, you tradcons clearly have arrogated that job to yourselves.
The traditionalists like DC and Oz Conservative have done something for those who might be victims of divorce theft… they’ve created small enclaves filled with a culture that ensures it is less likely to happen. It may not seem much to you, but I certainly appreciate what they’re trying to do. And, it’s something.
You didn’t read the article at Spearhead, clearly and obviously. The poster “walkinginhell” doesn’t have a passport. The government took it away. He can’t go to Australia. Not only that, he doesn’t have a driver’s license, the government took that away also. He doesn’t have any money to speak of because of the imputed income issue. If he was to try to find the Darwii, he would have to hitch-hike. You’re saying that a divorced man who can’t find a job who hitch-hikes to the little bubble-world of upper-middle-class Darwii is going to be welcomed with open arms? Seriously? Not a chance, and we both know it. So what you are saying is that “walkinginhell” somehow benefits from a tradcon enclave that he can never, ever hope to join.
And this is worth more to him than another man being wiling to talk to him, listen to him, maybe pick up the check at lunch once in a while…how?
Now, as to the tradcon No True Scotsman circular game…
jtsharpe
You repeating this like a broken record does not make it any less false. The line is not arbitrary, or even limited to “my friends in the backroom”. Traditionalists are attached to tradition. There are different traditions, hence different traditionalists. Catholic traditionalists (like those Orthosphere guys) are of a different vein from those of more recent vintage, like those traditionalists whose traditions do not extend beyond the 19th century…or worse, the 50′s…
I’ve seen Bennett on TV. I’ve read some of his writings. He insists that he is a conservative. He insists that he is a traditional Catholic. You claim to know better. And you are willing to conjure up ever more minute hair-splitting arguments, in order to exclude blowhard Bennett from the category “Traditional Conservative”. Why?
I suspect it is because you wish to conjure up a category for TradCon that contains “only good stuff and no bad stuff”. Just as feminists wish to pretend that Feminism is “all good stuff and no bad stuff”. So just as we have the spectacle of some 3rd wave feminist shrilly claiming that Andrea Dworkin was never, ever a “real” feminist, we have the spectacle of TradCons perpetually insisting that any public figure who makes an ass of himself can’t be a Traditional Conservative, because of some little wrinkle in the ever-growing definition of “tradcon”.
And so, yes, it is No True Scotsman. You can’t bring yourself to accept that your group contains some stupid people, some ignorant people and even a few bad people. So rather than “man up” and admit that traditional conservatives are just as flawed as any other group of humans, you persist in drawing ever smaller circles in the great Venn diagram of the world. Apparently you do not realize just how silly this looks to outside observers. To me it is a lot like what schoolgirls do with their “secret clubs” on the playground.
So perhaps what traditionalists really reject is reality?
jtsharpe
Ah, so we’re playing this game now. No, we do not reject “reality”. We simply reject the underlying premises that make the contemporary culture what it is.
You, sir, are attempting to justify the behavior of 20th and 21st century UMC women by pointing to two women of the 1300’s. Do I really have to go through all the tedious details of how the culture of the late Middle Ages is different from the culture of the MTV world, in order to demonstrate to you just how nonsensical this is? Do I really, really have to do that? I’m no medievalist, but I’m pretty sure I can fill in the general broad outlines of the times and how vastly different they are from today.
Sure, the contract is demolished in the wider world. It doesn’t prevent us from trying to live it among ourselves.
This sentence is not even close to what you wrote previously. Perhaps you did not note that?
To put it in manosphere-like terms, we’re going TGTOW.
Fine by me. Trouble is, you do not really GYOW. You insist on taking potshots at men from time to time. And you also will come runnin to support pretty much any legislation to “protect women” or “protect children” – that’s how Bradley and other bad laws got passed. Feminists ululated “for the CHILdren, save WOmen” and social / traditional conservatives did their imitation of Pavlov’s dogs. I’m all in favor of y’all GYOW, when do you plan to actually start leaving the rest of us alone?
And we certainly do not endorse the contemporary culture, which is the most patently untrue and vicious slander the denizens of the manosphere have leveled against us.
Dalrock has nailed this one to the floor. Your oh-so-tradcon enclave is full of career-first, family second women. Those careers are built on top of the glass floor of Affirmative Action /EEO. In pursuing those careers, those “tradition” women just happen to be crowding out men – men who could become the kind of man some other tradcon woman might want to marry. The “tradition” they follow is that of liberal women in the 1960’s. So spare me the 12th century nuns. Your tradcon enclave women have more in common with Germaine Greer than they do with any woman from 750+ years ago.
I could go on. I could point to the support tradcons provided to the creation of anti-family court – “it’s to protect women from mean ex husbands ” or the Bradley Amendment…more support, both active and passive, of the march of feminism. But that is enough for now.
More accurately, traditionalist actions make it clear that they believe in unlimited forgiveness for women. For men? Eh, not so much.
You’re talking to traditionalists for whom St. Augustine, who was Tucker Max before Tucker Max was born, is not just a hero but a foundational thinker. A saint whose “grant me chastity, but not yet” is quoted with affection.
Words, words, words. You will welcome women who have done bad things, so long as they can fake their sorrow convincingly. You reject men like “walkinginhell”. I’ve seen it. Actions speak louder than words. Deal with it.
We’re easy targets, so if you just want to bitch at us, go ahead. When feminism rolls both of us over, stand proud, because you’ve bitched at traditionalists and they “had it coming”.
Feminism has won, for now. You helped it to victory. Because women are your idols. You will sacrifice anything before their pedestal.
jtsharpe
If you want to reform no-fault divorce out of existence, we won’t stand in your way. We might even help.
In other words, if there is a wildfire and the rest of us are trying to put it out, you won’t get in the way. You might just tell us “we are OPPOSED to wildfire” and go back into your gated community. Or you might offer some token help. But you might not.
In other words, if a gang of punks and sluts is committing arson against your neighbors house, you won’t get in the way of stopping them. You might just tell us “we are OPPOSED to arson” and slam your door. Or you might dial 911. Maybe.
You might help, or you might not. Now, what were you claiming about the inaccuracy of my three analogies, again?
If you saw ‘walkinginhell” on the way to Mass, how much faster would you walk to avoid him?
And just for the record, men should go back to insisting on marrying virgins.
No hymen, no ring.
That would nuke all the hamsters …
Plastic surgeons now do hymen restoration. http://www.revirgination.net/hymenrepair.html
A doctor can tell the real from the fake. This is according to a young Iranian woman. Anyway, a hymen alone can’t prove chastity, not in this day and age. Here’s her comments about American televangelists on TV:
“Rather late for this post but:
I used to watch evangelical sattelite channel before knowing they were prots. and you know they always spoke as if God was particularly forgiving toward the sins of flesh. As if speaking against other sins is good and speaking against prostitutes is bad and Pharisical and judgmental.
Once I heard a man saying that he didn’t care if his wife has committed some premarital sin because God forgives the sinners. I told him:” yes. God forgives the thieves, yet it doesn’t mean that a girl shouldn’t care if her husband is a thief, or shouldn’t prefer an honest man.”
Still heretical channels show us a God particularly in favor of the impure, protecting them and punishing all those who dare to annoy them.
The story of St. Mary Magdalen doesn’t mean that He loves sins. Don’t forget that she was baptized when she believed meaning that she would be forgiven even if she were a murderer before baptism.
I wonder how those people who use “God forgives the sinner” as an excuse for impurity don’t want to use apply their own principal to other sins. “God forgives the child abuser, the lazy the infidel man, the dictator the backbiter etc!” So lets never object to these sins too!”
The truth is very clear, you just don’t want to see it.
@jtsharpe
What frustrates the traditionalist in this dialogue is that you won’t even accept that his perspective is legitimate,
It is foolish to accept a perspective that doesn’t match up with reality. If it’s tested and found to be false, it needs to be rejected. You see, I’ve dealt with many people like the DCs and evidently you as well. They withdraw into their little bubble, harden their heads and their hearts into what they perceive the world to be, true or false, and then adamantly oppose all who don’t agree with their way the world works, refusing to listen to them.
This is nothing different than raising a child in a house, refusing to let them out at all until they are 18. Then when they are freezing cold outside, often not understanding why they are freezing cold, they are told that they shouldn’t be cold in the first place because they never needed the coat inside the house. In this case, the children are not informed correctly that cold exists and that there is a way to proactively deal with it. This is the effect and folly of enclavism, and it’s not all that uncommon in any Christian circle.
The truth as has been said in other ways here, is that while you can actively choose to not follow certain paths of culture, certain facets of culture (namely LAWS) will come to you whether you want it or not. I hope it doesn’t happen, but Mr. Darwin and all his brothers will be sad when those LAWS come to kick down the doors of his little enclave and bring the wickedness of the culture in this matter to him. He won’t be able to ignore it. And it WILL HAPPEN whether he wants it or not.
Ask them if they are feminists. They will say no.
…
It is another to accuse them of being in league with those who stole from them in the first place.
Of course they will say no. They don’t see the modern views (as was pointed out, 1960’s era) that they hold as feminism because it doesn’t fit their world view. Perception is reality to most, but truth is absolute in all cases (something else the tradcons have lost sight of).
The facts here have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Darwin Catholics (and maybe you too) are feminists because they have espoused and defended feminist views inconsistent with the Bible. Full stop. And even if they weren’t feminists, it has been proven even more that they and all tradcons give aid, comfort, and support to feminism. Full stop. This is nothing different than the admonition to not give aid, comfort, and support to false teachers (2 John 10-11). This is also why Jesus can praise Peter one moment for seeing that He is the Son of God, but call him Satan the next for opposing His plan to die on the cross. Simply put, if the Darwii were not feminists (and they are), they still give full support to it. Which makes them as much the enemy as the secular feminists are.
If it was as clear cut as what you see with your eyes, there wouldn’t be over 20,000 denominations in the first place.
Denominations exist for the same reason as this whole discussion exists. The fallen hearts of men often refuse to see the truth as it is written, disagree, and form their little own enclaves which may grow or not grow. Simply put, 20000 denominations exists because sin exists. And this discussion between people that should be eye-to-eye (I see no disagreements from a fundamental doctrinal standpoint regarding what marriage should be) exists because sin exists. Full stop.
This is very insightful into the way sin is handled within the religious flavor of feminism which most all tradcons practice.
@JoeSheehy, quoting the young Iranian woman
they always spoke as if God was particularly forgiving toward the sins of flesh.
As if speaking against other sins is good and speaking against prostitutes is bad and Pharisical and judgmental.
This happens because women are involved, and the churches don’t want to be seen as “opposing women” (or misogynistic) within the culture. Period. The thing that most churches and denomations do is that sin is often selectively dealt with. There are those that are ignored, those that are spoken against, and those that are even actively encouraged within the churches. These things are done to befit those in leadership, because they help along the man-made organizations which they uphold.
Once I heard a man saying that he didn’t care if his wife has committed some premarital sin because God forgives the sinners. I told him:” yes. God forgives the thieves, yet it doesn’t mean that a girl shouldn’t care if her husband is a thief, or shouldn’t prefer an honest man.”
Repentance implies that the activity is STOPPED. Or else repentance doesn’t happen. This fact is often lost in the churches. With women it seems the expectation is that the sin should be completely forgotten, as if the woman never rode the carousel at all. “Man up and marry the sluts” occurs because of this as well as the false pronuptualism teaching. Personally, while I’ve seen I have more grace than most here regarding women, I still have no interest in a slut, any woman I would marry (if marriage was freed from Caesar’s grip) would have to prove herself chaste, in control of her body, and free of any effects of any prior sexual encounters. I recognize in the church culture that what this last sentence means makes me a misogynist, but I would rather have a marriage that is honorable in the sight of God than what occurs today.
What this flavor of tradcom suffers is that they conflate conventional wisdom, or the norm, with the truth about reality.
This is all the same thing, different day.
How many times have you talked to a friend about mens issues, specifically regarding the church lets say, and the friend being a seeming pillar of the modern church. This friend is settled into the norm, what everyone says and everyone knows. That friend will instantly say “it may well be that there are churches out there that are anti-male, but thankfully mine isnt”. For years I have worked with friends to dissect that claim and prove them wrong with the words of their own pastors taken from the websites, or the ministry offerings or choose your data. But to these men, sitting under another Men Step Up fathers day sermon is supportive of men….they feel supportd when they are told hey men you CAN do it we know you can, here are 3 steps to do it, and with the help of that woman beside you you most certainly CAN become the man God called.
THAT is the norm, it is conventional wisdom, when conventional wisdom is challenged, it doesnt feel right at all. The men are so accustomed to perceiving insult as support and accountability ministry as pro-male that they cannot see what it REALLY is in context.
I had to spend an hour with a pastor of a mega church recently, walking him through the hypothetical experience of a boy and girl raised in his church, what they both hear, and how that is taken on board and what it creates as THEIR norm, the expectations and suspicions etc. Sharpe is just touting conventional wisdom, using a thesaurus. That’s it. I know the position so well because it was MY position, before it wasn’t.
Men are comfortable in the supplicating role, and women are comfortable in a weird blend of victim and superior, the former affording the power and right to be the later.
Base reality, women are supported because they have pathologically low self esteem, men are held accountable because they are PERCEIVED to be morally weaker than women. That means women can do no wrong, and of course they are not feminists, I mean after all, this is church people and they believe in traditional stuff, heck they even home school (but be sure and note the pedigree of the gaggle of gigglers doing the teaching in the elite home school group)
Im not sure that drilling deeper and deeper debating this is ever going to change their minds, to be clear I hope the debate continues because it edifies and teaches the rest of us as it evolves, but the very nature of the debate itself has over shot the line where the action is, which is so very fundamental and basic that they will either get it, or they wont. Usually men see that battle line only during personal skirmish, and these dudes with these elitist wives all claiming to adhere to traditionalism are set up to fall the furthest, truly.
This happens because women are involved, and the churches don’t want to be seen as “opposing women” (or misogynistic) within the culture. Period. The thing that most churches and denomations do is that sin is often selectively dealt with. There are those that are ignored, those that are spoken against, and those that are even actively encouraged within the churches. These things are done to befit those in leadership, because they help along the man-made organizations which they uphold
————————————————————————–
Do this mental exercise
Imagine these two sentences spoken from the pulpit (not at the same sitting) and the disparate reactions
1. Homosexuality is bad
2. Divorce is bad
Assuming a conservative-ish denomination or non denominational church, one would get amens yelled out, would not offend anyone, and the pastor would likely receive no pissed off letters
The other? Well, youve done done it now, you are condemning the divorcees, and you failed to mention that divorce for any reason is perfectly forgivable and they need grace and acceptance.
NEVER mention anything that can remotely be seen as a sin that involves women. Perception carries the day. Affairs? Preach it….because its PERCEIVED a male issue. Abuse, bring it baby, another male issue, bad communications, oh yeah tell it preacher, and save the absolute apogee of male accountability for says then the ladies need lathering up…..porn
I also think that a significant aspect to what you are talking about, empath, has to do with a very flawed idea of the notion of male leadership.
There is a tendency to argue/believe, in a rather sloppy way, that because men are supposed to be the leaders (in churches, in families and so on) that anything that is amiss is primarily the fault of the men — women are the designated followers, and so any shortcomings they may have are also the fault of the men for being imperfect leaders. The idea is that if the men were simply leading properly, we wouldn’t see the women behaving the way they do — so the way to “address the issue” is to get men to lead better, and the women will just magically fall in line.
This is a pervasive mindset among American Christians, especially among self-described “conservative” Protestant Christians. It’s also present, to a lesser degree, among conservative Catholic (and unfortunately Orthodox as well) clerics. You see this reflected in guys like Driscoll and Stanton. You also see it reflected in the more general and pervasive idea that people have (as slwerner talks about above) that if a woman is “acting out” in some bad way, ultimately the man must have done something to cause this, even if that “something” was not being the ideal leader to be followed perfectly.
If you have this mindset that everything women do is derivative of male leadership, then you’re going to view “fixing” the problem as primarily a matter of fixing what the men are doing — the women will magically “fall in line” if you do this. (This kind of magic wish thinking also pervades the Game community, by the way, but that’s a topic for a different comment). So, if you see problem with female promiscuity, you immediately look at what the men are doing in the picture, and woodshed them to act differently — because if they do, you believe that the women will stop behaving promiscuously, simply because you see their behavior as derivative of male behavior — i.e., that they “follow the man’s lead”, whether he is leading well or not. In other words, this interpretation of male leadership always finds the locus of any problem in the man — women have a lesser degree of moral agency, in effect, under this view — and even though when it’s expressed that way almost none of these guys would admit that, in effect it is nevertheless what they are doing and saying.
This is very far removed from what we see in Genesis. In Genesis, by contrast, we see God making both Adam AND Eve own their own shit. God doesn’t say to Eve; “Well, we know Adam was being a shitty leader, and therefore we don’t really blame you for what you did, even though it was technically wrong” — no, he berates her for her own sin. Of course, he berates Adam for *listening* to Eve and following her into her sin, rather than leading her out of it, but this admonition and penalty does not obscure or understate the admonition and penalty issued to Eve. Both are sinners, the sin is in some ways the same and in some ways different due to the different situations of each. The American Christian God of today simply does not want to hold Eve to account for her sins — he wants to hold Adam account for his own sins and also for those of Eve. Quite simply, he doesn’t want to make Eve responsible for her own shit.
This is a foundational heresy, in functional terms, that has infected pretty much all of American Christianity — the only difference is the degree of the infection, which differs depending on one’s “Brand” of Christianity. It is, however, a fundamental moral heresy which is destroying the church from within. The social conservatives and traditionalists are just as guilty of this as are other Christians due to their tendency to magnify male responsibility while diminishing female responsibility. There are many reasons for this — Victorianism, longstanding pro-female sympathies due to chivalry and the ancien regime order between men and women in the West, the influence of feminism — all of them mingling together to make for a distinctly toxic brew. But the fact remains that they do this, they do it almost reflexively, because it “feels right”. This is the fundamental problem.
@empathologicalism
1. Homosexuality is bad
I broad-brushed the churches, because all of them believe this way with respect to sin in general. But I should point out that there are many churches these days (in the US), maybe even a majority who would provide the second reaction you posted. What befits one church to support is different than another. There are churches that even actively promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Likely the differences in these churches involve how much they buy into society, but most likely it’s due to the constituents involved and how much money they’ve been putting into the offering plate.
Again, perception carries the day on this one. They buy into the lie that the priests of humanism (aka scientists) have manufactured saying that homosexuality is genetic. So they can’t “we can’t judge them because God made them this way”.
The state of the churches today are really pathetic. It’s a testament to Jesus’ long suffering that He hasn’t upended them long ago.
Since I can’t edit my previous post when I get good ideas, I’d thought I’d post a link to prove what I said about homosexuality. This is a directory of “gay-affirming” churches. It is very instructive to peruse the list and see the denominations represented (and yes your Catholics are represented, DC and jtsharpe, but then again “no real Scotsman” right?) Along with this is of course a interpretation of Scripture that has been warped into supporting homosexuality.
http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/find_a_church.htm
So one of you that is in Catholicism, instruct me: How can a Roman Catholic church be accepting of this?
I’m not a Roman Catholic, but the issue is that if a group of people gets together and calls themselves “XYZ” denomination, but they aren’t under the umbrella of said denomination, it is hard legally to do anything about that. You can sue them for false use of a trademarked name, but that probably won’t get you very far in court.
Willow Creek (Bill Hybels’s place) is non-denominational, and they recently dis-associated with Exodus International, possibly because Exodus holds to the politically incorrect idea that homosexuality can be unlearned. Bill Hybels is very clear that he believes church is a business, and the bad PR that comes from associating with a politically incorrect ministry is too much for him.
So my point is, whether they are denominational or non-denominational, it is hard to stop this. Also, I live near Hybels church and have visited there once. I listend to Hybels preach, and he is clearly a narcisstic self-glorifying a-hole.
So one of you that is in Catholicism, instruct me: How can a Roman Catholic church be accepting of this?
Well, in fact, Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) has an objective test to define whether a Church is really Catholic so we can’t know whether the “not true Scotman” fallacy is applicable or not.
Catholic doctrine is defined by the Church (meaning Rome). In the Cathecism of the Catholic Church (published by Rome), you can read what it says about homosexuality. Everything else is not Catholic.
Of course, you can’t avoid two situations:
– A group of people gathers and claim being Catholic but without submitting to the authority and doctrine of Rome. Let’s call them: “fake Catholics”.
– A congregation who has always been part of the Church rebels itself against Rome’s authority and doctrine, by accepting behaviors forbidden by Rome (like homosexuality). Let’s call them “bad Catholics”.
You can’t blame Catholic Church about the first situation. But, you can blame American Catholicism about the second one (but not Rome).
The problem is worse in Protestant Christianity and Islam because they have no central authority In fact, Prostentantism is a rebellion against a (corrupt) authority and liberalism stems from that. In a hadith, Mahoma says: “In Islam there are no priests”.
So every religious group is free to define their own rules, according their own interpretation of the sacred texts (and modernity and relativism stems from that). This is why it is impossible to distinguish between “true Protestants” and “false Protestants”, because every congregation will tell you that “real Protestants” are those who think like them. So every argument claiming “This is not real Christianity” degenerates into “true Scotman fallacy” in the Protestant world.
Brendan
You are right on the money genesis is the foundation period. Pleasing to man is road of good intentions straight to hell.
It occurs to me once again to point out that all humans in the industrialized West are submerged in feminism. We all are immersed in feminist notions. These ideas are so pervasive, many people do not even notice them, they just “are”. How many of us reflexively assume that men and women are substantially the same, except women can have babies and men cannot? Even though we know, intellectually, that women’s brain structure differs from men in some significant ways, even though we know that women’s hormonal mix in the bloodstream is significantly different from men, even though we know that women on average are shorter and weaker physically than men, we have an unconscious assumption that, well, y’know, we’re all pretty much the same. And that premise is easy to demolish. Yet it is still quite wide spread.
Take a more complex one, such as “women should receive equal education to men”. Not “women should have an equal opportunity to education as men”, but that women’s education and men’s education should be equal – equal number of BA’s, equal number of MBA’s, equal number of PhD’s, equal number of BS’s, and so forth. This flows from the first premise. But if the first premise can be demolished, this one can be also. However this makes people uneasy, especially parents in the Upper Middle Class – because it implies that it’s more important for sons to obtain useful credentials that they can then take with them into the world, than for daughters to obtain the same credentials. Worse yet, it implies that in some areas of academic inquiry, women will either be fewer in number, or will be equal in number but notably inferior in quality. We can’t bear this thouht, and UMC parents will reject it. Yet it flows from the study of the structure of the brain itself via MRI and PET, as well as from generations of standardized IQ testing. This premise is still generally accepted, even though we can already see the results playing out in the ever expanding number of women with useless college degrees – degrees that basically are attendance awards that never required any academic rigor.
I posit the following: the default position for people in the US is “tacit feminism”. That is, accepting feminist notions without bothering to examine them. The act of examining them critically will lead to some degree of rejection. But this leads to an hypothesis: a person who is not actively anti feminist is going to become tacitly pro-feminist.
The default track for children of the UMC is to go to a college – the men, to earn a degree that will enable them to enter the work force, the women to meet a man suitable for marriage, i.e. to earn her MRS degree. This is nothing new, it was the standard for a lot of state colleges in the 1950’s, 1960’s and into the 1970’s. But because of unconscious, unexamined acceptance of feminist idea #2 above, now we see the UMC demanding more for their daughters.They must complete a basic degree, and then an advanced one, prior to marriage. This doesn’t make them better mothers, but it does “keep up with the Jones’s”, i.e. the UMC parents are freed from having to explain why their daughter only has a BA in Spanish and now is a mere hausfrau. The UMC are therefore tacit feminists, but they can claim anti-feminism because their daughters don’t generally have abortions (or at least the parents don’t know if they do), do marry and do produce at least two grand children. And compared to the freak show that is 3rd wave feminism, especially sex-positive, this picture looks pretty “traditional”. But it’s in the tradition of 1968…
Putting on the glasses / taking the red pill means seeing the world differently. It also means looking inside your own head, and seeing what in there is not true. The value of Game is how it overturns falsehoods about women and men. This has long reaching effects.
Any person or institution not explicitly anti-feminist will drift towards tacit support of feminism. Because feminism is in the air we breath and the water we drink.
Anon Reader,
You made a similar comment before and I had neglected to bookmark it. I haven’t made the same mistake this time. Brendan wrote a while back that my challenge to the accepted morality of serial monogamy was “the most subversive idea that has come out of this generally excellent blog”. I take that as very high praise, and in that spirit I’ll make the same statement about your comment above. The point itself is very simple, painfully simple once you hear it. Just like a fish doesn’t know it is wet, everyone raised in this feminist culture will have adopted more or less feminist ideas. The real problem isn’t necessarily the ideas themselves; they either stand or fall on their own merits. The problem is the ideas are not challenged because we aren’t aware of them, in fact we even struggle to identify them once they are pointed out.
Ballista
I know there are churches promoting gay life. It doesnt matter to my point at all. In (valid) general my observations hold.
Dalrock:
everyone raised in this feminist culture will have adopted more or less feminist ideas. The real problem isn’t necessarily the ideas themselves; they either stand or fall on their own merits. The problem is the ideas are not challenged because we aren’t aware of them, in fact we even struggle to identify them once they are pointed out.
——————————————————
Yea, thats what I was saying above about conventional wisdom and our ideas being upsetting the norm. It seems revolutionary to say lets eliminate the gynocentrism when they are thinking, HUH? Yea, lets do eliminate that…..show me those churches where it is and we will get after it
Then comes the absolutely goofy female tactic of “show me one pastor who have ever said women are more moral than women”…..oy vey, you cannot debate with those stuck on stupid
@AR
Truer words can’t be written.
This has been said many times in the manosphere, but it is rarely expressed so well: so succintly, so well-explained, so clearly. A great home-run for you.
@ van Rooinek
Thanks for the link to that hamster study on early sex. I’ve been wondering about this for years and suspected something like that was true, but had never read any studies. I would like for them to do studies on females rather than males, since every woman I’ve personally known who slutted it up in her teens never truly grew into a responsible adult. They all seem stuck as emotional teenagers, even into their thirties and forties.
I wish there could be a study done on adult women, perhaps comparing brain scans of early sluts to brain scans of virgins-til-marriage. Not gonna happen, but it would be be extremely interesting!
Thanks to all involved with this good discussion. I am a Catholic of a similar stripe as Darwin’s and jtsharpe’s, and have especially enjoyed reading jtsharpe’s and Dalrock’s exchanges here. I appreciate jtsharpe’s perspective, though I emphasize a disagreement with him here.
Generally speaking, I have seen the problem in the Catholic Church in America and in Christianity as a whole in America, the problem of avoidance or even denial of the faults in women, resulting in a de facto alliance with feminism, which thrives on the idea of the female victim. There is another dynamic at play also, as I observe it. It is true, as jtsharpe points out in comment 34717 and earlier that St. Catherine openly rebuked a pope, and that there have been women declared Doctors of the Church, but in the scope of the entire history and tradition of the Catholic Church, these are anomalies. I think Pope John Paul II was perhaps unbalanced, if not erring, in this regard by his haste to point out the masculine accomplishments of women in history, maybe trying to defend against the vicious attacks by feminists that the Church is and was misogynistic. His emphasis of these masculine accomplishments in women (including the declaration of some as Doctors of the Church) came at the expense of acknowledging the normal and obviously feminine accomplishments in women, which tend overwhelmingly toward the home and raising of children (though I think it is very clear that JPII, based on all of his teachings as a whole, retained a vision of the primary and most important vocation of women being mother and wife) While jtsharpe points out in comment 34717 “in a tradition that produced female “Doctors of the Church” long before there were feminist PhD’s, we’re just not that uncomfortable with female achievement”, there were no women actually declared Doctors of the Church until the 1970s. I don’t see anything wrong with the declaring, per se, of a woman as Doctor of the Church, but the fact that it never occurred until the ’70s, after feminism had been well-established in Western society, says something. It’s worth asking and pondering why several centuries of Church tradition saw no female doctors, and a mere forty years, coinciding with forty years of virulent feminism, have now seen three.
What I see happening, and it’s a very difficult thing to isolate and identify as a problem, is many traditional Catholics accepting the idea that women in particular ought not have an expected role to play in society any different than that of men, since we have examples of women in the Church throughout history doing things that are traditionally done by men. Again, I think Catholics have been encouraged to do this by the examples of recent popes, especially JPII. It is difficult to identify this problem, however, for a couple of reasons: 1. while I say that the above examples of St. Catherine, and women-Doctors are anomalies, the idea of an anomaly is usually subjective, and it is, at least somewhat, here. What I consider an anomaly because it only occurred a few times in history might by another person be judged to be the norm, and it’s difficult to refute his assertion because of the subjectivity of it. 2. traditionalists are typically not afraid of outliers who do not conform to the standard of what is normal. The beauty of tradition is that it allows for the strange cases here and there all while still holding to a time-tested standard of what is normal. However, the temptation as I see it, which may be more prevalent in our day than ever, is to consider the outliers as part of a new normal. This is what I think jtsharp, Darwin, and many other traditional Catholics have done. In failing to keep at the forefront the idea that a woman with a career is an outlier, they have made themselves unwittingly allied with the feminist careerist mentality for women, even though the idea of such an alliance is rightly repulsive to them.
[D: Welcome, and thanks for your insight.]
Dalrock-
Brilliant.
(esp. the “little buddy” ref.)
@empathologicalism
I know there are churches promoting gay life. It doesnt matter to my point at all. In (valid) general my observations hold.
Sure it does. But it enabled me to ask something that hopefully will bring things to a point. The question wasn’t really for anyone to answer, but for THEM to answer and give THEM something to think about. It really is another example of the same issue in this thread (DC, but Driscoll, Stanton, and others do it too): The walk (and a lot of the talk) isn’t lining up with their direct statements of their positions. In other words, reality is much different. In the top-down hierarchy I understand they have, why aren’t they dealing with this? False teaching and even trumpeting that they false teach?
If another example is warranted, the controversy over the recent Obama decision over the coverage of contraception is a good one. If the Catholic line is that contraception is a sin, why have 98% of Catholic women of child-bearing age who have had sex used some form of contraception other than natural family planning? Do they see this as a problem, at all? What are they going to actually DO about it?
DC and others fail to see the problems even within their own houses. There are those that see the problem, who have a different solution, but that’s not the one I’m advocating, and somehow I don’t think DC would advocate it either. Their unwillingness to see these and other problems, along with the lack of “testicular fortitude” to actually DO something about these things within their own houses, makes what they say wring very hollow in the end, even if it is morally right. Then to add insult, they attack those (in our case) that actually see another problem (the acceptance of the intrusion of government into marriage and all that it brings), and are trying to act based on those problems.
Dalrock –
WAY off-topic: what distro of Linux do you use? I’m a Lubuntu/Xubuntu user who may be looking for a new home. I’ve used Debian, Mepis, and Mint, but interested in other inputs from people whose opinions I trust. Please delete if you think this is just too derailing to the thread.
[D: I’m running Ubuntu 11.10 (64) on two desktops, and lubuntu 11.10 on my netbook. In December when I built my new machine I tried a number of other distros out of frustration with unity but ended up coming back.]
@Brendan 8:42 am
The socons also tend to forget that women only follow men they are attracted to in the first place. We cannot just say that “women are followers of men”. That’s incorrect. Female behavior towards men is largely bimodal: they mercilessly trample on beta males even if those males are decent and moral, and they suck up to alphas no matter how those treat them. You’ve discussed the marginal utility of Game many times, so I think we can argue that the average beta male is unlikely to be desired by women, which in turn means that probably no woman will ever follow her anyway. Telling him that he merely has to be a decent and adept leader of women is just silly.
“This kind of magic wish thinking also pervades the Game community, by the way, but that’s a topic for a different comment”
I’m eagerly awaiting that comment.
DC and others fail to see the problems even within their own houses. There are those that see the problem, who have a different solution, but that’s not the one I’m advocating, and somehow I don’t think DC would advocate it either. Their unwillingness to see these and other problems, along with the lack of “testicular fortitude” to actually DO something about these things within their own houses, makes what they say wring very hollow in the end, even if it is morally right. Then to add insult, they attack those (in our case) that actually see another problem (the acceptance of the intrusion of government into marriage and all that it brings), and are trying to act based on those problems.
I think it has to do with their solution to the problem. The FUS Catholics do like like what Walsh was advocating in that Salon piece, either. They recognize that the US Catholic Church has mostly gone quite wide of Catholic teaching. Their approach to the problem is to hive themselves off in sub-communities within that Church, while maintaining a critical stance toward the “abuses”. They do not leave the Catholic Church (unlike some splinter groups who have done), but they try to spend as much time in the subculture that is “faithful”, due to a sense of powerlessness to change things on a broader level (other than a vague hope in demographic changes). This parallels the approach they take to the culture as a whole — it’s the “wall oneself off” approach to the issue, except on an even broader scale when it applies to things outside the Catholic Church — in the latter case, it’s kind of like a “double” wall.
It truly is something that doesn’t really change much of consequence. It does create a subculture of the like-minded, but that subculture hasn’t really changed very much in the wider U.S. Catholic Church culture, or the broader culture of the U.S. The Catholic Church in the US, in any case, is a broad institution that reflects the political fracturing in the U.S. within itself — the Church contains people who are everything from neo-Marxist, radical feminist, and arch-liberal, to separatist traditionalists like DC and ethno-nationalist populists like Pat Buchanan. The time in which there was a distinctive Catholic subculture in the US in which most US Catholics participated is long gone at this point. What DC and others like him are trying to do is to recreate something like that on a small scale.
I am not Catholic by the way, although I was until I was received by the Orthodox Church in 2000. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and a former Catholic, I can say that I only have very deep skepticism about the usefulness, ultimately, of the separatist strategy. The Orthodox in the US have employed the separatist strategy for some time. This has only had mixed results at best, because, as the Catholics also learned during the 20th Century, most people who come to the US eventually, once they find themselves knocking on the door of access to financial and political power, want to assimilate to some degree into the culture of the economic and political power structures so that this access and execution can happen in a more fulsome way. That is, Catholics eventually wanted to assimiliate more fully into the main power culture here in the US, and that culture was WASP at the time — and as we know that WASP culture became ultimately the core of the liberal/progressive establishment. This is why there are so many Catholic liberals/progressives — they assimilated into American culture, because they wanted to do so, rather than living in a subculture with separate values. The same thing has happened to a large degree among most “ethnic” American Orthodox (i.e., people who have ethnic background ties to Orthodox countries, rather than others who have converted to Orthodoxy in the US) — most have assimilated quite thoroughly into the US culture, again because they wanted to do so to access financial, cultural and political power that would have been much more closed off to “outsiders”. By remaining “outsiders”, the access to these things lessens to a substantial degree.
This desire to assimilate is a powerful cultural force — not a weak one. It will infect a certain percentage of the offspring of the present-day separatist/sub-culture crowd, just as it did their grandparents, who also tried valiantly to resist the assimilation of their kids. The culture is very big — it’s almost impossible to run away from it or protect oneself from it. The assumption that many separatists seem to make is that they will “win” by out-breeding everyone else. But that’s not how separatism and the response to separatism of assimilation have tended to work on an inter-generational basis. Most Catholics had a lot of kids prior to the revolution as well, but those kids assimilated, for the most part, even though their parents fought that, hard, at times. Assuming the offspring of separatists will choose not to assimilate is a faulty assumption — it has been tried before, and has largely failed. The culture needs to be engaged and fought directly, not indirectly by hiding/sheltering from it. It needs to be met head on. It is the only way.
Ballista GTOW:
I looked at the list of congregations of my state and I did not find one that is a member of the Catholic church (that is, a church recognized by the Vatican). I did find one that is part of the the “Roman Catholic – Dignity” organization, which has no organizational link to the Catholic Church.
Of course, it varies by state. The list for California listed 43 “Roman Catholic” congregations, the highest count I found. (I’m taking Roman Catholic at face value to mean a church formally aligned with the Vatican.)
Good points about the late pope’s soft feminism and the role of assimilation in the liberalism of the Catholic Church in the west. John Paul II was a bit trigger-happy when it came to creating saints, and he went out of his way to create more married saints, for example. The increased emphasis on female Doctors of the Church was part of the same push to be more “inclusive”, in line with the spirit of Vatican II. Same with altar girls and women lectors. Nevertheless, he wrote infallibly against women priests, and I believe Benedict has just restated this point in the last few days. And it was Benedict who restated the headship of the husband in his commentary on some of John Paul’s writings.
I am not an American, but I am a keen America-watcher, and it is interesting to tease out the way in which influence was brought to bear on the Catholic Church in America to get it into line with the broader culture. E Michael Jones is the social historian of this phenomenon.
Men have to get tough with women again. They do not respect weakness. I think we have all learned that. And part of that is insisting on genuine white weddings again. If she can’t wear white for the traditional reason, don’t marry her. Why should you?
@Joe Sheehy
“What the white knights and the femitrads tell us is that the modern girls are delaying marriage while maintaining their purity. And if not we have to believe them when they tell us they’re truly repentant, and “forgive” them. As though believing someone in someone’s good faith, that they are truly contrite means you have a moral fault if you refuse to marry them. As though being in a state of grace means she’s as good as virginal again. While no one would deny that is possible for young women to delay marriage and remain virgins, you’d have to be extremely naive to believe that’s what’s generally happening, no matter how traditional the girl’s family. And of course, that naivety, and the naivety of believing that the girl your with is the exception, is what lets them get away with it. And of course, anyone who mentions this will be hated.”
The nerve that some these femitrads and white knighters on “Trad Catholic” forums have is unbelievable. Essentially, their position is that of fanatical gnostics; that is, they believe that grace obliterates the temporal and renders it entirely unimportant. That God can forgive the sins of men/women is one thing, but he does not obliterate the natural/temporal order. A good example of this the the thief on the cross. The thief on the cross took his punishment after his repentance; he did not say “ah hey Jesus now that I’m forgiven and repentant, you think that you can dust me off and get me down from here.”
Dalrock, it’s a paraphrase of something I read years ago; “Any institution that is not explicitly opposed to Marxism will be taken over by Marxists”. Or something like that. The latest go-round just brought the idea to the forefront. i still think seeing serial monogamy as the preferred form of promiscuity for women is the more important insight.
Now with regard to the “latest go round”, let’s recall that we are debating, sometimes heatedly, with jtsharpe because he’s taken up the cause of the Darwii. Why are the Darwii here? In response to a series of articles that tie back to the Catholic woman blogger. And what got her worked up?
She accidentally tripped over the androsphere, and found angry men. Angry men who won’t take orders from women, who won’t be manipulated by women, who won’t be shamed by women. So she basically exhibited both fear and anger. Why?
Why does the sight of men who are refusing to take orders, to be manipulated, to be shamed by women elicit this response? I recall the prominent RC woman blogger whom I won’t name having a similar conniption fit over the Spearhead. Fear and anger. In both cases, the women all but ordered other men to “do something”. That “something” basically boils down to “make those men behave so that they don’t scare me”.
Perhaps women have grown used to controlling men – sometimes via fits of temper, sometimes via tears, sometimes via withholding sexual favors, and sometimes by calling in White Knighting men who will do the dirty work for them. And so the spectacle of men who are angry about women, and who won’t stop being angry, and who do not respond to the standard female methods of manipulation starting with shaming…is indeed alarming. Because a man who can’t be controlled is just plain dangerous to a woman.
We can expect more of this. Not less, more. More conservative feminist women will trip over the androsphere, and will read things that they don’t like, and they’ll be alarmed, and when their favorite White Knights can’t make the bad men just shut up, that will be even more alarming. The sensible response to all of this can be found at grerp’s blog, and some few others. Alas, I do not expect that many women to be as sensible. Not so long as the herd is still immersed in feminism.
But each time some conservative feminist like Duffy trips over the androsphere, we get another opportunity for education, and to put ideas like “hypergamy” into circulation. We get to sharpen arguments even more. We get to pare down ideas to the essence. More men and women get exposed to the glasses / red pill.
These events are opportunities, not problems. We just need to stay cool, stay loose, and keep putting the truth up where it can be seen.
However, the temptation as I see it, which may be more prevalent in our day than ever, is to consider the outliers as part of a new normal. This is what I think jtsharp, Darwin, and many other traditional Catholics have done. In failing to keep at the forefront the idea that a woman with a career is an outlier, they have made themselves unwittingly allied with the feminist careerist mentality for women, even though the idea of such an alliance is rightly repulsive to them.
This is a very good insight, buckyinky.
Any person or institution not explicitly anti-feminist will drift towards tacit support of feminism. Because feminism is in the air we breath and the water we drink.
Indeed, this is a key insight. Feminism is the ambient/default culture. This means we must always check our own assumptions and our own motives — it’s very easy for anyone (and in fact quite normal) to “default back” to the ambient cultural assumptions we have all imbibed based on the motives of comfort, familiarity, habit, and so on.
I know there are churches promoting gay life. It doesnt matter to my point at all. In (valid) general my observations hold.
Sure it does.
————————————————–
No Ballista it doesnt, unless youve missed the point, which is fair enough. But if youve gotten the point, that some churches promote a gay lifestyle is not relevant to the point.
The point is actually the same one the last few dozen comments are talking about, as summarized by the old saw about a fish not knowing its wet. The mention of the two potential pulpit statements are for illustrative reasons. I could have said The Chair is Against The Wall, and it would work just as well, if it fit even one churches mantra
Feminism is the ambient/default culture. This means we must always check our own assumptions and our own motives — it’s very easy for anyone (and in fact quite normal) to “default back” to the ambient cultural assumptions we have all imbibed based on the motives of comfort, familiarity, habit, and so on.
———————————–
This cant be repeated enough. The norm is considered balanced, like two tanks of water with a pipe in between, they seek balance naturally. There is a sense that society is nearing, even if asymptotically, balance. That, coupled with the other perception that society has come from a racist sexist homophopic state (pick one or all, no matter) and it follows perfectly reasonably that anything out of balance is in the direction of females being underprivileged. This is mantra , and this is cliche, hence it must be truth, because it feels balanced.
To suggest men are struggling is to suggest things are tilted WAY outta whack from what things FEEL, those feelings based solely on mantra and cliche, not evidence and empiricism. Its literally like telling someone “hey, do you know that sometimes up really is down, and left really is right”. It seems so ridiculous you must be some kind of nut, or so angry you’ve created a reality in which you can cope.
This is crucial because it is a far greater issue than openly proclaimed radical feminists and their ilk. This sense of things, vs the reality of things not only has church, gender relations, and family law screwed up, it affects here in the U.S. the very core beliefs and values of people, giving us a massive ignorant constituency which has the right to vote. That drifts things the way they perceive things need to drift (like the marxist comment above) and impacts every aspect of life. This is why the red pill metaphor is perfect and the challenge of metaphorically putting it into the water supply is number one.
@Empath
Bringing this back to one of your favorite topics, therein lies the subversive power of game. Game puts red pill thinking into the water supply. It works because despite all of the denial, hookup culture prevails. This leaves large numbers of young clueless men trying to solve one question; how to get women to be attracted to them, or more coarsely, how to get laid. In this context game is a secret the KGB couldn’t have kept.
There are of course moral questions which this raises, but as the non pickup side of the gamesphere has shown, not all men yearn to make the best of the hookup culture the ostensible moralists are so obstinately turning a blind eye to. Game will help many men start to put on the glasses either way, and some of those men (hopefully more and more) will use the understanding game provides as a gateway to the kinds of discussions we are having right now. Those who wish to keep misandry and feminism in place (knowingly or otherwise) will of course leap to the moral questions in their effort to dismiss the hard truths. They will do this despite marriage being the answer to the moral question they claim to want to solve, and despite the fact that they mostly don’t care about the state of marriage because they “don’t believe in divorce” or whatever other excuse they trot out to avoid saying or doing anything which would result in unhappy sluts.
@Buckyinky
I don’t see anything wrong with the declaring, per se, of a woman as Doctor of the Church, but the fact that it never occurred until the ’70s, after feminism had been well-established in Western society, says something. It’s worth asking and pondering why several centuries of Church tradition saw no female doctors, and a mere forty years, coinciding with forty years of virulent feminism, have now seen three.
Perhaps feminism gained traction amongst the cultural institutions of the West because it had some legitimacy and it took forever for the Church to recognise it.
I subscribe to the Whittaker Chambers view of history, which is of the opinion that traditional society had serious problems which the traditionalist mindset made impossible to address. The role of women was one of those issues, as were issues with regard to sexuality and economics.
The Church has always praised the role of motherhood. It’s only been in the last century that that the church has recognised the legitimacy of women in other spheres of society besides the consecrated life and the home. The sexuality issue has probably done more damage than the feminist one, since it is the primary emasculating force in the west. This view, which defacto teaches that the flesh is evil, strikes at the core of our sexual polarity. There is no headship of the man when man and woman are effectively the same.
Perhaps one of the reasons that the American Catholic Church became so feminist friendly is because of its assimilation with Protestantism. The Puritan ethic, stronger by far in the Protestant community, fed on this anti-flesh stream of thought in Catholicism, further emasculating it. Southern European Catholicism has its faults, but men still seem men and the women, women. Even Feminism there is not as virulent as it is in the Anglosphere, as Feminism thrives in any environment that destroys gender polarity. Silvio Berlusconi would have been impossible in Scandinavia. That’s why Feminists and Social Conservatives loathe Game with a passion.
JPII copped a lot of heat from the Trads, but perhaps it’s the Trad’s who are wrong. You gotta remember that it was the Pharisees who where the traditionalist faction of the Jewish religion. to them, Jesus was a innovator.
“JPII copped a lot of heat from the Trads, but perhaps it’s the Trad’s who are wrong. You gotta remember that it was the Pharisees who where the traditionalist faction of the Jewish religion. to them, Jesus was a innovator.”
Only if you believe St. Paul really believed that wifely submission means only “mutual submission.”
Jesus Christ wasn’t an innovator, because Jesus Christ is one of the three persons of the Trinity. It is the “traditions of men” that are innovations. For example, the Victorian ideas that led gradually to women’s suffrage and this current nightmare of the breakdown of marriage, which JPIIs conciliarists fully collaborated with through the new annulment system. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us women are more frail than men with regard to concupiscence. That is a traditional understanding of women, not the phony career girl apologist understanding of women, that tells us their best years should be expended on frivolous “achievments” instead of as wives and mothers. Steubenville talks about “dynamic orthodoxy,” because it’s ultimately run by neo-modernists, corralling Catholic believers into groups where the bloggers are more apt to discuss Darwin than St. Francis.
Jesus Christ wasn’t an innovator, because Jesus Christ is one of the three persons of the Trinity. It is the “traditions of men” that are innovations. For example, the Victorian ideas that led gradually to women’s suffrage and this current nightmare of the breakdown of marriage, which JPIIs conciliarists fully collaborated with through the new annulment system. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us women are more frail than men with regard to concupiscence. That is a traditional understanding of women, not the phony career girl apologist understanding of women, that tells us their best years should be expended on frivolous “achievments” instead of as wives and mothers. Steubenville talks about “dynamic orthodoxy,” because it’s ultimately run by neo-modernists, corralling Catholic believers into groups where the bloggers are more apt to discuss Darwin than St. Francis.
What you have to realize is that slumlord/Social Pathologist is a Chamberist — i.e., he sees the “issues” that arose in the 20th Century as being caused to a large degree by traditionalism’s inability to deal with a changing world. That is, these are problems that traditionalism could not solve (the role of women in an increasingly industrial, and then service economy, the role of erotic sexuality in marriage, the economic questions posed by the rise of the modern economy), and because traditionalists refused to consider new ways of approaching these problems (I think he believes that the traditional mindset is not capable of doing this), the only options left were those offered by the secular, progressive, Marxist left. In other words, his idea is that traditionalism and its mindset created a kind of “solution vacuum” that only the secular left could fill (because there was noone else on the field).
I have never really figured out what his ultimate worldview is, in ideological terms. Is it conservative, and what does that mean? Is it progressive (doubtful). What is it? I’m not sure. But his critique of traditionalism is not simplistic, I think.
Joe, JPII emphasised one aspect of Ephesians. Other popes have focussed on others. As I have said before, no pope, including JPII, has denied the headship of the husband.
slumlord, the “Pharisees were Trads” argument is not one of your better ones. On hatred of the flesh, it is ironic that the Church gets abused for this AND for crusading against the Cathars – who really did hate the flesh.
Game has worked wonders in my “LTR”. It is essential for modern men.
The Pharisees were more like a grass roots movements which opposed the perceived abuses of the wealthy and powerful Sadducees. It is really not correct to foist our modern political classifications back onto a civilization 2000 years ago.
As well, Jesus actually had a LOT more in common with the Pharisees than He did with the Sadducees. For instance, teaching a literal resurrection at the end of time.
As well, Jesus actually had a LOT more in common with the Pharisees than He did with the Sadducees. For instance, teaching a literal resurrection at the end of time.
In fact, Jesus agreed with ALL the Pharisaical doctrines (angels, resurrection, Messiah, etc). What bothered Jesus was the attitude. If the doctrine were everything, Jesus would have been indistinguishable of Pharisees.
Jesus preached a “real” religion and was very opposed to the ritualistic, legalistic religion to the Pharisees. Lots of parables are about that (even the Prodigal Son was more about Pharisees – the righteous son of the parable – than .about the prodigal son).
This can seem a very small point, but Jesus was very insistent about that. He insists and insists that Pharisees are hypocrites, that their religion is fake. He tells it once and again. I guess Pharisees were fed up with this guy who was always calling their shit.
Modern Judaism comes from the Pharisees and you can see in it the emphasis on religious law (shared by Islam) while Christianity has an emphasis on doctrine and belief.
One point about a female blogger coming across this neck of the woods and attempting to call in male cavalry: That’s the only way women have actual access to power. It’s always been that way and always will be.
This goes to an important point of “full” deconstruction. In an actual fight, 95% of women are NOT a physical threat to the average male, without a weapon. Whereas, guys know that any man is actually a threat, at all times, with or without a weapon. What we, as Western societies, have done is eliminate a lot of the violence. Actually, mostly through technology, we’ve master the application of violence. We can eliminate entire countries in minutes, if we choose to. We have the capability, but, as a result, we keep that violence contained, as best as we can. We also do this as the basic level, inside our own society.
This is, in effect, what a “nice man” actually becomes. He doesn’t even realize that aspect of reality. He can’t see that the reason why women use words & deception in their relationships is because even the scrubby fat man is a serious physical threat to her. This is why Whiteknighting is so bad for society. There are consequences for actions, if you prevent them from happening to someone, they stop acting like they exist. We’ve pretty much done that as an entire society. And we’ll keep pushing it ever further, for a while. There’s a reason they keep boys from having much of any physical activity in schools anymore. Even an 8 year old boy is a physical threat to most teachers. (Which is another good argument for male teachers at least by 4th grade)
In this view, hypergamy and the pattern of action that most women use makes plenty of sense. So, while it isn’t necessarily good for society, it’s very useful for female survival in a violent world. (There will always be violence, as well) We’ve just attempted to breed this understanding out of society, but it’s a physical reality that simply can’t be “overcome” by education. There are just some truths that will always be, as they are just the way humans work.
I’m finding I have a lot better audience with this method of discussion. People do understand power dynamics, as they interact with them daily, so if you phrase Female Action inside a dynamic where words & information are the only tools to actual power they have, it makes logical sense. It doesn’t change the deceptive aspects, but it helps a guy quickly understand why deception is generally used. It’s only a step in the door for them, but I’m finding it’s much easier way to discuss the topic than to go right into the way Game works and the social psychology aspects. Granted, my general reference points is to smaller countries dealing with larger ones, but if the person couldn’t find Canada on a map, those references don’t work in the first place.
It’s amazing what you realize when break things down and see how they actually work. The world, while deep complex, isn’t actually that hard to get a grasp on. It’s just that “grasp” is probably too scary for most people. But like War, Reality will always find you.
@David
slumlord, the “Pharisees were Trads” argument is not one of your better ones
I’m sorry David, but the argument would appear to be factually correct. The Pharisee’s were the “strict observers” of the Jewish law. The Pharisee’s who took him down did it on the grounds that Jesus was violating God’s law. It never occurred to them that they, the Pharisee’s, were wrong. Even though Jesus demonstrated, through miracles, his divinity, they still felt that their understanding of the law was correct and that he was an aberration. They stuck to tradition. Their charge of blasphemy against him came from within their understanding of the Jewish Law. They felt justified by the law in doing what they did to him. Psychologically, they were traditionalists.
As for hatred of the flesh, it’s not me who’s noticed this phenomenon but Benedict as well. In his encyclical he acknowledges that these tendencies were present in the Church.
There are a lot of good things in the Catholic tradition, but to say that Catholic tradition is the final word in man’s understanding of God poses some historical difficulties. I mean take usury for instance. For a long time it was forbidden to charge interest on loans but with further doctrinal developement in the the Middle Ages it was recognised that some forms of interest charging was just and compatible with Christianity. What this means is that early Church fathers got it partially wrong when they issued their prohibitions against it. In other words, the tradition was wrong.
Schopenhauer:
“For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks, bulls with horns, and the cuttle fish with its cloud of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever.”
On the other hand:
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/modern-women-in-a-city-of-glass/
@Brendan
I have never really figured out what his ultimate worldview is, in ideological terms.
To quote Chambers, I’m a man of the Right. To me, the Catholic Church is the most correct of all the Christian institutions when it comes to understanding God’s will. (I know others will disagree, but that’s for a later time.) On certain issues, other Christian denominations may have got it “more right” than Catholicism. That’s why I think doctrinal development is an ongoing process and this ongoing process is stifled by the Trads. The “solution vacuum” is an apt description. This does not mean that doctrine can change to accommodate anything. For instance, the Catholic Church will never accept abortion, homosexual marriage or women priests, rather their is still some wiggle room to correct some erroneous interpretation of the faith.
Take for instance John Newman. His understanding of Papal Authority could never have been written “in house”. In fact, his understanding of Papal Authority comes straight from the Protestant tradition, with it’s strong emphasis on conscience as being bound to the truth. A trad Catholic would have argued the Papal Authority on the Pope’s direct lineage from St Peter. It took a man raised in Protestant tradition to recognise that Papal Authority is not based on papal heritage or hierarchy, but on the authority of the truth. It’s a subtle yet seismic shift.
If I had to describe my ideological view then it would be most akin to G K Chesterton. To me, our duty is to subordinate ourselves to the truth of things.
slumlord, Tradition is one of the pillars of the Catholic Church. The last pope referred to Tradition in his definitive rejection of women priests. Was that pharasaical?
I am not a Traditionalist on all issues by the way. I attend vernacular as well as Latin masses, accept Vatican II and am a keen evolutionist (I have published in this area under my real name).
Bringing this back to one of your favorite topics, therein lies the subversive power of game. Game puts red pill thinking into the water supply. It works because despite all of the denial, hookup culture prevails. This leaves large numbers of young clueless men trying to solve one question; how to get women to be attracted to them, or more coarsely, how to get laid. In this context game is a secret the KGB couldn’t have kept.
—————————————————————————
Dalrock
I only want to say that all you’ve done there is make a statement and add some illustrative language, but you’ve not connected any dots, logically. If I ask myself, “is it possible to be a gamer and a white knight both?” I get a little closer to a logical forensic proof, but it doesnt get me all the way to where game is hard linked to , what, what will we call it, just regular Christian guys having red pill thinking….I just do not see the FULL line connecting to two. At some point the line is broken
“In fact, Jesus agreed with ALL the Pharisaical doctrines ”
Uh, no. Christ was God. Not a follower of Hillel. This is the problem with modernism.
” … the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church …”
Blessed John Paul II refers to Tradition.
@David
Was that pharasaical?
No. Tradition is perfectly fine provided it conforms to the truth. It’s not being traditional that’s the problem, it’s being wrong.
That’s why I think doctrinal development is an ongoing process and this ongoing process is stifled by the Trads.
And I suppose that my disagreement with that is one of the reasons I left for the Orthodox Church quite a few years ago.
But in any case, what puzzles me is less your religious orientation, which I take to be fairly mainstream, slightly right, Catholic. It was more your socio-political orientation. “Right” is quite vague. When I read things you write, it’s very hard to tell whether you are an ally or not, because what you write is fundamentally unpredictable. I realize that is is because of your own dedication to having an open mind to the “truth” as you perceive it, but it doesn’t strike me as being terribly reliable from a programmatic or political point of view.
@Joe
“In fact, Jesus agreed with ALL the Pharisaical doctrines ”
Uh, no. Christ was God. Not a follower of Hillel. This is the problem with modernism.
Joe, remember that I am a Catholic and a conservative one (and a hater of modernism too).
But, if Hillel was right about resurrection or angels, it would be impossible for Jesus to disagree with him, because the truth is only one. There is no modernism about that.
If Hillel said the sky is blue, Jesus would have to agree, even if it was Hillel who said it.
So I don’t see how my statement contradicts Jesus being God.
The key points of Pharisee doctrine were agreed with Jesus. But Jesus was preaching a truer religion, not a legalistic following of the Law but something who comes from inside. And, needless to say, Jesus started a “New Covenant” with His sacrifice.
Hence dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever.”
—————————————————————————
Indeed….the stupid are far “better” at dissembling than the clever. If stupid is the right word, Im not sure, the ignorant and unlearned maybe is better…people who have as backdrop for analyzing life only their own anecdotes and the anecdotes of others that when she heard them made her feel similar to her own experiences. These techniques, which is not an apt descriptor because it implies willful intent, are channeled into the thought patterns, deeply, they are not premeditated and done for strategy.
We had this discussion, the guys and I who were battling women on a forum, one guy said if they would just moderate when these women misconstrued or misrepresented our words, then we could have decent discourse. This suggested premeditation and gave the ladies too much credit.
In fact they have no other way to comport, or relate. This IS their belief set basis, they have nothing else from which to draw. So you cannot make forensic rules to change them. They wont react to clever, to logic, nor to blunt force rhetoric. In essence they are stuck on stupid.
Yes, but slumlord all you are doing is setting yourself up as the final arbiter. That seems like the essence of liberalism.
Good Morning,
It is Easter and “HE” is risen, nothing else really matters!
Blessings to all.
Well put Buck.
I’ll be turning on comment moderation until tomorrow morning. Further comments will be held until tomorrow when I release them.
Hillel believed that a husband could divorce his wife for spoiling his supper.
A key that can open many locks… is a Master key
A lock that can be open by many keys… is a shitty lock 🙂
Pingback: Feminism Is in the Air « Patriactionary
@Joe
Good for Hillel! I guess he was not a great fan of grrrl power. LOL!
Joe, we are talking about key points: resurrection, angels, etc. I never said Jesus was a Pharisee. From the Gospel, it is obvious that it was not.
Pingback: Darwin Catholic has hit the Jackpot! « Patriactionary
@Doyourownresearch
A similar analogy:
If I have a bowl of dip and everyone else helps themselves to it while I am away,
it’s not going to be easy for me to find someone who wants to buy a half-empty bowl of dip (and you don’t know whether they used fingers or food alone to dip into it), is it?
I still feel that analogy of lock and key/dip is somewhat inaccurate …
because it ignores the fact that women have agency in who they have sex.
I’m not aware that most women unconsciously give sex, because that would mean they indiscriminately grant carnal favours to men. Which we can plainly see is not the case.
From what I know it’s the men attractive to other women that get the most of this opportunity.
Which means that women choose to have sex with men other women find attractive.
Hence there is active agency on the part of women in granting sex. So it’s not at all like the lock and key/dip analogy.
It seems my cookie has expired…I hope I remembered my fake email correctly so that I can keep the memory aid… and as I have a dog in this posting I want to get a couple of words in.
So first:
@Patrick Kelly,
You are correct. The subsequent “ceremonies” are actually prayers of forgiveness that are made publicly. I take the (formal) Catholic position on divorce but as an EO I really do appreciate the tone of the “ceremony”. It does the world good.
@Brenden,
I thought you were Social Pathologist…it seems I was very wrong.
-ALSO-
“The idea is that if the men were simply leading properly, we wouldn’t see the women behaving the way they do — so the way to “address the issue” is to get men to lead better, and the women will just magically fall in line.”
Yes. Very much yes. It is true that we must hold men to task where they do not lead. It is also true that we must remember mutiny happens.
@Brent,
No, you were correct. Eastern priests must be _chaste_ but not celibate. Some of the eastern-rite Catholics however don’t follow this practice.
@jtsharpe,
Just ignore anonymous. He says good things but “TradCon” is a red flag to him and he will stop arguing and start name calling once the word is raised. His post on “feminist air” for example is as good as his replies to you were bad.
However, I can’t as much as I agree with your general argument, agree with this case. Remember, lest we all forget, this started with a full on defense of Duffy who then went on to make an argument (since removed) in her personal blog that women weren’t _ever_ educated. That is, your correct assessment of the past and what a Traditionalist should defend was not defended by Duffy yet Darwin has made no attempt at correction. Duffy went so far as to propose that divorce _requires_ mutual consent and that there was no innocent party. Also, as much as a defense of the prarie look can be read in a good light I think it shows a general contempt for those who actually take up the conservative mantel. More to follow below.
@David Collard
Interesting note…altar girl-boys were never used in Rome.
And now to the meat….
I hadn’t been reading as much of Dalrock because of Easter (it is still Holy Week for me as the Orthodox insist on using a bad calendar) and wanted to concentrate on more uplifting things than the culture war and feminism. Lo’ and behold though a note shows up in my in box from Mr. Darwin with a link to his article.
I still refuse to post to the site. While I’m fine with an ongoing dialog I’m not going to hang out in a place where I’ve been thrown out on my ear on false premises. I was never rude and his insistence on making it sound like I said something I never said is irritating. To this day I think he confused me with the other anonymous poster and has just refused to admit it (he’s never denied it when I’ve brought it up). He has a lot to learn about manners. If something was implied it would be best to _ask_ me about it and not throw an angry tantrum.
However, from the tone of his comments to me while this discussion was going on that was his intent. He frequently mentioned “spoiling for a fight” and “sharks”. He was more interested in keeping up a fight than talking. Frankly, if that’s all he wants he can name the time and place at this point. I was unaware that he had again mentioned me here and had again perpetuated the myth that I had said something that I hadn’t. It seems I have been way too kind and had assumed way too much in the way of good faith. If he intends to actually discus then he needs to drop the attitude and discuss as the passive-aggressive crap is getting old. What is frustrating is I _want_ to like him (I’ve read through many of his posts now and like the majority of them). But I will not continue without an apology as I’ve made clear in private. I won’t be told that I was rude when I wasn’t and that I proposed something I didn’t. Take it to the mat, apologize, or get out. So, with that said, the rest is presented with my spoiling for a fight hat on.
I largely agree with Dalrock’s summary. I had even missed the comment on long hair and prarie dresses. If I had seen that I would have gone orbital, but, due to popular culture, it didn’t register. My wife has a degree and it was a complete waste of time. She did it because she was told she would be more interesting with it. She chalked it up to three wasted years (yes Mrs. Darwin, she did it faster than you).
Darwin’s position is just anti-Biblical and strange. Evidently he knew he would marry Mrs. Darwin at the beginning of college but held off…for God only knows what reason. As such he “allowed a place for the Devil” (cf 1 Cor 7:5) and effected the temptation of both himself and his future wife. It’s a pattern that I, when I was a pastor, saw too much of. I even had one couple “wait” for two weeks after getting married to allow “the passion to subside”. I was unaware that God intended married sex to be passionless. I am happy he has kids. I’m happy it worked out. I wish all the best. However, what he did was wrong. There is no historical mandate for this kind of behavior and it flies in the face of the Benidict’s teaching on eros properly mixed with agape. It also speaks to an immature fixation on a false understanding of purity. Grown up’s have sex. Grown up moral people have sex in marriage in the fashion prescribed by God. If you aren’t have sex only three things can be true, you are not a grown up, you have not found a marriage partner, or you have adopted a celibate lifestyle. As he had found his partner something was wrong with his outlook on life. And yes, that means you marry them _prior_ to the sex. That I feel the need to explain this is sad.
I also, in private and now in public, called him on his “altar call” language. I pointed out that most of the commentators here are protestant and using such language is purposefully inflammatory (see: “spoiling for a fight” and “being rude” for which I doubt a real apology is coming). Much the same could be said for false confessions in any Merely Christian setting. He also complained about the comments here; which makes his own comment look less than genuine.
As to:
“Overall, I find the whole “virgin/whore” dichotomy (as in, holding that every woman is either a virgin or a whore) to be pretty offensive. That’s not because I don’t think sexual sin is grave and destructive, but because I don’t think people are wholly reducible to their past sins.”
First, I want to state for the record that the _vast majority of my comments_ on the thread in question have _nothing to do with this topic_. Second, if I accept sex in marriage as a philosophical good the above dichotomy cannot exist. We would have, at the least “virgin/married/whore”. Second, your wife was answered point by point. I challenged her to find examples of where I was wrong. None, not in private or public, was ever found. You ignore my discussion of both Exodus and Deuteronomy. To this day, in all our private discussions you nor your wife have dealt with these. The Bible seems to use langauge you feel uncomfortable with and to propose large abstract classes for “maiden/virgins” and “whores”. Reformed whores tend not to marry and you have yet to point out a reformed whore saint who has. I also go so far as to use “rake” which you and your followers seem to ignore (what do we call men indeed, bunch of trolls). But lest you forget I’ll give you the quote:
“ As your cited Scriptures point out the punishment for the rake who seduces women was to marry them. He was stuck and lost the freedom to philander that he desired.”
OMG! MEN GET PUNISHED! OMG! Wait…you claimed in private that I didn’t believe men should be punished. Fancy that. At the time I ignored it to advance the discussion. I’m not in the mood to ignore now. That is I directly address male promiscuity.
Nor do you address the command, still present in the Eastern Christianity, that a priest must marry a virgin bride or _himself_ become unclean (cf. Lev 21:10-15). That you gloss over this is unconscionable. It represents a willful preference of the current culture over Biblical command. A following of, “the traditions of men”. I then close with:
“There are a host of things that men get specifically punished for in the Law and the Gospel. We get called on the carpet for a host of things. However, the scriptures acknowledge an unequal approach to sex and stress the importance of virginal status prior to betrothment. This doesn’t let men off the hook sexually, our eyes can damn us, but it does place a special burden on women who think they want to ever marry and warns men against those who are “wanton” women.”
Your own comments concede the default culture:
“I’m far more used to defending the Church against charges of misogyny, since:”
Comments like this:
“Now, the manosphere types have been hanging around Reverend Sally’s House Of Divine Love and Acceptance, maybe I could see where they could get such an idea.”
Also evidence a desire to start a fight. Note you just called all of the men sluts, but are unwilling to use the word with women. You sling but you can’t take it. This is _maddening_. You then accuse me of “shit testing” you when all I did was answer argument with argument. That is, you dodge. It’s cowardly.
But wait…where is that dichotomy? Not there? Nope. What is there is a preference for what the Bible and Tradition tells us are qualities to be highly valued and difficult to find. Qualities that real men should look for and not blindly overlook when they are missing. The men who _blindly_ overlook are following the cultre and not Tradition (there are cases for purposefully overlooking but we aren’t covering those now are we?). I even repeated in our corespondence my belief that women who have premarital sex can marry if both partners go in eyes wide open but that it was not a safe bet anymore than marrying a rake. However here you _continue to present_ that I made a _different_ argument.
Now I went out of my way to have a private conversation with you. To avoid the, as I mentioned before, entirely natural desire to defend Duffy and your wife in public. But this is over the top. Its mean, pathetic, and weak. None of your responses have been grounded in either Scripture or Tradition. You are teaching a false gospel.
happy father’s day bro
http://wizardcorpse.com/wc-fathers-day-special-to-all-the-fathers-out-there/
Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock
Whomever is responsible for this is giving Christianity and the Bible a very poor witness.
What was it Jesus said to those who were about to stone the Adultress? Let he who hasn’t sinned…….you should know the rest. And I KNOW you are all sinners.
Lighten up, and show some grace, mercy and forgiveness.
Gene … The usual christian bonehead …
Christian = enabling divorce & adulterers, unwed mothers, fornication, & other sins …arent you guys supposed to hold other ppl upto a higher standard of accountability ?
Or is accountability, morals & ethics sins to christians ?
Yes, theres a term for christians like Gene, churchianism, but christians have been spouting the same crap years before they let their churches become corrupt & evil …
@Gene
Hamsters, not just for women anymore.
Heres Some Sins Christians caused, precisely because they became a pussified, woman worshipping den of iniquity & corruption culture
Instead of a REAL religion with REAL consequences & REAL accountability for women & harlots
Christians cause the poor to become even poorer = Poverty … show charity & forgiveness to the poor … instead of pinpointing the REAL cause’s of poverty … christians enable welfare & social wide mass decay & harlots & on a massive scale children deprived of their fathers
Christians put the needs sluts & harlots over Hard Working Honest Men = 38%+ divorce rate for woman worshipping christianity
Christians betray married men in their churches = millions of fathers & sons thrown out of churches, lost to secularism & mainstream culture
The amount of damage christians have done to the family & men is almost as bad as the feminists
What religion destroys its own values & turns into a culture, instead of a religion? Christianity …
Christianity used to be the choice for men wanting to raise a family
Now men reject Christianity precisely because the church will more then likely destroy their family, precisely because its infested with feminists & sluts
This is what happens when you water down the truth, it becomes an un-truth
This is what happens when you water down a religion, it becomes an Anti-religion
Which is precisely what christianity, is today, an Anti-religion
Jesus also said, “go and sin no more”. Unfortunately, the women in churches today are not really so repentant.
Pingback: A License For Profane Wickedness. | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Wife beaters and the prairie muffins who love them. | Dalrock