Quite a few readers have asked that I share my thoughts on the movie Courageous. This is the latest movie by the Kendrick brothers and Sherwood Baptist Church. It is the movie that does for fathers what Fireproof did for husbands. Below are my thoughts after watching the movie twice (I scanned through and took notes on key scenes the second time).
Plot Spoiler Alert: Don’t read any further if you haven’t seen the movie and don’t want the plot spoiled.
At its core the movie is about a failing father, a police officer named Adam Mitchell played (well) by co creator Alex Kendrick. We know Adam is a failing father because the movie grinds this in. Without the help of the authors we would be tempted to see him as an excellent father who at times fails in minor ways and is struggling with a somewhat rebellious teenage son and a harridan wife. Adam is a faithful husband, works hard as a provider and dotes on his children. When he is interacting with his daughter it is clear that she knows she is loved and she dotes on him as well.
But the authors of the film know better. Adam is a failing father, and they set out to convince the viewer of this. Early in the movie Adam returns home after a long day of work in a scene eerily similar to the opening fight scene of Fireproof (right down to the shot of the pickup truck pulling into the driveway). As soon as he walks through the door his belligerent wife lays into him:
Wife: Where have you been? (irritated tone)
Adam: Working on reports. Trying not to miss another deadline.
Wife: You missed Emily’s piano recital.
Adam: (exhales ashamedly) Totally forgot about that.
After this she starts about their teenage son who wants Adam to run with him in a father/son cross country race. The son appears and pleads his case. Adam has other priorities, and when the son leaves the room he suggests instead that they spend time together building the new shed. His wife shoots the idea down because that would be the father leading the son, and not the other way around (emphasis mine):
Wife: Can I suggest that you spend a little more time with him?
Adam: Victoria all he wants to do is play video games and go run five miles.
Wife: (look of exasperation) Well then go run with him.
Adam: I’m 40 years old. There’s gotta be a better way to spend time with him than torturing myself.
Wife: Well you have got to do something.
Adam: He can help me build the shed in the backyard.
Wife: Yeah he’s gonna see that as your project. besides, he’s at school most of the time anyway.
This failing husband/failing father theme is common in TV and movies, so it all has a sickening ring of familiarity to it. The Kendrick brothers have followed the popular directive to tear down the father/husband quite well; Spielberg would be proud to feature this scene in one of his movies. Since this scene sets up the central conflict in the plot, part of it is featured in the trailer. Click here to get a sense of the way this is handled.
Sandwiched in the middle of this scene we have a brief respite from the bad father routine. The daughter comes in and the wife suddenly changes her attitude. Instead of running the show and scowling, all of a sudden she is smiling, pleasant, and deferential. She says the daughter wants to go to a birthday party and that she told the daughter it was up to her father. This sudden switching of gears isn’t an effort by the Kendricks to model the proper behavior of a wife and mother however. This is a setup; later in the movie the little girl is killed while riding either to or from the birthday party her father said she could go to. It is specifically pointed out that had he not allowed her to go she would not have been killed.
The next key scene is roll call at Adam’s job as a sheriff’s deputy. They use a pretty clunky plot device to point to the very real crisis of absent fathers. The sheriff reads an email he received with a list of compelling statistics on the negative outcomes associated with children raised without a father. But the Kendrick brothers have a problem; these stats show the value of fatherhood, and they are trying to tear fathers down. Specifically, they have to tear Adam down as a father for the movie to be a story of redemption. He has to be seen as a failing father in order to repent. I’ll cover how they handle this challenge a bit later.
The elephant in the middle of the room of course is why fathers are absent. In the US 40% of children are now being born out of wedlock. This can only occur when the mother decides to have children without first securing a proper father for them in marriage. A very large number of the children fortunate enough to be born in wedlock later have the father ejected from the home as a result of divorce. Academics have found that the ability to kick the father out of the home is the reason women initiate divorce much more often than men. In short, the problem of fatherless children isn’t due to a lack of men willing to be fathers. It is a result of the sexual revolution and the direct incentives we have created for women to expel the father from the home.
The Kendrick brothers seem aware of the issue of women not securing fathers for their children via marriage or kicking the husband/father out later, but instead of addressing it choose multiple times to gloss over it. Adam’s partner tells him that a third of his paycheck goes to alimony and complains about being kicked out of his son’s life:
I only get him every other weekend, and even then it’s only after Mia’s filled his head with her toxic opinions of me.
Adam shuts him down without any compassion, presumably because he doesn’t want his daughter to hear the conversation. Nothing further is mentioned on the topic, but later we learn that his partner is the villain. The message is clear; only men who deserve it have this happen to them.
One of the other officers has a 15 year old daughter with a penchant for gang bangers. We learn early in the movie that he moved his family from Atlanta to avoid the bad influences there. Almost immediately his daughter Jade locates the up and coming gangster in the area. Her mother tells her father: Another saggy pants boy interested in Jade. This was a perfect opportunity to address the issue; young women acting like Jade are a huge part of the problem. It would be cruel not to call her on what she is doing. Instead of reprimanding her, he tells her:
I know how young men think. They want to win your heart, but they don’t know how to treasure it.
The same father (Nathan Hayes) tells us in another scene that his own father had six children by three different women, and that he was the fifth child. Here is another opportunity to point out the role that women are playing in creating fatherless children; his mother had a child by a man who already had four illegitimate children. She had to know what he was like, but she did it anyway. But again, this is presented as solely the failing of the irresponsible man his mother chose to father him.
Another character/officer explains part way through the movie that he has an illegitimate child as the result of a hookup with a cheerleader in college (he was an athlete). Just as with the rest of the movie, there is only judgment for the man, none for the woman.
Now getting back to the Kendrick brothers’ problem. They’ve framed the problem as absent fathers, but they really need to hang this on the average father for their story to work. Specifically they need to show Adam, a truly excellent father, as a failure. They do so with a convoluted path of logic, which while they don’t spell it out looks roughly like this:
About mid way through the movie the officers are at a barbecue at Adam’s house. One of the men comments that the steaks reminded him of his father barbecuing. This brief comment quickly turns to all of the men bitching about their fathers:
Nathan Hayes: I wonder where all the good fathers went.
Shane Fuller (the villain): Aint that the truth.
Adam is surprised, because he had heard Shane’s father was a good man:
Adam: What? I remember you talking about your dad. Wasn’t he like an usher or something at your church?
Shane: Yeah, but that doesn’t mean anything. Soon as the church service started he’d step out back for a smoke. You know one time he says to me “I better not catch you drinking. Had a beer in his hand when he said it. My mom used to nag him. That is until they got divorced. Look it’s not like I don’t love the guy, but it’s hard to respect a hypocrite.
The other two officers present eagerly chime in with negative stories of their own fathers.
Shortly after this Adam’s daughter is killed. Adam is crushed with grief, but his wife offers little consolation:
Adam: I should have been a better father.
Wife: No. You’re still a father.
I had to rewind that scene several times to believe what I was hearing. She very specifically doesn’t say he was a good father (which he clearly was). All she says is he is still a father, with the point being that he still has the chance to change and become a good father to their son. This is the completion of the morphing sins of fatherhood. Shortly after this scene Adam pronounces:
I’ve been doing about half of what I should’ve been doing as a dad.
With the crushing of the average good father (represented by Adam) complete, the path is now cleared for the resolution to be a better father. At first Adam proposes to handle it man-style, by asking the other men to witness his resolution and hold him accountable. The men like the idea and consider making the resolution as well. Then Nathan’s wife decides they are doing it all wrong; they need to dress up and make the pledge formally. It thereby goes from man-style to wife-style, and they make the pledge in front of a pastor. It makes for a very strange ceremony, something which seems like a wedding ceremony except without any vows from the wife. It opens with:
I do solemnly resolve before God to take full responsibility for myself, my wife, and my children.
This sudden belief in the headship of the father goes against most of the rest of the movie. It certainly isn’t consistent with their cutting good fathers off at the knees. Not surprisingly, the women and children make no corresponding vow to follow his leadership. There is no talk of wives submitting to their husbands or children honoring their father and mother. While the Kendricks didn’t write a resolution for women, they had a woman write one and have released it in association with the movie (it isn’t mentioned in the film itself though). You can read the resolution for men here, and the one for women here. You can also buy your own certificate suitable for framing here.
The movie closes with Adam giving a speech in a packed auditorium. The speech is laden with language about fathers abandoning their children:
I’ve seen first hand the deep hurt and devastation that fatherlessness brings in a child’s life. Our prisons are full of men and women who have lived recklessly after being abandoned by their fathers, wounded by the men who should have loved them the most.
You may be thinking, what about the mothers who didn’t marry first, or married only to expel the father from the home? He addresses them as well:
While so many mothers have sacrificed to help their children survive, they were never intended to carry the weight alone. We thank God for them.
Not all of the speech is bad, which you can read here. However, even when it is supposed to be inspirational it is littered with accusations against fathers, such as:
But there are some men, who regardless of the mistakes we’ve made in the past, regardless of what our fathers did not do for us, will give the strength of our arms and the rest of our days to loving God with all that we are, and to teach our children to do the same.
It ends with a rousing series of questions on who will lead his family, with the response each time being “I will.”
There are action and comedy scenes in the movie which I haven’t described, along with subplots for each of the fathers. At times the men act heroic, although following one such scene Adam and his partner question if it is worth it to risk your life for your child. But what I’ve shared in this post shows the main plot and point of the movie.
I’ve titled my review craven because the approach to entirely ignore the actions of grossly irresponsible women and instead pile on to good fathers along with the rest of the culture takes absolutely no courage. They witnessed millions of hurting children and cowardly decided to take the easy way out. If the Kendrick brothers wanted to show courage they would have dealt with the difficult issues of women choosing to have children out of wedlock, as well as those not honoring their marriage vows. Perhaps in their next movie they will find the courage to do so.
Good grief, Dalrock. I was with you every step of the way on Fireproof, but was satisfied that Courageous was at least a little bit better.
But you’re right. I remember all the scenes you’ve mentioned here and it was pretty bad.
Maybe Christians should get out of the movie busines altogether, LOL.
*sigh*
Yeah, but women are the ones forking over the dough to buy the movie. Borrow it for free at your library.
I have been mentoring women for over 8 years. The first time I meet with them, all they can talk about is what a bad husband they are married to. They can’t find one good thing about them. They are full of bitterness. My job is to get them to see their fault in the destruction of the marriage. If they have a teachable heart and can repent and change, every single woman has ended up with a better marriage. God’s promise of “winning them without a word” is given to women and I have seen it work over and over again.
Oh, and speaking of the issue with the daughter with a liking for gang bangers, I recently heard of a new book coming out. The title: The Black Church: Where Women Pray and Men Prey.
Again, women are not responsible for their choices. It’s all the them men’s fault. Sheesh.
Has anyone here attended the church that made this film? What are their sermons like?
@Elspeth
I think it is a little bit better. As bad as this movie is, Fireproof is still worse. This movie was also better made, and Alex is a better actor than Cameron.
There is also the way they frame the message. I found myself wanting to remember the scenes differently than they did them. There are enough subplots to distract your conscious mind from the brutal main plot, which itself ends on a note of “redemptive” triumph. I saw the issues the first time but then wanted to believe that they weren’t really that bad after the movie was over. But when I watched it again a month or two later taking notes I was shocked at how bad it really was. I suspect that some readers will be convinced that I’ve gotten it all wrong. What I would challenge them to do is watch the movie again to try to spot any errors I’ve made. As you said all of the elements are as I describe, and this is undoubtedly the primary plot line.
@Lori
This is of course the exact attitude movies like this encourage women to have. There is a hypercritical focus on the main character father in the movie but no questions are ever raised about far more glaring faults on many of the mothers. His harridan wife also isn’t ever called to account for how she conducts herself. If you look at Adam, what he needed to learn is strikingly similar to the lesson Caleb needed to learn in Fireproof. He needs to submit himself to his wife and son. If he wants to build a shed (a perfectly good father/son project) and his son wants to run, he shouldn’t even propose the idea to his son and should run instead.
The cruelty here is that it leaves everyone miserable, not just the husbands and fathers. As you say the wives end up miserable in this frame. The children are taught to be hypercritical of their fathers, something teenagers especially don’t really need any prodding for anyway.
The more they villainize men, the more men will eventually accept that role.
Don’t you just LOVE the cliche:
“Where have all THE GOOD men gone? wah” *sniff*
The answer is apparent – they just REFUSE to see it.
Or admit it.
Denial personified.
A little off topic: I just got a flyer from a local church. It was boldly emblazoned “The Man Church” on one side. I thought, this looks interesting, so I opened it. It was from the church my wife goes to (without me). I pointed out to the wife that she may have to find a new church now that hers was becoming a “man church”. She was not amused.
The Kendricks are doing what everyone else does. Their intention is NOT to do good, they are simply exploiting the female memes of the age in order to make their movies popular.
I’ve talked to plenty of women who complain about fatherless children and their perspectives are always centered around fathers who abandon their children. However, when I point out the fact that it was WOMEN who initiated this divorce culture, who threw men away so that they could “find themselves” and whose sons grew up hearing their mothers say “all men are no good”, they are baffled at best and extremely angry at worst.
You can show them stamped, franked, notarized statistics, and they will not accept the divorce initiation rates, period. The wall of deceit is an inch high and a mile wide.
Here’s what men should take away from movies like this. If you’re smart then you can weed out those women whose thinking is in line with them. Fireproof and Courageous are perfect activities for first-dates or to see where your current girlfriend’s mind is. Take them to the movie and ask the women questions about the themes Dalrock discusses here. If their POV is off-target then you know they are not keepers.
The Kendricks movies are lemons, make lemonade out of them.
Pingback: A Twofer (Not to be confused with a 9/11 Twoofer) | The Left Half
Modern Christian women lack contentment. Lack of contentment is considered sinful in the Bible. But in modern Christianity, it is considered a female virtue. She’s a “daughter of the King” and “God’s special little princess,” after all. So she deserves a perfect husband, which she defines as a husband who is obedient to her.
Movies like Courageous are only made in order to encourange her in this, to paper over her own troubled conscience and cheer her on to “self-actualization” by affirming her in her bitterness and heartlessness towards her husband. The purpose of Courageous, like its predecessor Fireproof, is to make money by appealing to women’s sin nature. Nothing else:
And
Craven indeed. You know the makers of a movie are kowtowing to the Estrogen Lobby when you see a more man-friendly narrative in a Susan Faludi book than on the screen. Granted, “Stiffed” is probably the most man-friendly thing she ever wrote, but still…
One little detail that I was pleasantly surprised to see in it, though, even though it is shown in the Designated Target, was the concept of favoring the daughter over the son. They almost certainly didn’t *intend* to make that point, but there it was–or at least, I saw room for it–and I’ve seen enough fathers show signs of this (society-approved) favoritism that I think it deserves some attention.
If men vetted dates with these movies, there would be no dates, literally. Its close enough to all to say all women dating would love these movies, and suffer the illusion that these movies are actually pro-male. They conflate accountability and admonishment, and the morally superior woman for guidance, as being the church willing to support men. Even the most open minded seeming woman will get by saying well, come on maybe not all men are like that but enough are to need that encouragement that they can overcome.
The vetting of the date would be more in the details of how the movie was discussed, over a period of time. If she shows movement, some logic and reason, and not even once offers some BS personal anecdote as serious input to the discourse, she may be OK. The moment, in response to the movie and the claim that women file the most divorces, the moment she says “women don’t file the most divorces, my neighbor and sister both showed as the one filing but one’s husband was emotionally abusive and the other asked her to file”…..RUN AWAY, she has the mental acuity of a space saver tire.
@Elspeth: “Maybe Christians should get out of the movie busines altogether, LOL.”
If you thought they ever were in the first place, you are sadly mistaken. The film industry, even the ostensibly “Christian” sector of it, is run by folks who would like to wipe your faith from the pages of history, and staffed by folks who are too ignorant to realize it (or simply don’t care).
Modern Christianity, as evidenced by its ever-expanding number of denominations, can be molded to whatever ideological purpose one sees fit. No one owns the rights to Jesus, and if you want to, you can make your very own denomination where the rules are as you see fit.
Wives submit to their husbands? No, that one simply won’t do. According to the Gospel of St. Lilith (she’s is a saint now because we say so), it is actually the other way around.
Children follow their parents? No, no, it is their duty to follow God, whose voice on this earth is the State educational system. Don’t believe it? It’s right there in the Gospel of Baphomet, who was Jesus’s dear friend and divine messenger.
Does this all sound silly? Well, in 20 years, it will be common.
Welcome to subjective Christianity.
The lack of contentment is actually a desired state of mind. This is a little off, but its my strong opinion that the whole self esteem crisis and lack of contentment is nothing more than the unbridled quest for some new basis to establish and feel empathy. These movies offer women vicarious empathy, some can even convert vicarious into their own experience, just by making it so emotionally. Its a true statement that some folks are happiest when they are the least happy, word that as you like.
With a porn loving husband, or one she just knows wants to be into porn, or the workaholic jerk who ignores the kids and has no time to dress in robes and sandals and make cut out paper Bible character dolls like preacher said spiritual leaders do, or he works too little and they have no money, he is emotionally stunted, whatever it is, its the driving force behind what were initially no limit long distance plans, and finally VOIP/SKYPE where its a blaze of cyber empathy across the cyber world daily.
These movies just cover the dry spells, gives em something to talk about when they cant cook up an anecdote. There is no other explanation for the proven low degree of happiness in western women…..the more they get what they want the less happy they report to be, and are glad to tell ya, men settle into a morbid fatalism, not happy, not unhappy, just resigned and resolved. Only through articles and posts like this and others showing men that they neednt be so fatalistic will men be able to join women and be equally morose, but for the opposite reasons, men ought not be able to live with oursleves
“If men vetted dates with these movies, there would be no dates, literally.”
True but I’m not saying that we should use these movies to vet women as dating material, I’m saying that we can use these movies to vet women as marriage material.
I know I was just using your post to launch a rant….sorry
The message like Fireproof is one that, if they hadn’t taken a one sided approach to, isn’t bad. It is ruined by the sainting of bitter, contemptuous women. The other problem is the knocking down of the strong man. They take men who work in courageous, strong, masculine careers, who really aren’t doing much wrong. They paint the picture that these average men are truly bad men, and deserve to be looked down upon. The picture isn’t that they could do better, and are admirable for doing well, and seeking to be better, but that that they are insufficient in their efforts and are contemptible for this. They deserve the wife’s contempt. The ongoing message is that.
The message I got from my wife over the years, and the church tends to preach is this. You need to step up and lead, and if you are doing it right your wife will follow. This of course is not Biblical. The wife is commanded to follow, which means this takes effort on her part. The man is commanded to lead. I lead in my house, and she wouldn’t follow. She would complain of my leadership. Of course my children chose not to follow whenever she was around. It wasn’t allowed, but it created a state of constantly having to discipline them. The best part of being apart from her is my children follow me without her example in their face. Having to be the hammer of justice in my house is not my primary role anymore.
Crap, Dalrock, once again you see clearly where I failed to perceive.
I await the day when Christian sermons and movies emphasize both halves of the problem…male failures to lead, and female failures to follow. Until then, sadly, we can only snipe from the audience.
I already go to the Man Church.
My wife won’t go with me.
@HeligKo
“The man is commanded to lead. I lead in my house, and she wouldn’t follow. She would complain of my leadership. Of course my children chose not to follow whenever she was around. It wasn’t allowed, but it created a state of constantly having to discipline them.”
You’re absolutely right. I was raised in this type of home and it got me to thinking about a lot of fathers. When my parents divorced, I grew angrier at my father for not being around (internalizing my mother’s anger and perspective) but, as I got older and started seeing my father as a real human being, I wondered “how did it psychologically affect him to have his children ripped away from him and to have his (non-monetary) contributions to his family trivialized? Would I have broken? Possibly. The only people in the world who value fathers for more than money is their children. Those who, like their fathers, have no say in the matter when the judges gavel comes down.
@HeligKo
It plays right into female pathology:
See how great these failing men are after their wives are allowed to fix them.
EW,
I haven’t read all of your review but I will when I have some time. Just having skimmed it I agree with parts and disagree on others. Javi’s wife struck me as supportive and submissive. I really liked both characters. She is ironically the closest wife to learning a lesson in the film. When he is tested by his boss, she starts to push him to subvert his integrity for the sake of the family income. He pushes back and she catches herself and stops pushing him. But I don’t see the other wives as submissive at all, especially the main character’s wife. She is only submissive when setting him up to get their daughter killed. The rest of the time she is either scolding him or looking approvingly as he does what she wants him to do. Her coldness when he was weeping was truly breathtaking. I had put that out of my mind after the first viewing.
Took a look at the resolutions and the first thing I note. There’s a qualifying note on the first page of the men’s resolution. The first two sentences are below. There isn’t a qualify note on the women’s resolution. Typical really.
So Dalrock, you’re a ‘weak’ man and so is every other man here. Shame on you all!
Empath
The lack of contentment is actually a desired state of mind. This is a little off, but its my strong opinion that the whole self esteem crisis and lack of contentment is nothing more than the unbridled quest for some new basis to establish and feel empathy. These movies offer women vicarious empathy, some can even convert vicarious into their own experience, just by making it so emotionally. Its a true statement that some folks are happiest when they are the least happy, word that as you like.
That is interesting. So if we define “strong woman” as a woman who is perpetually angry, then certainly such a woman can never be content with anything. In fact, contentment would be the antithesis of “strong” in this definition. Contentment is probably a learned behavior, too.
Perpetually angry people do get things done, and do get what they want – in the short run. In the long run, nobody wants to be around them unless they are paid in some way. But few people think in terms longer than the next 10 minutes…
What pains me about all of this is how it is symptomatic of so man Christian marriages. Mine was like this as well, until wifey found an alpha… Most Christian husbands are henpicked into a state of emotional numbness, just soldiering on without putting up any opposition to their fate, which is what their pastor says a Christian man should do: give up on life and let the wife treat him like a doormat.
If only these guys could learn just a tiny bit of Game: When she starts complaining, tell her to shut up, that you are not going to listen to her constant complaining any more, that contentment and happiness are a choice, that lack of contentment is a sin, and that she is grievously sinning against God and the marriage by disrespecting you as her husband.
Best case scenario: Quite possibly you’ll end up having the best sex of your entire marriage.
Worst case scenario: She’ll get off your back for a while.
Most guys think the worst case scenario is she’ll divorce you. Thing is, women usually don’t divorce men who show toughness and backbone. Frivolous divorce is something a woman does to a man she has so weakened that he lacks masculinity. She does it because she has contempt for his weakness, not because he shows strength.
I just discovered the manosphere/Christian mansosphere recently-so much makes sense now. Elusive Wapiti: “Until then, sadly, we can only snipe from the audience.” This brought to mind the idea of a Science Mystery Theatre 3000 type of movie and sermon evaluation from the Christian manosphere-that would be fun to watch!
[D: Welcome Terri.]
Anyone with a brain can tear the man’s resolution to shreds in less than five minutes. Dalrock, is this a joke? I’m serious, is this a freaking joke you’re having on all of us?
WTF?! Never mind the impossibility of the resolution here but WTF? Clearly they believe women are not moral actors. You cannot take FULL responsibility for someone else’s actions. This is truly some warped shit. I dare you to take them on Dalrock, I would relish the opportunity.
Unless the accompanying wife resolution says, “I do solemnly resolve before God to stop being a total bitch,” I don’t see how we can expect a man to solemnly resolve to take total responsibility for his wife.
@bskillet81 Game might help. I can honestly say that I had game. I wasn’t a passive guy, until I met her anger. The pathology that is showing up in the church and in our culture at large is one where the woman truly believes that they can have it both ways. They can rule their husband as he leads. Its one of the many circular arguments that the feminist Christianity has set up that traps men. I told my wife to shut up many times. It increased her rage, and I would either go back to reading my book or leave the house. It didn’t change anything. Many women do respond to game in marriage. Most either completely lack self awareness and are just responding to their emotions, and others are truly wanting a happy marriage and just don’t understand their own psychology, and when she does there is a tendency for her to push you to be “The Man” (her hero) , not be “A Man” (contempt) in the relationship. I have seen a whole new breed in the church, and its not pretty. These women have been so jaded by culture and fed by the church that they can do no wrong, and they will retaliate against such alpha moves, and will start the abuse engine rolling. Once that starts its out of her hands. She will be told that if she doesn’t divorce, then she will lose her kids by the social welfare workers.
As the daughter of an extremist woman the synopsis of this post has opened my eyes just a bit more to understanding of my indoctrination as a girl, carried over into womanhood.
The failures of my father were constantly beat into my head, leaving no room for me to hold any respect for him as a man or my father. I witnessed the degradation of this man regularly by the woman who threw him out and took him back in for short periods of time between boyfriends when she needed something from him. I understand now how this carried over to my marriage and my view of my husband. Through the first part of my marriage I heard very much the same verbiage concerning my husband as I had for years about my father. The day my husband finally stood up to her, told her how it would be, she told us to have a nice life, and pulled herself out,(except for the Christmas cards addressed to myself and the children only). This was actually the best thing that could have ever happened to my marriage. Although we still had our challenges and many years before we would really have a strong solid marriage, I began to see my husband a little differently. (I still had a great deal of the false doctrine to lose)
I’m not comfortable with church bashing, but in reality, looking back, I have to acknowledge that some of the mantra that filled my head for most of my life wasn’t far from what I heard from those in the church. Last year we stepped away from our last church right about the time Dave and I began examining where we were and where we wanted to go. My head clear, eyes open I began to really listen, think for myself and apply what I felt was right to my life and to my marriage. I felt like I took a breath of fresh air for the first time.
I love my husband. I respect Dave for who he is. My mother and women like her are cancerous to our relationship and even though my mother has made attempts to get back into my life, I keep her at a distance, very far distance. I’m wiser now that the misery I’ve lived for so many years was my own doing out of ignorance on my part of the teachings instilled in me, and it wasn’t a picnic for my husband. My hope is to pass on the things I’ve learned to my daughters so they understand much earlier than I did and can avoid the pit I’ve been in, but I also hope to be able to enlighten my counterparts, as I hear them talk about how miserable they are in their lives, in their marriages, but they don’t want to see things differently.
Thanks for the insight, please keep putting it out there. I probably will not agree with everything you say, but I want to hear it and make my own assessment. Gone are the days where I just buy into everything I hear or read as truth.
It’s been a while since I’ve viewed the movie, so will have to go back and watch it again. I could very well be that, like a starving man, anything that walks/talks/quacks like a submissive wife, is cause for some celebration.
Re: the coldness when he was weeping, I viewed that no so much with anger but by nodding in agreement…not at her contempt, but at seeing a Game truth expressed in film for a mainstream Christian audience’s consumption. For those willing to pick up on the message, his display of weakness in front of a woman unaware of the true nature of her flesh is a definite DLV, something to be avoided.
What kind of idiocy is this?
“Shane: Yeah, but that doesn’t mean anything. Soon as the church service started he’d step out back for a smoke. You know one time he says to me “I better not catch you drinking. Had a beer in his hand when he said it. My mom used to nag him. That is until they got divorced. Look it’s not like I don’t love the guy, but it’s hard to respect a hypocrite”
I was a faithful churchgoer for 38 years. Did I somehow miss the prohibition against smoking in the Bible? The only thing that comes close is your body as a temple (1 Corr 6), but unless they are also arguing against eating processed sugars, simple carbs, fast food, and all the other crap Americans stuff into their gobs these days, it’s inappropriate.
Second, I know some Christians oppose drinking at all. I used to be an Episcopalian, we and the Catholics disagree – we think drinking is only a problem if it distracts you from “Loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might, and your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:37)” and it’s a form of idolatry if you turn to it for solace or celebration instead of praying for strength or praise, as the case may be. In this sense, it’s no different to any of the other forms of idolatry – food, gambling, drugs, sex, work, exercise, etc – that people use. Even some good things like food, sex, exercise, and work, can be abused….
Actually, IMHO, Shane is breaking the 5th Commandment by calling his father a hypocrite (assuming the father was drinking responsibly) as there are MANY things an adult can do – drive, vote, sign binding contracts, get married, join the military, stay up late, etc – that children cannot. Calling his father a hypocrite assumes that he has the right to do everything, as a child, what his father can. Shane is also an idiot if he thinks warning your child against the mistakes you’ve made is hypocrisy.
Edited to add..if you’re around a recovering alcoholic, it’s a sin to drink – you’re placing a stumbling block before your brother.
Other than that, though…bottoms up!
Good catch on the Resolution. That really sums up a lot of modern Churchian thinking.
Distilled down to the essence, this Resolution says what? It says that the man has responsibilities / duties, and the woman has choices. This is a feminist premise, pure and simple. So we see once again how deeply feminist ideas have permeated into churches.
@HeligKo
Yes, they’re called Evangelical American Princesses (EAPs).
Oh lol, this is fun. The man’s resolution is more expensive than the woman’s ‘not resolution but revolution’ meme book. The man’s almost double the price. I guess that’s what they meant by ‘doubly accoutable’!?
$16.99 for the mens and $8.99 for the womens.
So, as I understand it, the fellow who had to be set right in this film is the father who is married, provides for his family, makes sure they attend church, school, etc., wants to spend time with his son on a building project, etc.? And then it’s his fault his daughter dies in a car wreck since he let her go to a birthday party? Would it have been his fault if the car wreck had been on the way to church, school, etc? Perhaps these people should recall that wives are commanded to respect their husbands (even, in the context of Peter’s epistles, if the husband is a complete unbeliever). Actually, Peter stated for the Christian wife who thinks her husband is not living as he should to serve in quiet submission and convert him through her good behavior…. When will we get to see THAT movie?
HeligKo
@bskillet81 Game might help. I can honestly say that I had game. I wasn’t a passive guy, until I met her anger. The pathology that is showing up in the church and in our culture at large is one where the woman truly believes that they can have it both ways. They can rule their husband as he leads. Its one of the many circular arguments that the feminist Christianity has set up that traps men. I told my wife to shut up many times. It increased her rage, and I would either go back to reading my book or leave the house.
Game / leadership is not a cure-all. Some women are, for various reasons, going to require a lot of Alpha – they will need a very strong, direct, form of leadership and even then will fitness-test over and over again. Your response perhaps was not Alpha enough for her, hence her increased rage; going back to your book / leaving the house did not satisfy her need for Alpha. Some women just want to have a raging, yelling, fight once in a while to satisfy their need to be dominated, too.
And some women just fitness-test to destruction. Apparently they can’t come to terms with a man’s imperfections, so they are driven to pick-pick-pick at some detail, like pulling on a loose thread sticking out of a shirt. Probably they are surprised with the unraveling that results, but it’s too late by then.
I think that women need more alpha right now, just at a time when more and more men are beaten down by the larger culture into lesser beta status. Women are constantly told they are just as good at leading as men, and so many of them want a man to “lead” them but only in the direction they want to go (that’s called a “chauffeur”, not a “leader”). Church women are no different – unless they actively stay away from pop culture, they are just as saturated with feminist cant as any other woman in the modern world.
@okrahead you will never see that movie. Its just not going to happen. Fireproof would have been a great place for that. Damn it just dawned on me. The whole premise of Fireproof is making the man into a Biblical woman. That’s why it doesn’t work. Its telling him to serve her in a submissive way.
@Terri Smith, Check out http://www.piratechristianradio.com/. He tears apart sermons using the word. Be ready for a long listen though, because a 45 minute sermon can take 3 hours to dissect and listen to.
Jacquie, that is very interesting and heartening to read. The whole “men are oppressors” dogma of second stage feminism mutated into “men are no damned good” pretty quickly, and poisoned a lot of relationships. Congratulations on getting away from that kind of thinking.
As an aside, you should see what the young men who were raised by women like your mothers have to say. Some of them refuse to have anything to do with women at all – their feminist mothers trained them to be genuine misogynists, ironically.
@bskillet81
Interestingly the resolution for women addresses contentment in the very first item. However, this wasn’t a part of the actual movie.
The resolution for women also includes a vow to self esteem and be true to herself:
@Dalrock
Sickening isn’t it?
Compare “I will accept and celebrate my uniqueness” to
I don’t think these two are compatible.
Well, welcome folks, especially you visitors, we are going to plow some new ground, you’ve picked a great time to come visit us as we start our series called:
Men….How to Become the Woman God called you to be
And be sure and note guys, we have some burgers in the parking lot next Saturday and a couple of guys are going to come and change the oil in their Harleys in front of us while we listen to the farm league baseball game on AM radio
And ladies lest you think we leave you out, come join Sister Sally as she teaches “Women, How to be a Princess in Not Princessy World, Overcoming Mens Negativity”, we’ll meet in the basement, pot luck.
Geeze, Dalrock, that vow to self-esteem looks a whole lot like
I get to define what being a woman is, and I’m awesome in my awesomeness.
I’m frankly at a loss to understand how much more self-esteem the modern woman can possibly contain.
Still reading the Resolutions but I’m yet to read anything committing the woman to honouring and respecting her husband and building him up into a better man instead of tearing him down. Nothing about being a better mother and wife, nothing about honouring her marriage vows and supporting her family. The women’s resolution is simply full of self-esteem and happiness issues and reads like a butterfly and faerie book. It’s simply honouring themselves and validating their uniqueness. It’s vanity and a sin.
Actually there is something of value.
Number 10. in the women’s resolution. That’s at least promising.
The resolution, yes of course it has self esteem and self love at its center. it also has the personal Jesus code. i cannot say what Shrirer’s heart condition was when she wrote the words, but oh my do i know how what I am about to point out gets put to practice. she makes the very correct point that the thing is about one woman, unconditional on anyone else, and that she will be fully and completely obedient and sold out to Christ, and it makes some reference to being a woman on Biblical principle (I was shocked it didnt swerve into Proverbs 31 worship, which pretty much that together with a couple of beatitudes and maybe mutual submission is the totality of the modern womans Bible study emphasis). This singularity of focus when combined with the personal Jesus, is a license to control and demand because, after all, God told you to do X, and he forbade you do Y, no matter what those are and if they are good things or not…..he, the personal Jesus, gotcher back.
Words just dont mean what they say anymore
@okrahead
The filmmakers are somewhat passive aggressive on the death of the daughter. On the one hand they never state that he made the wrong choice or suggest that he should have known of the risk. On the other, they make a big point of having him make the decision and then reminding the viewer later that he is the one who decided.
Where they really come after him is for his unwillingness to dance with his daughter in a parking lot when she asked him to. It is absolutely brutal, and he ends up weeping and asking God to tell her he has done this for her after her death.
@Feminist Hater
Where can one see these resolutions? Not sure if Dalrock is considering tearing them apart, but if not, I might give it a shot over at CMD-N.
If any of you has a wife who likes the idea of you taking FULL responsibility for his family, tell her this includes calling his wife out on her sins and weaknesses–being deceived easily, being unsubmissive, being discontent, etc. The full panoply, we know the tale. See how she takes it, if she doesn’t like it, call her out as a Jezebel-daughter-of-a-demon feminist or something.
“Where can one see these resolutions? Not sure if Dalrock is considering tearing them apart, but if not, I might give it a shot over at CMD-N.”
Do it.
bskillet81,
I second Continental Op’s suggestion that you tear into these. I have links in the OP to both of them in viewable book form. This page has the one for men in text form, but you might want to do a double check to make sure it is 100% accurate.
I guess what hits me the most is the man’s resolution is totally 100 % preoccupied with women and the family and leading them in a life of worship in God. Even laying down his life. He must be faithful, steadfast and unbreakable, even when everything is against him. I have no problem with being that sort of man, however, I won’t do it in an unfair system stacked against me, that’s stupidity. There’s something very evil that expects you to lay down your life or to live a slave’s life for a corrupt system.
I could not find those in the women’s resolution, although there was some in numbers 10 and 11. There was no call to be faithful to her husband, no call to follow her husband’s lead. Simple question: How can a husband be fully responsible for his wife and children if they are not called to follow his lead? Answer is equally simple: He can’t be held responsible. It’s a cop out, laying the blame at the feet of the person least responsible so that the system can continue unabated.
I even had a laugh. Number 4. I read it with some enthusiasm and then realised, whilst reading the fine print, that it was about her personal Jesus, not her husband.
Once again, the man’s resolution is deadly serious, with a qualification in the beginning stating that the accountability will be high; but the woman’s resolution, while on the face of it does indeed have some very good points, doesn’t seem to hold the woman to the same accountability. Instead, Priscilla notes that these resolutions are much like the ones everyone makes before the New Year. The kind that are willfully broken and she calls for this to be a ‘resolution revolution,’ whereby she calls for women to internalise the transformation instead of trying to keep their resolutions when the going gets tough.
There are some good points, she calls on them to be content, to build their husbands up, not down. To run a happy home, without all the backchat that women are known for today. She calls on all women, not just married ones, to be more virtuous and pure. Hopefully that was meaning to stay pure till marriage and then to stay virtuous during marriage but it makes no mention of that.
The big problem with both these resolutions is that they don’t fit together. They need to have resolutions that complement each other, so that both husband and wife can work together to achieve a resolution that both of them can state together. Mutual obligations and benefits.
After having read the preview of both these resolutions, although only briefly, there does seem to be some effort put into these, even if they don’t come off completely correct.
I was a faithful churchgoer for 38 years. Did I somehow miss the prohibition against smoking in the Bible?
Yes, that’s one thing I did catch in the movie the first time around. The idea that a man who smokes or drinks is by definition of a bad man. My dad, who is a good man and was a good father, smoked for most of my childhood. I admit I didn’t fully appreciate my father until I was old enough to see what became of the other girls I grew up with when I was getting married at 22.
The other man who impacted my life as a young woman was my uncle, who was a devout Christian and drank beer. So that whole talk kind of rankled me. We Christians have a knack for majoring in the minors. Smoking is evil (yes, I know it’s unhealthy and dangerous) but talking down to your husband and undermining his relationship with his kids? That’s just peachy!
The “no smoke, no drink” thing smacks of immature Christian thinking… I know as a teen that was my morality – don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t curse, don’t have sex. Focusing on outward appearances rather than what’s going on in the heart.
So I read the father one. Man, I’m going to rip this six ways to Sunday. Note, for instance:
Great! This is good. I like it.
Where on earth is the part about teaching his daughter?
How bad is smoking AND drinking beer? Good thing he’s killing himself already, we won’t need to go to the trouble of sacrificing him to the health Moloch.
Good book for those dealing with teetotalers: “Drinking with Calvin and Luther” by Jim West. My favorite line: “The world drinks to forget; Christians drink to remember.”
According to Stanton, his daughter is already perfect and only needs to have the restrictions society places on her, released. After the restrictions are released she will naturally grow up into a fine, moral and perfectly virtuous women that will gainfully pick the man God has chosen for her and not the thug that will leave her a single mom.
Here endeth the lesson according to Stanton. Ohhhhh Stanton, those single moms are sure his heroes!!!
“Man, I’m going to rip this six ways to Sunday”
We need these mindweapons of truth.
“Drinking with Calvin and Luther”
Not sure about Calvin, but Luther loved a good beer at the local hofbrau.
Why is it that Christian movies, always have a man who is at fault (the women are angels). Not being likely to see Courageous, I reminded myself of the plot of ‘Two a Penny’ – the only Christian movie I have seen, – years ago in a Church Hall – and which I certainly enjoyed at the time. In it, bad boy Cliff Richard, cast as a drug dealer, finds Christ after his girlfriend gets there first – and goes to a Billy Graham meeting. In real life, we all know why Cliff found Jesus (hint: nothing to do with his girlfriend, or drugs).
Still, a movie (Courageous) costing $2,000,000 and grossing near enough $40,000,000 in the States alone must be pressing buttons, for some people. I predict more of the same. Funny that the heros of Fireproof and Courageous are both blue-collar. Clearly White-collar men are good fathers – or is it that heros need muscles for the grand finale?
@opus, the jobs are blue collar, but they are blue collar with authority. They are blue collar jobs that white collar kids sometimes take to. I do think that it has more to do with the fact these are alpha-male jobs. These movies as much as anything, knock down the strong, masculine man. Can’t do that to your average engineer in most peoples eyes. The engineer isn’t an alpha job. Now I am referring to stereotypes not realities.
bskillet81
This is what confuses me greatly. They have some very well stated and salient points. They just never follow through and touch the equally salient points of the responsibility of women and of families to raise girls as marriageable material. It’s almost verboten. Women will somehow naturally just become proper wives. That’s of course bull and that’s what confuses me the most. Just how serious are they? Are they willing to go all the way or merely half, the man’s half?
Nothing wrong with wanting to raise sons that will take life by the horns; but equally important is to raise daughters that will lovingly work with those ‘sons’ as wives and build lives worth living, in mutual service of God and Jesus.
The Resolutions follow the same scrip, place all the blame on men, shame them and tell them to ‘man up’, Then when they fail or decide not to enter into these arrangements and not ‘man up,’ they continue with the same ‘shame’ that caused the issues in the first place. Cause and effect. If you want good men and good families you have to focus on both parts, men and women, not just men. Raise properly, virtuous and pure women, willing to marry at a young age, a good man and stick with him through thick and thin and then maybe they can complain about lack of good men. However, they have stopped raising proper women, instead raising a generation or two of feral women and then heaped blame on the men in these women’s lives.
I want to be a good man and have a family, I just won’t be cannon fodder. I think most men have felt enough shame to last them a number of lifetimes and they have been ‘shamed out’ as it were. Instead of using ‘shaming’ as a delicate scalpel, society and the Church at large have used it like a sledge hammer.
Opus
Still, a movie (Courageous) costing $2,000,000 and grossing near enough $40,000,000 in the States alone must be pressing buttons, for some people.
Disclaimer: Have not seen either & all I know is second hand, such as from Dalrock’s postings.
Movies that actually show self-control and responsibility as good things are not common in the US IMO. Also there is a distinct subculture within churches that, sorta like the Darwii, seeks to create a parallel social structure & these movies are likely aimed at that market.
I predict more of the same.
Nothing succeeds like success. The market for moralizing films is clearly not being fully served by Hollywood. Maybe some people other than this church will step up and make such video? The overhead is not as high as it once was – theater distribution matters less and less in a streaming network world, for example. Neither of these films is likely to show up at the local Cine24, yet they are making money.
Funny that the heros of Fireproof and Courageous are both blue-collar. Clearly White-collar men are good fathers – or is it that heros need muscles for the grand finale?
IMO it is simpler, the target market is the blue-collar and lower middle class. So the characters must be similar enough to the target market to gain sympathy and – this is important for all fiction – be convincing enough to lead the audience to suspend disbelief. Can’t have the men or women saying “Oh, brother, nobody talks like that!”, that leads to a loss of interest in the story.
I liked the scene where the wife of the AA officer takes away his yogurt and replaces it with the baby-food jar (like he is an end-table) and then verbally jabs him when he accidentally eats it (mistaking it for the yogurt she snatched from him). Nice.
Most Christians believe that women are born without original sin. Only men have sin natures. Therefore, there is no need to raise a woman at all. Just give her whatever she wants and let her do whatever she wants. She will just naturally grow up into a good wife and mother.
Churchianity is Lord of the Flies, but with girls.
“Authentically Me:
A resolution to value myself and celebrate others.
I will accept and celebrate my uniqueness”
Really? Barf. Doesn’t she get enough of that artificial self-esteem in kindergarten, without needing to subvert the church and christian culture for it? (I know, shutting the barn door too late).
I suspect that these poor women with no self-esteem on the verge of annorexia or what not are about as common as those with life-threatening pregnancies needing abortions–great for propaganda, bad to base policy or personal advice off of.
@bskillet81, do most Christians really believe that. It is so antithetical to the text of the Bible. I have always been a studious person, so I read the Bible to understand. I often found contradictions with what I was being taught about the Bible by well learned teachers, but is it really that bad. Has the Church really paid so little head to the stories in Genesis.
Y’all complain about the lack of activism in the Manosphere. If ya really want to get the word out, you need to infiltrate the entertainment industry and start making pro-Manosphere movies.
BTW, Zookeeper does have a little bit of a***hole game theory — the talking animals help him get his old hypergamist girlfriend back; the lion teachs him negging, etc. But that’s about all I’ve seen.
Call the first movie, “FATHERproof”.
Let it be a takedown of fire proof.
And can we please blow up the creepy purity bear on screen?
we could even have a scene spoofing the “red pill” from the matrix… appropriate!
…the guy leaves what he thought was the “real world”, and finds the truth… a gigantic hamster ina wheel.
further irony…. “Matrix” means, originally, “womb”. Absolutely hysterical! (pun intended!)
…. then he goes back into the matrix and tries relating to women using his new found truths…
he he.. .
…. character confligcts…. between Roissyite PUAs and Christian monogamists… both fighting the matrix, yet at odds with each other..
Anybody out there a screenwriter or a producer?
Churchianity propaganda, through and through. It’s efficacy in feeding Christian female hamsters is what makes these movies so subversive…and profitable.
Note that it took Dalrock two viewings, with the second one using a notepad in hand, to fully discern the memes and shibboleths and to fully recognize the subversive and destructive influence on Christian marriage and Fatherhood.
Note Elspeth, who by all accounts, understands and advocates for Christian wifely submission on her own blog and over at TradC, also thought Fireproof and now this turd of Churchianity were “good” Christian movies before she read Dalrock’s deconstructions here.
That’s because the most effective propaganda, the most believable lies, the most subversive indoctrination, is always based on MOSTLY truth, colored with just enough deception and lies to lead the viewer astray.
Most Christians readily identify with the flawed men of these movies in their quest to improve their lives, repent of their sins and become better Men, husbands and Fathers. After all, redemption is the central tenet of Christian faith. This makes the Christian viewer much more susceptible to the subversive memes that are surreptitiously conveyed in the dialog and sub-plots. Throw in the shock of the plot’s drama (daughter killed), which takes the viewer on an emotional roller coaster ride, which makes the shocked mind far more susceptible to surreptitious influences.
It’s brainwashing 101 – subjecting the mind to trauma to implant the desired beliefs and/or behavior.
Christians who watch these sorts of movies for “entertainment” consciously feel like they experienced a positive, redemptive experience when they leave the theater or turn off the Tell-A-Vision, without realizing how these works of propaganda actually undermine the authority of the Father in the home.
“Churchianity is Lord of the Flies, but with girls.”
Brilliant, bskillet.
Can those creepy things that attack the sub be metaphorical “toys”
Oy
Glad you sorted that out for us Nick Fury
Actually Keoni. I saw right through Fireproof. Hated the wife’s character from the very beginning and saw nothing redeeming in her. I saw him pulling all the weight while she decided (as a married woman no less!) which man she would choose. Disgusting.That’s why I said I was with Dalrock from the start on Fireproof.
Courageous, however, went right past my misandric radar, which is apparently not as sharp as I thought it was. I thought it was a decent movie before I read this.
That said, your overall point is a sound one. Most Christian women (and a good portion of the men) who watch these movies think they are pretty good films with a good message. They’ve been taught that these are the messages the church needs to hear.
To be honest, if I wasn’t in a unique position of having seen- from my childhood years onward- men I am related and close to being put through the ringer by Christian women (friviolous divorce, cleaned out bank accounts, cuckoldry, child support extortion, etc.), I would be like most Christians: clueless.
@HeligKo
Churches do not explicitly state, “Women are born without original sin.” But they teach it implicitly. Witness, for instance, Dalrock’s post Women are innately good, in which he quotes Focus on the Family official Glenn Stanton as saying women naturally grow up to be good wives and mothers, and what is needed is not to guide and teach them to be such, but to instead remove all constraints on them so that they will just naturally become good grown women.
Similarly, my post “Guys Lust, Women Love” and Other Lies takes Stanton to task for another comment he made on a podcast that was even more explicit about women naturally being good.
Remember, this is Focus on the Family here. They are the leading Evangelical organization as far as family relationships and psychology go. They are considered the gold standard within evangelical-dom.
That last sentence about being clueless, Elspeth, is potent self analysis, I share it as a man had I not brushed up against the stuff personally, Id be blissfully ignorant and happily rushing from one of these movies to the next saying how life changing they are.
@Elspeth
So what you’re saying, if I’m understanding you correctly, is that when Paul says, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), that this means “All [including women]”? This is a radical concept within most of Christianity, since the common assumption is that Paul’s words in Romans 3:23 refer only to people born with the congenital defect of having a penis. Have you been officially kicked off Team Woman yet?
@bskillet81
I get it. Its the unstated basis of the philosophy that is being taught as Christian. Because it is labeled Christian, Christian churches and its followers assume without validation that it must have Biblical basis. Fallacy built upon fallacy to result in some really bad philosophy to feed the ultimate doctrines of the body.
2.42 From an attitude of contentment (santosha), unexcelled happiness, mental comfort, joy, and satisfaction is obtained.
(santosha anuttamah sukha labhah)
santosha = contentment
anuttamah = unexcelled, extreme, supreme
sukha = pleasure, happiness, comfort, joy, satisfaction
labhah = is acquired, attained, gained
Santosha brings happiness and joy: From an attitude of contentment (santosha), unexcelled happiness, mental comfort, joy, and satisfaction is obtained.
Contentment comes from within: We humans seem to always be seeking satisfaction in the external world and our internal fantasies. Only when we comfortably accept what we currently have will be able to do the practices that lead to the highest realization.
I saw right through Fireproof. Hated the wife’s character from the very beginning and saw nothing redeeming in her.
I stand corrected.
That said, your overall point is a sound one. Most Christian women (and a good portion of the men) who watch these movies think they are pretty good films with a good message. They’ve been taught that these are the messages the church needs to hear.
Time for a new term to name and shame this meme that has so successfully subverted Christian Patriarchy: Vaginadolatry – 1) the worship of the feminine as the source of moral and spiritual authority. 2) The sanctification of the inversion of Ephesians guidelines for gender roles in marriage.
The 21st century-Christian’s golden calf.
“I have been mentoring women for over 8 years. The first time I meet with them, all they can talk about is what a bad husband they are married to. They can’t find one good thing about them. They are full of bitterness. My job is to get them to see their fault in the destruction of the marriage. If they have a teachable heart and can repent and change, every single woman has ended up with a better marriage. God’s promise of “winning them without a word” is given to women and I have seen it work over and over again.”
Lori, If you can take being hammered by a bunch of screaming harpies I urge you to go start posting over at Christian Forums. The marriage area there is in desparate need of some balance because as it is now, it’s destroying marriages more than it’s helping them.
Bloody hell, just for shits and giggles, I googled “Christian Movie Reviews: Courageous” and came across “Christiancinema.com.” They were selling Print copies of the Resolution. Get a load of the commentary of the various Vaginadolaters
“I am at a point now that I am going to sign the agreement as my commitment to God and family even though later in life. Many men are reluctant to sign this as afraid of failure. The reality is none of us will be perfect until we are with Jesus in heaven so with his help here on earth, I commit to do my best. Have you discussed in this forum the reluctance of us as men?”
—-
“Watched the movie “Courageous” as a family and loved it. My daughter and I decided to give the framed print resolution to my husband as a gift for his birthday. We were really excited about this, only to be disappointed that he did not share the same views. He thought it was inappropriate and thought this should be something he should want to buy for himself.”
—-
”Interestingly enough I did the same thing. Not a huge hit here either. I bought it before we watched the movie. We finally got to watched the movie because I pre-ordered it. He liked the movie but alas, it still it sits in his office unsigned and unframed. I think this is definitely something he should decide to do for himself. I think it is possibly an issue of pride that he didn’t get it for himself and do it for us”
Holy Hamster Shit…look at these clueless women, giving their husband’s the “Gift” which is a list of things for him to conform to. By giving this abomination as a “gift” they don’t even realize the implied message are they are sending to their husbands. It gets worse…
—-
“My name is cathy and my husband is a pastor. When we seen the movie courageors he thought of having the men make a commitment to their kids and wifes and to God and having them sign it. When I looked up the movie on line and seen the resolutiion I thought of I could type the resolutions on my computer and my husband could make copies. But than I didnt feel right about doing it so I bought a copy. I think thats what God would want us to do as christians.”
For sure! God would be horrified if you didn’t use a visa, mastercard, american express or a money order to buy the document that will ultimately make your husband and father of your children accountable and committed to attaining the highest calling of Christian marriage…a White Knight of Churchianity! Wouldn’t want to steal the intellectual property rights of such a sacred text!
—-
“No question. I have seen the movie 4 times now. I am a counselor and Assistant Program Manager in a faith based, values centered prison reentry program. My men have in the majority, grown up with out dads in their lives. During the past forty years, I have seen the men give up their position of leadership. I have seen it taken away from them. I have seen men who wished for and dreamed of their fathers being there and more importantly, telling them, after teaching them how, “You are a man today.” My men in prison cried as they watched this movie. They are not wimps! These are men who have been finding that the statistics of the sheriff are true. They have been finding “family” where ever they could find it. These are men who are weighing the gravity of signing a resolution such as this. When God called out leaders for His cause, He called men, when he called our leaders for His families, He called men. When He called the family, He called the fathers to bring them. We have given up and the women have tried to fill our shoes. Now, they have gotten used to the role and do not want to give it up. But they want us to have it back! Will you be a man of courage and do what God called you to do?”
Vaginadolatry, through and through.
{gasp} What?! A father teach his son actual skills, like how to build a shed? For shame! What was he thinking?! There’s nothing useable there, you know; no life skills or anything practical than can be applied in real life as an adult. And never mind that he was out doing a job to support the family. I am sure that doesn’t count at all. {/sarcasm} 🙄
I head this one was good, too. Glad I didn’t waste my time.
And to place the blame for his daughter’s death for allowing her to go to a birthday party- appalling. Yep. Pretty sure the church/Christians should get out of the movie-making business.
The elephant in the room is indeed the why behind men being absent or uninvolved fathers. When trying to discuss it in mixed Christian company, any question of why is portrayed as justifying or blame shifting. Anything beyond a simple “it’s 100% his choice and responsibility” is not allowed. However, try to talk about the fact that women file 70% of no fault divorces, or talk about the fact that many women nag or sexually freeze out their husbands and suddenly it’s all about why, and the why always involves some failure by the man. It’s never simply 100% percent her responsibility and choice.
“My husband and me watched the movie and we just loved it and my husband is a pastor and he is going to put together a mesage about the responsiblity of fathers and make copies of the resolution contract and have the dads and their wifes come up at the end of the service and comit to the contract.”
Talk about cutting leaders off at the knees.
The Pussy Whipped Pastor, goaded into shaming the men of his church into signing a document in front of the congregation. What, the marital vows when they first got married weren’t good enough? What about any man that decides not to conform? This is basically one big fat shit test for the members of any church that would do such a thing. This is the perfect example of the emasculation and feminization of American Christendom.
This is precisely the kind of shit that made me leave church.
Feminist Hater said: “Took a look at the resolutions and the first thing I note. There’s a qualifying note on the first page of the men’s resolution. The first two sentences are below. There isn’t a qualify note on the women’s resolution. Typical really.
Weak men will not be able to handle the contents of this book. The Resolution is not for the faint of heart, and those who commit to it will be doubly accountable in future.”
I’m pretty sure you couldn’t pay my husband to waste his time reading something like this. That kind of shaming language makes him laugh and say stuff like, “Sorry, I don’t have time for that crap. I’m too busy providing for my family and being responsible. Those of us already doing it don’t need to be told how.”
This kind of baloney pushes my buttons. Weak men my ass. Pardon my french. I’m going to be shaking my head over this one for a while. Sheesh. Puh-leeze. 🙄
And, I would never (and I do mean NEVER) get so grand as to think I had the right to tell my husband how to do his job. Period. It’s called respect. And partnership. And a whole lot of other stuff that ridiculous statement doesn’t make.
The elephant in the room is indeed the why behind men being absent or uninvolved fathers
That elephant is called a JOB.
“There’s a qualifying note on the first page of the men’s resolution. The first two sentences are below. There isn’t a qualify note on the women’s resolution. Typical really.”
That’s because, as is the case with nearly everything these days, in Church, and in wider society, things directed at men are corrective in nature and things directed at women are encouraging/affirming.
“That elephant is called a JOB.”
Not really. It’s entirely possible to be an involved father/husband with a job, even to the sometimes very lofty standards set by some women. The issue is that in many cases, the men don’t want to be involved because all they hear about is how badly they are failing at it.
“f the Kendrick brothers wanted to show courage they would have dealt with the difficult issues of women choosing to have children out of wedlock, as well as those not honoring their marriage vows. Perhaps in their next movie they will find the courage to do so.”
Not likely since from what I’ve seen/read in interviews where the question of why they don’t address women is raised, although in a very subtle way, their response clearly shows that they’ve bought into the lie that it’s not a man’s place to speak to women about what women are doing wrong.
@Chaz345 there are plenty of things I didn’t do because I was nagged about how or nagged if I didn’t. It took less energy if I just didn’t. I never applied this to my kids. I would volunteer, and first it would be critiques of how I did it or my communication style, or that well the parents think this or that. Then after I would establish that despite the nagging, I was successful, then it would be the inconvenience of me being involved at that level. I would also get a healthy dose of you don’t respect my opinion every time I didn’t do exactly what she wanted in her nagging.
I was a part of running a recreational soccer club. Getting volunteers was a bear. I would call men, and they would have to check with their wife to see if they could volunteer for U6 soccer. At this age group, there aren’t even practices separate from the games. They are most likely going to be there anyway. All they have to do is call the players to give them the basic information. I had three tell me that they won’t ever volunteer again for anything their wife or her friends might be at. They were all friends. I finally asked one why, and he told me that they all get together and complain to each other, and then come home and nag them with not only their complaints, but their girlfriends complaints. The nagging and complaining is a means to control men. The problem goes farther than the subversiveness of the technique though. It is something that creates a spirit of dissatisfaction in her to continually behave that way, and it does the same to him. I would say that nagging truly is one of the biggest killers of marriages. Sad part is divorce doesn’t get you away from the nagging when there are kids involved. You are stuck with it, even when she decides its time for her to go.
Thank you TikkTok, the men here were probably thinking we were going a little crazy when thinking a husband might be a little tired when coming home from a day at work and wanting love and respect from his wife and children rather than a lecture. Although I do understand how the daughter would feel rather upset that he didn’t attend her recital. He can make that up and she can be reminded that for her to play an instrument means he has to work to cover that expense and cannot always attend everything she does. That’s one of things you need to learn early on about life, it doesn’t always go your way.
Anyway, I do think fathers need to be involved in their childrens’ lives, whether it be attending a recital, a rugby game, a concert with one of their children performing, a play or whatever their children may partake in. As long as the activities are good and wholesome. A 5 mile run might then not be entirely out of the realm of something a father should do. However, not doing it does not in anyway make him a bad father. That’s simply rubbish.
At the same time, there’s nothing wrong with a child helping their father build or create something of value. It teaches a skill and allows the child to feel some pride in their ability to create. The mother was wrong about that. It might have been the father’s project but allowing his son to help him would be an immense way of allowing him and his son to bond.
When you’re a child, you hate helping your parents with home repairs, or installing a new system in the house, or learning how to replace the washer on a leaking tap, or fixing the pool pump or changing the oil in an engine. However, they do allow you to do things with your father and have some quality time. As you grow up you also realise just how important those times are. You learn to trust your father, to trust your own ability to fix things and it teaches you to think of solutions to problems. It’s one of the ultimate tools of practicality. As a son, the ultimate person to learn from is your father. Or at least it should be and was in the past.
It’s like a fishing trip, you just don’t want to go because you had something planned that weekend with friends but your father tells you to get in the car, no ifs or buts. You eventually listen and find yourself enjoying the time away from other stresses in life. You actually catch a bass of some kind and feel oodles of pride in yourself, a tale to tell friends when you return. Sometimes it takes that masculine enforcement that a father can bring to rub off correctly on both a son and a daughter. Without their father in their lives, both sexes are far worse for it. I wish these movies would focus on that rather than the shame. A positive male role model, a FATHER, not a pathetic loser, one who makes mistakes but fixes them and does his best under the circumstances, no regrets!
What I would hate about this movie the most, if I were to watch it? Probably the scene where he discovers his daughter died and then the movie goes on to blame him for letting her go to the party. Utter rubbish and completely crass. He is not God, he cannot foresee that letting her go to a party would lead to a car accident; so how about they stop blaming him and instead show the family getting together during a difficult time and fondly remembering their daughter. The death of their daughter should have been shown, in the movie, as a moment of reflection of their previous stupidity. Not another reason to bash the man.
He and his wife should have been consoling each other. Not this, ‘you’re still a father.’ crap. That’s sadistic and cruel!
Most of the problem with “Christian” entertainment is that, in an attempt to provide both a message and something that doesn’t mock Christianity, normally end up either badly written or with a message that really doesn’t work. In this case, it’s the message that doesn’t work.
Further, when you’re attempting to “help” people, the “Devil is in the Details” holds true. Quite literally, actually, in this case. Which is annoying, as its actually pretty well made. (Seen parts of it) Though I wouldn’t believe the Kendricks are attempting to knowingly misled people. They’re inside the errant views of modern American Christianity. I was there myself in the past, so I can see exactly where they’re coming from. They do want to help and really are trying. The problem is that it’s the “Blue State Model” method of helping: you make it worse by not truly knowing what you’re doing.
I actually think the Kendricks would be very open to the truth that’s being pushed around these parts. It’s a matter of getting it to them. Oddly enough, having them take the Red Pill would have one of the biggest carry on effect of anyone. They’ve got a huge following in the Protestant community. Wouldn’t that be an interesting movie that could result.
That’s because, as is the case with nearly everything these days, in Church, and in wider society, things directed at men are corrective in nature and things directed at women are encouraging/affirming.
Indeed — this is absolutely correct.
The reason for this is that feminism in particular among the ambient culture encourages the narrative that men are bad, in need of fixing or adjustment, and that women are the new standard for human behavior — for both men and women. There’s all this stuff out there now about how men need to “step up and redefine masculinity” just like women allegedly did during second wave feminism and later. This essentially means “become more like women”, because women certainly became more like men in many ways during the “redefinition of femininity”. ** The masculine has been demonized, plain and simple.
The ironic thing is that bullies like Mark Driscoll don’t even realize that they are doing the same thing as the misandrist feminists when they scream at men that they need to “man up” and the like. The reason is that everything is entirely set in the frame of “what is useful to women”. That is fundamentally a feminist frame and a deeply anti-male one. Instead of endorsing male leadership — which doesn’t mean that men get to do what they want, but that they do get to determine how to lead given moral constraints, rather than having women determine how they should lead, which is what we see in the Church today, even if that message is coming from nominally male preachers — they endorse a vision that men should “lead like women want them to lead” — which is, as the saying goes, endorsing a kind of “topping from below”. It’s a false, hollow, empty leadership where the “leader” is given responsibility and accountability without power and the freedom to execute the leadership role in his own way — no, he is to execute it in the way his wife determines she wants, and then be accountable for not doing so, as the “leader”. This is slavery, not leadership, and the church is, very unfortunately, basically openly promoting the enslavement of men by women. It’s a slave marketeer, now, to a large degree.
—————
**This is something that’s blithely brushed under the table in the typical demonization of men as in need of correction — if this were the case, why were women bending over backwards to be more like men? The power? Sure, but they also like the swagger, too and throwing their political weight around in the office and so on. Women, as a class, generally coveted what men had — that was the essential spirit of feminism, and it still is. By contrast, men didn’t generally covet what women had, and still don’t (apart from the unwitting cuckolded herb types who unbeknownst to them are raising their wife’s boss’s children as their own while they do the Mr. Mom routine). The desire that women had to appropriate the world of men for themselves is not generally replicated among men in the reverse in terms of men desiring to appropriate the world of women. There are plenty of men who are quite emasculated and feminized in the current culture, but it’s not because they envy the world of women — it’s something that has been done to them by the ambient culture, not something these guys (the non-gay ones) sought to appropriate for themselves. This is also, by the way, one of the main reasons why the issue of gay rights is so closely linked to the feminist agenda: in addition to the critical mass of lesbians among feminist activists, the idea is to normatize gayness among men, so as to undermine heterosexual masculinity, and enlist gay men in forcing a more feminine redefinition of “being a man” on the straight guys who are not interested in doing this themselves.
You’re kidding yourself. These guys make millions of dollars off of women because they teach the exact opposite: Hate your husband instead of respecting him. As good as Dalrock iis at writing, You honestly think a few well-written posts by him are enough to counter-act all that money? Do you know how hard it is to convince someone of even the most basic fact in the face of even a few thousand bucks that “say” the opposite? And these guys are making $40 million per film.
Yeah, sure, they’ll listen…
NOT!
Have you been officially kicked off Team Woman yet?
In real life? Heck yeah. I’ve taken some hits. Mostly I’m either ignored or tolerated at this point. I’ve been very blessed with one like-minded woman friend and a couple who agree with me enough that we can get on well. This is fortunate because my husband is much happier when I have someone to gab at besides him, LOL.
Online? I haven’t had my Team Woman card revoked yet because I’m actually quite balanced and believe that women are as capable of redemption as they are of sin. You know, the gospel and all that.
You know what would be good? A movie showing the difference between some children raised with a father in the home, often away because he must work hard to provide for them and their mother, but nonetheless trying to lead his family, versus children raised with just a mother and her rotating array of boyfriends because she felt she needed children to fullfill herself and didn’t want to settle and get married first, or who got restless and gave her husband the shove.
It sounds like this movie makes the perfect (albeit feminist interpretation of perfect) be the enemy of the actually pretty good, which is a shame when the good itself can be so rare for reasons including those that Dalrock explain
‘I finally asked one why, and he told me that they all get together and complain to each other, and then come home and nag them with not only their complaints, but their girlfriends complaints.”
Sort of like the scene in Fireproof where she’s out with her friends and they are all going on and on about how terrible he is.
Women’s desire for more esteem/affirmation is probably subject to diminishing returns, or marginal utility theory. This means that additional inputs of affirmation increasingly result in declining incremental increases in self gratification.
As in most trends, such a trajectory would continue until it abruptly reverses, unexpectedly.
Thus, according to such a theory, one way to accelerate arrival at reversal would be to exaggerate the verbal praise, use multiple adjectives in making women feel good right up to sarcasm. It is satire, after all.
I have been trialling this in interactions with women, and results have been interesting, though mixed. The entitlement mindset is so heavily ingrained that most women perceive it as unexpected politeness, or cheerfulness.
Must be time to escalate the derision, then.
“Sort of like the scene in Fireproof where she’s out with her friends and they are all going on and on about how terrible he is.”
I trust that was to let the audience know they were both at fault for their marital problems? Okay, probably not, but they weren’t really holding that kind of behavior up as decent wife behavior, were they?
Brendan:
Instead of endorsing male leadership — which doesn’t mean that men get to do what they want, but that they do get to determine how to lead given moral constraints, rather than having women determine how they should lead, which is what we see in the Church today, even if that message is coming from nominally male preachers — they endorse a vision that men should “lead like women want them to lead”…
Or, in other words, they say they want men to be leaders, but actually want them to be chauffeurs.
You know, the guy with the jacket and cap who takes a passenger where she wants to go, and who speaks only when spoken to. A remake of “Driving Miss Daisy”…
I’ve waited weeks for this post, and it showed up on my dashboard just as I was leaving for work, my last day driving the bookmobile, boss was at a seminar, I got to do her job, my job, supervise a marginally competent substitute, and clean out my desk. AAAUUUUGH!
OK. I’m cool now.
The most “correctly” Christian family in the movie was the Martinez family, the stars of the humorous subplot. A devout Christian and devoted husband and father, a genuinely submissive wife (and wow! She’s not a doormat! How can she be submissive?!) and happy children. Their story was a caricature of a fairy tale. Unless I missed something, both Javier and Carmen did everything right throughout the entire movie, in the face of hardship and risk, yet they were “The Joke,” not to be taken seriously. I’m sure there were a few things the other husbands could have learned from Javier, but the wives had EVERYTHING to learn from Carmen. And they barely noticed her.
Or, in other words, they say they want men to be leaders, but actually want them to be chauffeurs.
You know, the guy with the jacket and cap who takes a passenger where she wants to go, and who speaks only when spoken to. A remake of “Driving Miss Daisy”…
It’s not so much not speaking unless spoken to, I think. It’s more like playing the “role” of “leader” in a play, while she determines how she wants that to look and feel in order to be “right”. So she wants you to be the “top”, but she also gets to determine what that looks like, and what you need to do in order to be that — it isn’t leadership when that happens, it’s filling a role she wants you to fill, rather than you determining what the role looks like yourself and her simply following.
Contemporary women top from below as a matter of course. Now, certainly, this doesn’t mean that in a traditional Captain/First Officer type of arrangement that the first officer doesn’t try to influence the captain — sure she does. But that’s different from defining what it means to be a captain, and how the captainship should be exercised in order to be legitimate — when it morphs to the latter (which it typically does in the US today), she is leading, in effect, while the man is play-acting as the “leader”. He’s a figurehead leader — she determines how he leads and what is legitimate leadership, and he has no real leadership power. This is not that new — I knew many couples in my parents generation who had this type of marriage (my parents were born in the 20s and 30s). The churches today are veering very, very close to outright endorsement of this with the emphasis on servant leadership. While there is truth to that characterization, it’s mostly subject to wildly wrong interpretations, and really has been championed as a sop to feminism — the cardinal sin of the contemporary church, really.
“I trust that was to let the audience know they were both at fault for their marital problems? Okay, probably not, but they weren’t really holding that kind of behavior up as decent wife behavior, were they?”
Not sure if there was a specific point they were making with that scene, but the fact of the matter is it was a very realistic one in terms of what happens in real life.
Either her or someone else stopping them and saying something like “hey what he’s doing stinks but it’s not like he’s completely terrible or she’s completely perfect” would have gone a LONG way toward some sembalance of balance. But instead they stuck with the “party line” that porn use is so bad that it completely excuses any wrong she may do in responding to it.
Instead of a movie on game theory, hypergamy, etc, why not a short film?
The technology is available to do this cheaply. Use unknown actors. Go for independent film festivals to showcase the issues.
Perfectly doable. Just needs a script. Small donations could bankroll the project.
Brendan, my comment about “speaking when spoken to” was rather tongue in cheek. But the essence of man-as-chauffeur is what we are agreeing about. Another way to put it, in churchian terms, is that a husband is supposed to be Christ-like to his wife, but she gets to decide what that should look like, and until he’s sufficiently like her vision of Christ, she doesn’t have to submit to his leadership. So as we all know, this means she never submits to him at all, and he’s stuck chasing a constantly receding goal. This is a recipe for frustration at the very least.
This doesn’t strike me as a stable condition. Men who have children may be willing to stay in a marriage for their sake, but once they are out of the house — what then? More to the point, younger men growing up in the matriarchy are not going to be all that enthused about marriage or church. Expect another doubling down on shaming of MGTOW, because they are a threat to the existing order of things. Of course, men being what we are, the more shame is heaped upon MGTOW, the less they will care about society in general.
There are two truisms I would like to toss out at this point:
“If nothing a man does is ever good enough for a woman, then he should do nothing for her”.
“There is no point in talking if no one is listening”.
MGTOW men will grasp the truth immediately, others may take longer. As the churches become more feminized, there will be fewer and fewer men in them to shame – Zed’s point about the tradcon world “eating its own” looks likely to come to pass. And as each man reaches his threshold of revulsion, his moment of realization that he can never be ‘good enough” for women in general, or one woman in particular, he’ll just quietly leave. And by that point it won’t do any good to ask him why – because he will have realized that no one really listens to men in that venue. He’ll just turn his back and walk away.
“It’s more like playing the “role” of “leader” in a play, while she determines how she wants that to look and feel in order to be “right”. So she wants you to be the “top”, but she also gets to determine what that looks like, and what you need to do in order to be that ***”
I’ve heard many Christian women say things like:
1. He is the leader, but I lead certain things and he submits to me on those things.
2. He is the leader, but I submit only when I am convinced that he is properly submitted to God.
If he isn’t submitted to God, I don’t have to submit to him.
3. He is the leader, but I’m not required to submit if he is not loving me and giving himself up for me.
4. First he has to lead, then I will submit.
5. First he has to lead where I want to go, then I will submit.
6. If I don’t agree, I don’t have to submit.
7. The Bible says we are to submit ourselves to one another. That means he has to submit to me sometimes.
8. I don’t have to submit because he
–looks at porn
–struggles with something
–works too hard and is never here
–doesn’t work hard enough and doesn’t make enough money to take care of us without me also working
–does not go to church often enough
–does not tithe enough
–does not like the pastor
–does not like the church
–does not like the people at church
–does not like my friends at church
–does not want to do things with people at church
–does not lead devotionals at home
–does not pray at home
–does not help with the kids so therefore he is not leading at home
Brendan, my comment about “speaking when spoken to” was rather tongue in cheek. But the essence of man-as-chauffeur is what we are agreeing about. Another way to put it, in churchian terms, is that a husband is supposed to be Christ-like to his wife, but she gets to decide what that should look like, and until he’s sufficiently like her vision of Christ, she doesn’t have to submit to his leadership. So as we all know, this means she never submits to him at all, and he’s stuck chasing a constantly receding goal. This is a recipe for frustration at the very least.
Ah, okay. I see where you were coming from, and this is a good way to phrase it, I think.
More to the point, younger men growing up in the matriarchy are not going to be all that enthused about marriage or church. Expect another doubling down on shaming of MGTOW, because they are a threat to the existing order of things. Of course, men being what we are, the more shame is heaped upon MGTOW, the less they will care about society in general.
Right. It will be interesting to see what else they try, other than shaming.
TFH:
As I’m sure you know, those numbers are because Sherwood is able to keep its costs low. They get a lot of donated services and locations. Most location shooting is in and around Albany, GA. There is no special set construction and there are no special effects. Most of the cast are novices and certainly are not Screen Actors Guild members (and it shows in some of the acting). Whatever SAG members they do cast, appear to work for scale or for relatively very low compensation. The crew is composed of perhaps a professional cameraman and/or cinematographer. The rest are church members working for free. Incidental music is mostly canned or prepared by the Kendricks (Alex Kendrick is the music director at Sherwood).
@tfh
Can’t remember where, I saw a site where they did a mash-up of all the big-ish movies of the last decade – all the movie posters looked the same. Girl looking wistfully off in the distance, obedient beta providing support etc.
Not very original,but taking the time to complike the pics made it easily digestible.
I will go back to finish, but after the 3rd paragraph I had to stop. What is it with these “Christian” movies? It seems as if the male leads always work for the government – fireman, policeman, soldier?
@Terri,
And anybody else who liked the idea. The idea of a critical review of these sorts of films, done as an extra audio commentary is a great idea. The guys that used to do MST3K now do Rifftrax and Cinematic Titanic. The Rifftrax guys have good experience with making add on mp3 commentaries that work quite well. I do a bit of audio production for my podcast and stuff, so perhaps if people are interestd we should get together and make something like this happen. It seems quite tractable,
Jason
@Randy Miller,
We’re you thinking a fictional movie or a documentary?
And if it gets off the ground I’d be up for helping crowd source it. heck I’d be interested in helping out with such a project it sounds interesting.
Jason
@Feminist Hater- ITA on all counts. In our house, there is only grumbling if Mama wants it done. If Daddy wants it, however, there is clamoring and arguing over who gets to do what (at least until the novelty wears off, lol.) While the kids learned a long time ago Daddy might say ‘yes’ when Mama said ‘no,’ Mama and Daddy have gotten hip to them and usually have a standard set of questions to ask, the first of which is usually, “What did _____ say when you asked?”
The key to parenting, imo, is working as a team. Too often, it seems like it turns into a pissing match between parents, and that’s not going to end well.
I haven’t seen the movie, but I am definitely steering clear. It’s not enjoyable when you want to yell at the characters and throw things at the screen. 😉
@Chaz345
“The issue is that in many cases, the men don’t want to be involved because all they hear about is how badly they are failing at it.”
Interesting observation isn’t it. Women will seek to nag and shame thier men into doing what they want. I have sene it suggested (and I thought plausibly so) that women do this because it wold work on them and other women.
Of course when you do it to a man, the result is often that they simply seek to avoid the activity they are bad at to avoid being shamed like that again. Nothing works better at turning a man off from doing an activity and make him avoidant of it than being critical of how he does it.
Someone should probably explain that to new wives. Although they would probably perceive that as some way to gain power or some such, depending on exactly what stupid feminist ideology has poisoned their minds.
Jason
I took a look at the two resolutions. What a riot. The resolution for women specifically mentions her relationship with her husband in only one spot, #10, as follows:
10. Fulfilling my husband
A resolution to be the kind of woman who truly blesses her man.
I will honor my husband in my conduct and conversation in order to bring glory to the name of the Lord. I will aspire to be a suitable partner for him to help him reach his God-given potential.
Three sentences. No mention of submit or obey; allow me to be cynical. Sentence 1 means nothing since she gets to define what she has to do which will bless her man. Maybe keeping house, putting a meal on the table and looking beautiful is sufficient. Certainly she’s a blessing for her man, right? Sentence 2 – OK, it’s a stretch, but it doesn’t say “I’ll honor my husband in my conduct and conversation to him“. Maybe it just means, watch my tongue in public so people won’t say “That was HIS wife.” Sentence 3 means she should be a shrew and nag to make sure she remakes him into what she sees as his God-given potential.
Really sad. My sister, her husband and children are Evangelicals. One time, when visiting, she mentioned how they watched Fireproof and how wonderful the movie is. I almost puked.
Couple of points come to mind after reading through the movie review and the great responses. Here are a couple points to consider from the Jewish Disciple of Jesus.
– Original sin of Adam was not putting Eve in her place when she ate of the fruit and joined in with her. I seriously think things might have turned out differently if he would brought her to God and said acted as a mediator.
– The original sin of Eve was discontent which led to disobedience.
– A great way to shut a women or any argumentative person is to keep your cool and inform them when they “come down” then act rational then “we” can discuss the issue in a mature manner ( yes they will get more angry). Ignore them and if you have to – remove yourself from their presence ( women hate being ignored and extreme anger is a form of control). This way you keep your head and acting in a rational, kind, gracious manner just like Jesus ( you have to have enough backbone and discipline to wait it out – quite often women will use the threat of withdrawing sex and the man will give in. If you have to – she sleeps in the couch till she cools down).
There is more to discuss to avoid getting to this point – but this is the general idea the man has to keep his head and his cool no matter what the situation is. When a female acts like a angry child – treat her as a patient parent.
A guy at church did that pledge, it was pathetic. His wife rubbed his back as someone mentioned. This guy is a chief of a fire station. It made me sick to my stomach and filled with anger. It makes me not want to go to church at all. I thought I went to a manly church, but this beta crap seeped in. its a church of christ, the kind without musicical instuments. Supposedly bible based…
The 21st century-Christian’s golden calf.
They grew into golden cows.
I will go back to finish, but after the 3rd paragraph I had to stop. What is it with these “Christian” movies? It seems as if the male leads always work for the government – fireman, policeman, soldier?
They wouldn’t know what to do with an Engineer or a SysAdmin. Not manly enough, I guess. Check out “Falling Down” with Michael Douglas. There’s a manly engineer!
@cancaldo
“The 21st century-Christian’s golden calf.
They grew into golden cows.”
Well at spot prices Kendricks 75 pound calves have turned into 1513 pound cows. Now all they have to do is figure out how to get them to spring up from the fire unbidden.
Never “sleep on the couch”. My wife has, more than once. Not I.
Never do this.
a long overdue and comprehensive dalrocking of the Kendrick (anti) Brothers and their cowardly “Courageous”
looks like a wholesome family film on the surface but subtle is the serpent — it’s profiteering, feminist propaganda disguised as Christain-friendly entertainment
it takes some thought, patience and effort to sort out the anti-fatherhood, anti-male subtext of this film — but as “Craven” shows, it’s v much there, and v much a servant of secular matriarchal culture, not the wishes (make that commands) of Christ
Carnivore: What is it with these “Christian” movies? It seems as if the male leads always work for the government – fireman, policeman, soldier?
hoped somebody would mention that
those guys, esp cops, are really the core target audience of the two films . . . along with, of course, nominal “christian” women
the elites, money guys, d.c. crew etc are enemies of christ/fatherhood; they fund and legislate feminism to crush the nation’s sons — so no need to influence them
the lefite/prog males are opted-in psychologically and almost always ecomoincally too, so theres little point appealing to this faction also — already on board with feminism, woman’s rule of family and State, and gynocratic institutions
the crucial unknown — the ONLY unknown, in the political sense — are the conservative and/or apolitical guys still employed in the few areas remaining open to men — law enforcement (in myriad forms) and emergency responders, plus the NG and military)
this is the secret backbone of the matriarchy — all the anti-male “laws” and proceedings and punishments arise from coercion via collective female will via subjugated proxy-men (obama, biden, bush etc)
but these are all weaklings and cowards — they never do their own dirty work
the will of the matriarchy, like all States, must be enforced by men who WILL risk their health — for certain compensations, one of which is advanced social status and/or power
it is THESE men, usually married, who MUST be convinced, and remain convinced, that Terrible Bad Men are lurking everywhere (other guys, you know… the Bad Guys, can’t pay their child support and want their wives to obey) and that the idolatrous gyno-gulag we live under in America is actually normative and good, as evidenced in Fireproof and Courageous, etc
the Good Guys, in addition to a solid paycheck and career, are portrayed as courageous heroes for submitting to their wives and daughters, exactly as the world wishes and Christ doesnt
the cops in “Courageous” stand around eating barbeque and dissing fatherhood
the protagonist’s masculinity is equated with obedience to enforcement of the very policies and “laws” that hinder or destoy the opportunity for fatherhood and intact family for others
to top off, they then tie this agit-prop “film” back to popular (feminist) cuture with their stupid, zombic, group-hug Resolution that constitutes more males being paraded (and worse, parading themselves) before the Male Shame-a-thon of anti-Christian western churches and cultures
it’s great to see the Kendricks and other pseudo-spiritual punks finally getting called-out on their bullshit
Pingback: Driving Miss Daisy » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology
The woman’s contract including the statement that she will be the kind of wife that supports her husband to be blah blah, whatever, others have accurately stated that is nothing but her being in charge with the personal Jesus to back her up. It makes me want to rip my hair out in frustration that men see this as pro-male, as the appropriate dynamic in relationship. Its seen in secular and religious circles, among social conservatives and among some social liberals, minus the extreme left where anything and everything is OK, and traditional equals evil intolerance.
To say she will submit and follow when he leads where she wants to go is the old cliche about the guy saying he gets to make all the important calls in his marriage, like existential matters of universal import, philosophically deep matters, etc, and leaves his wife directing the minor things like, where they live, where he works, how they budget, how the child rear, where kids attend school, where they church, etc. This pseudo joke hits the nails head.
The woman back rubbing as he rererererererererere, (breath, gasp) rerererererererecommits to be the man he is called to be is actually IMO a powerful visual representation of the dynamic between spouses that the church is fostering. The other is the image of the wife standing dutifully in the drive way as the church van pulls away with a load of men destined for the Promise Keepers rally, she has the same expression the back rubbing woman has, knowing, willful and empathetic, supportive and self satisfied that HER man is committed to sorting himself out, and that her friend Madison’s hubby got back from PK a radically changed man of God, and had started dressing in robes and sandals as a Bible character and cutting out paper disciple dolls with the kids each afternoon.
I understand all that is being said here and I agree with it. However, I think we can take something positive from the film. It calls us to be better fathers. Nothing wrong with that. My dad was a workaholic and never around. I was left with an unstable mom. I swore that I would never let my work come between me and my kids. Looking back I think my dad was not a workaholic but avoiding my mom. Anyway, a film by women for women calling them to a higher standard of behavior would be nice.
@Needyhusband
Why must a film calling women to a higher standard be done by women?
After reading so many of the comments on this thread I must say I am pissed!
I cannot count how many times my husband and I sat in a pastor’s office needing help and it was the same old thing–my husband was told how he was the reason for the problem, what he needed to do about it and how he needed to kiss my feet to make it all better. Meanwhile I sat back feeling more puffed up than when we walked in and allow to go back home armed with even more ammunition to use to rub my husband’s face even further into the mud.
I am so glad I got the proverbial kick in the head; some sense knocked into me.
I wouldn’t think of disrespecting my husband like that today, and I cringe when I watch the interaction between most men and women. I was taught how I was supposed to act toward men, but no one warned me about how miserable I would feel about life. I wasn’t informed about the true happiness I would enjoy if I just concentrated on being the feminine woman I need to be instead of trying to manipulate my husband out of being the real man he is meant to be. How I think about all the years we’ve lost.
I feel like I’ve been sold a bill of goods.
This is so refreshing to hear from a woman. I have said it repeatedly: Repentance brings healing. Sadly, only men are ever called to repent in Christian marriages. Never women. The result is that “repentance” is twisted into something else, namely a means for a woman to dominate and control her husband. This wreaks havoc in a marriage, and Churchianity dresses it all up in religious vestments so that people won’t see it for what it is.
My ex-wife was a total harridan. Nothing I ever did could please her, and I worked my butt off to do so (as everyone who saw us together would testify). Finally, she had an affair, and then had the nerve to somehow blame me for it. The thing is, when you start reading all the materials put out by so called Christian “experts,” that’s exactly what you find: It’s always the guy’s fault, even when she is the one who cheated or nagged or whatever. She is never accountable for her actions.
But repentance brings healing, and it is a major component of a successful marriage that is only 50% present in most Christian marriages today, and therefore it is not truly present at all.
@Jacquie don’t count those years as wasted. You learned the hard way, and those are the lessons that stick. When my wife was confronted by our marriage counslor with these truths about how to treat me in a way that shows my value as her husband, and then again by our pastor at the time ( a rare breed who taught truth ), she responded with screw you. He doesn’t deserve my respect. They both said that the ring on her finger said that I did. She took the ring off shortly there after. Its a hard pill to swallow for most women in our culture. I doubt he regrets those years now that you get it. It is something that if he were in my shoes now, he would be gun shy with every woman. Even ones who say the right things, because the marriage ceremony seems to change their opinion so quickly. Congratulations on putting your husband and your marriage before your pride. Joy will follow.
“Dalrock says:
May 4, 2012 at 10:12 am
@Needyhusband
Anyway, a film by women for women calling them to a higher standard of behavior would be nice.
Why must a film calling women to a higher standard be done by women?”
Because if it were done by men it would be easily be written off as being motivated by the men’s inability to accept women as equals, or as an attempt to keep them subjugated. It would be seen as a part of the (largely non-existent) patriarchial power structure. The only way it could be done my men is if it were done by former well known and vocal white knights. If Ken Nair or Joel and Kathy did it, with an explanation of how wrong they had been up until that point, it MAY have a chance of being heard.
“Finally, she had an affair, and then had the nerve to somehow blame me for it. The thing is, when you start reading all the materials put out by so called Christian “experts,” that’s exactly what you find: It’s always the guy’s fault, even when she is the one who cheated or nagged or whatever. She is never accountable for her actions.”
Exactly. It takes no nerve for her to blame you for her affair because according to everything from the church and society(including Kendrick brothers movies) everything that goes wrong in a marriage is the man’s fault.
If anyone is interested in movies that have basically Christian values but that place blame for dysfunction much more equally, most Tyler Perry movies fit the bill much better than most. Interestingly, he has the same “formula” for success as the Kendrick brothers just on a slightly bigger scale. Produce the movie cheaply, more than a KB film but still very low budget by Hollywood standards, so even relatively low box office numbers result in large profit.
Jacquie
Just thank God that your marriage survived and you and your husband still love and respect one another. That’s all you can really ask for. You learnt the lessons and can now live your marriage free of doubt.
The reasons chaz mentions for men not making the movie are the real reasons, I guess id back up a step, and I’m assuming Dalrock was backed up that same step, and say “WHY SO?” , again.
I know chaz was not excusing those things, just pointing the how things really are. The thing is that those barriers have to be ignored. Otherwise toss all and go home. Because eventually it has to get to the point here something that originates from the patriarchal power structure is seen as a good thing.
Anyone who believes that men shouldn’t hold women accountable needs to ensure that their church has two pastors, one for women and one for men. This is pure nonsense though, and is part of the problem.
empathologicalism – ”…dressing in robes and sandals as a Bible character and cutting out paper disciple dolls with the kids…”
Okay, I have to ask, does this “visual” come from some specific Christian-Cultural (the Churchain equivalent of the general Pop-Cultural) reference?
I seen it come up several times now, and I have to imagine that it something more than random non-sequitur in regards to application to men who are making some sort of gynocentrist-specified self-improvement.
Did Promise Keepers actually suggests doing such a thing?
First, please bring me into the loop on how its a non-sequitur.
It (sandals and robes) has been used as a tad sarcastic illustrative visual in regards to the tasks that women want men to do as the so called spiritual leader of a family, as instructed by the modern evangelical church.
This may sound odd, but the mention of non-sequitur was, well, a non-sequitur, and I cannot find a connection.
Its like this, if I were grumbling about women expecting men to teach the kids more, academic teach I mean…..and to make a sarcastic reference I said the men spent evenings reciting the ABS’s, rather than explaining that they spent the evenings teaching-generally speaking, would it be possible that the alphabet be a non-sequitur?
I get its a bit of an obtuse reference, I think most folks knew what i meant if they have seen me comment awhile as its peeve number 459, but I’m puzzled how it even could be a non-sequitur as used.
When my wife was confronted by our marriage counslor with these truths about how to treat me in a way that shows my value as her husband, and then again by our pastor at the time ( a rare breed who taught truth ), she responded with screw you. He doesn’t deserve my respect. They both said that the ring on her finger said that I did. She took the ring off shortly there after.
Indeed. This is not uncommon if you have a counselor or adviser who “breaks role” and actually tries to hold the wife to some level of accountability — generally the wife rejects the advice and breaks off the counseling immediately. This is what happened in my case as well — our LMFT basically told my ex after we learned of her affair that she couldn’t continue counseling her in good faith because of what had happened (i.e., an affair that started and took place *during* the time we were in counseling, and which was hidden from both me and the counselor until I discovered it) — so she just stopped any counseling, and never went to a counselor at all after that, even for herself. The jig was up, after all. If the counseling isn’t of the type that gives the wife ammo to use against the husband, it isn’t generally welcomed by the wife — women want their husbands to go to marriage counseling so that they can gang up on the husband and apply additional pressure to make him conform to her wishes. If the counseling doesn’t follow this script at some point, she bails, because it isn’t serving its purpose any longer. This is why I am firmly convinced that marriage counseling is almost completely worthless. I say “almost” because there are, in fact, some counselors who don’t follow the script — good luck in getting your wife to attend counseling with one of them, however.
Empathologicalism – “First, please bring me into the loop on how its a non-sequitur”
First, for clarity, I stated that I was assuming that it was more than non-sequitur, and actually had some direct relevance and meaning (which is why I asked, BTW).
Otherwise, in my experience, as a general prospect, one would not normally associate a modern man trying to become more Godly by dressing up as a Biblical character – which is why the mere mention of the two together would, on the surface, seem a non-sequitur.
“Dalrock says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:31 am
Anyone who believes that men shouldn’t hold women accountable needs to ensure that their church has two pastors, one for women and one for men. This is pure nonsense though, and is part of the problem.”
I agree that it’s nonsense. All I was saying is that initially, nothing said by men in terms of women being accountable will have any traction at all. I don’t believe that men shouldn’t be able to hold women accountable, I’m saying that as things are now, it’s not possible for that to happen. What we need is for one or several of the folks on “their side”, folks like Beth Moore or Joyce Meyer to wake up and start telling it like it really is.
@Chaz345 the problem with one of the women in the circle of women’s bible study taking the mantel is that they in much the same way as described as the woman leading from the backseat are doing the same thing. Truth from a Christian perspective comes from the Bible. If a woman requires a woman to spout that truth at them to agree with it, then they aren’t starting at the Bible. I think that this is a case of the church needs to evangelize, but that the church is not really the place where evangelism should take place. The buildings are full of non-believers who are acting the part. The church should be willing to offend them, and if they leave so be it. The seed cast on rocky ground will grow quickly but will not have strong roots and will whither and blow away. Let it blow away.
OT, but tangentially related as a recent example of one woman telling other women how it really is (although most of it is talking about how Jack Welch did so earlier this week, to much disgruntlement): http://wapo.st/IOYAMV
empathologicalism – you were very clear.
The majority of Christian womens perceptions of Christian Discipleship, Godly man, Father role are are a reduced to lukewarm Hollyweird all encompassing panacea that is so far removed from reality. Christian women are following the secular media that men have no impact, character shaping, and are impotent in contributing to children upbringing.
Any worthwhile attributes are contributed and / by the women only.
One of my favorite OT heros was Abraham. God declared Him righteous even though he tried to sell his wife twice 🙂 LOL….
@HeligKo
I agree that the church today needs to be much more willing to offend. I’ve said for a while that by today’s standards Jesus was quite offensive and would probably last about 5 minutes into his first sermon as a head pastor.
I don’t agree that a woman standing up in a Bible study, or in a social group of friends and speaking Biblical truth is leading from the back seat. I agree that everything must come from the Bible but when everything everyone has heard taught has been so wrong for so long, someone going directly to the Bible will, because of their own lenses and filters, still come to the wrong “truth”. What we’re suggesting be taught is so far “off” from what “everyone knows” what everyone is sure is in the Bible, that we’re seen as the weird ones, the one’s who have missed what the Bible is saying.
To some extent though it has to start without the Bible. I mean we can quote Eph directly, but it’s from there that we’ve arrived at the nonsense we have now of mutual submisson or the “I’ll submit/follow when he’s leading where I want to go.”
A good portion of Dalrocks’ readers are familiar with my writings, and while I may not delve specifically into issues of spirituality or my personal beliefs on my blog I felt I had to add my take about Courageous.
The church I attend has gone through a lot of crazy shit in the past year. The orignal pastor was a man I had a deep respect for because his insight and (for lack of a better term) ‘connection’ was so unlike the typical baptist firebreathers so common where I live. A year ago he resigned as pastor due to marital problems with his attractive wife. After 16 years and 4 children she decided she wanted to restart her life while she still had the looks to get with a more successful man than the pastor of a struggling church she’d been married to. She essentially followed the Eat, Pray Love formula, but the events that led up to their divorce followed the Fireproof script to the letter.
Flash forward to last weekend – the new ‘typical ignorant baptist’ pastor decided he wanted to have a church viewing of Courageous in a local park at sunset on a big projector screen. It was really supposed to be membership drive event. As quite probably the only Game-aware, unplugged male in the audience I literally got chills watching this moving with the knowledge of all the subtext and latent meanings behind pretty much everything Dal has reviewed in this post.
It was almost surreal; like being a passive observer at Nuremberg in Nazi Germany. You have to understand that online I’m Rollo Tomassi, a guy who’s been writing about the feminine matrix for over 12 years. So here is Rollo Tomassi watching this movie amongst men and women who simply don’t see the code in the matrix. In fact they embrace it without even the idea of a critical afterthought.
It is absolutely sinister, there is no other word for it. It’s sinister that fem-centrism is so all insaturating that even Christianity wont dare to challenge it; quite the opposite, they embrace it. Gynocentrism is now part of mainstream Christian doctrine to the point that it’s become canonized.
Christian men and women take gynocentrism as an article of faith now.
I wanted so badly to stand up in front of the men nodding their heads in assent and say ‘this is bullshit’, all the time knowing how difficult it is to get even one secular guy to unplug from the matrix. Now I read that women are buying these pledges for their husbands to sign? As if the presumption of their male-exclusive guilt can be absolved with a piece of fucking paper? This is not a resolution to comply with better manhood, it’s a loyalty oath to the feminine imperative.
I am so happy evangelicalism missed me entirely. Does the lead get any command decisions at all?
@Chaz345
I don’t think a woman standing up and saying truth is leading from the backseat, but for it to have to be a woman is. The onus is on the listener. If a woman can hear plainly spoken truth regardless of who delivers it, and discern it as truth there is no problem. Same can be said for a man. As far as interpretations of the Bible, I am a read it literally unless it doesn’t make sense to read it as such. I have yet to find a place in the Bible where it isn’t clear that the style of writing is using alliteration or some other device to make its point. That being said, the idea of mutual submission falls. We cannot apply a “modern society” filter to the scripture and expect to find truth. Its a fine line a pastor walks where he is using modern examples to teach from scripture versus he is using modern examples to filter or bend the scripture. We will make enough mistakes just trying to respond to the scriptures as they are written. It is even more fraught with pitfalls when we adjust the meanings as we go to fit the modern world.
slwerner
First, for clarity, I stated that I was assuming that it was more than non-sequitur, and actually had some direct relevance and meaning (which is why I asked, BTW).
Otherwise, in my experience, as a general prospect, one would not normally associate a modern man trying to become more Godly by dressing up as a Biblical character – which is why the mere mention of the two together would, on the surface, seem a non-sequitur.
—————————————————-
I asked the question incorrectly, indeed you did say it was more than a NS, and you did ask.
I just couldnt find non sequitur at all, asked, stated, implied, denied, nada. I was genuinely confused as to what I could possibly have been on about that would make it such.
Anyway, the man isn’t trying to be more Godly, well, let me slow up, maybe the modern evangelical is as he takes on the TASKS of spiritual leader with gusto, but he is trying to lead his family and please his wife’s urge for rule following and task mastering, women love ISO 9000 type procedure manuals that lay out steps they can enforce over men, especially with the personal Jesus as task master back-up.
This man would be uber appealing to the Christian wife, is the point.
Mutual submission is the chipmunks standing by a door saying, “after you”.
Nobody moves
empathologicalism – ”…he takes on the TASKS of spiritual leader with gusto, but he is trying to lead his family and please his wife’s urge for rule following and task mastering, women love ISO 9000 type procedure manuals that lay out steps they can enforce over men, especially with the personal Jesus as task master back-up.
This man would be uber appealing to the Christian wife, is the point.”
Thanks for that clarification.
I had initially taken the “robes & sandals” as a humorous over-the-top suggested logical end-point of a man trying too hard to be like Jesus. But, when you tied it in with the hypothetical of a man who’d been to a PK brainwashing and started to do so, I had to seriously wonder if the idea of actually dressing up in robes and sandals to be a better father/husband was something that had actually been suggested to men. I found the possibility quite bemusing, and something that I could not fully discount.
I cannot say if I’m more relived or disappointed to learn that men weren’t actually told to do so. Relieved that the empty symbolism hasn’t gotten so bad, yet disappointed at the loss of truly great real-world humor material.
@HeligKo,
We don’t really disagree at all. Anyone, male or female should be able to discern and accept Biblical truth no matter the gender of the person they are hearing it from. The problem is we’ve come to a point where conditioning and expectations are such that some(mostly women) will not accept anything that’s even a little bit challenging to them, especailly if it’s comming from a man. By having it come from a woman, one whole layer of objections is removed. As it sits now, there is a tiny percentage of women who will hear and accept the truth as related to gender roles and gender contributions to today’s problems if it’s delivered by a man. It’s a small enough number though that the critical mass required to bring about real change cannot be reached. There’s a larger number though that will hear and accept(although usually slowly, over time) the same truth comming from another woman. With those people included, there may be enough to reach critical mass. It SHOULDN’T be that way, but it is, at least for now.
I completely agree that we can’t apply the modern society filter to the Bible and expect to find the truth, but the fact of the matter is that that’s what’s been being done, for decades now.
I watched this movie once. I then told the men in my circle not to bother and why it was bad, none of them did. The one man that gave it to me to watch (really his wife) apologized to me afterward. So there still is hope, even if it is amongst the “he-men” in Alaska.
On the other hand, one man I know has a wife that has watched it at least 8 times…….ouch. Me and him will be having a talk about it soon.
One man at a time. Red pill’s for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
“hypothetical of a man who’d been to a PK brainwashing”
Just thought I’d mention again, the rise and fall of PK is a perfect example of the difference between what men in today’s church want and need, and what they are getting.
Initially PK was not brainwashing or “fix your stuff” at all. At first it was actually about being a truly Godly man. It was encouraging and uplifting and caused men to become closer to God and eachother and it thrived. Over time and bowing to pressure from the women both within and outside the church it became yet another “fix the man to fox the problem” thing and attendance and support plummeted. If I had the time, and the venue to have it read, I’d write a piece about this with specific examples of exactly how the teaching from PK changed because I believe it could be very instructive, both to women and to men who can’t or won’t see what we’re saying here.
Thank you.
Someone going by Arch pointed me this way on this article: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/04/26/the-sad-state-of-american-fatherhood/
That lead me here where I soon found this: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/rotating-polyandry-and-its-enforcers-part-1/
Soon I was able to find this : http://www.lulu.com/shop/athol-kay/the-married-man-sex-life-primer-2011-pdf/ebook/product-17989369.html
Years ago, I was able to see that Fireproof was disturbing and wrong… but I still didn’t know what the deal was. The assumption that women are naturally monogamous was leading me to draw all the wrong conclusions about what to do. When a woman stops having sex with her husband… she is doing something that is just as unfaithful as having an affair. But she, the counselors, and even pastors will NOT call her on this and will use the man’s reaction to this to shame him. But the fact that a woman will do this, risk impoverishing both herself and her husband, and assuredly hurting the children in the process… this is evil. And adding fuel to the fire, most men are going to be told to take the Fireproof route in dealing with this… all the while he is blamed for not being a good spiritual leader. This is just sick.
“Never before have we actually been able to observe how women behave when unrestrained by honor, shame, religious instruction, or fear of social disgrace and financial ruin.” That’s what we have now. It’s like Lord of the Flies… but it’s half of the population being completely off the chain. It’s nuts. With the church actually perpetuating this, propping it up, and shaming men into making it even more pervasive and complete… it’s just crazy.
But now I know what’s happening. It’s horrible. It’s kind of sad because I’ll see a cute girl jogging or something and I think of her as being essentially on the same level as a wild dog. She is liable to ruin a mans life and then feel no shame for it… and even worse… she’ll blame him and help make everyone else blame him. Her promise probably means nothing. [ Females just think males should know that when they say “I would never cheat on you,” what they really mean is “I would never cheat on you . . . as long as you make me happy and I don’t get bored.”] Fidelity means nothing and is probably worth nothing to her. Amazing.
Anyways… Dalrock, everyone…. Thanks for figuring this out. I could see maybe 10% of this on my own… but I feel better equipped to handle this than I ever have before. Ah, the irony, though. If anyone is telling a guy to “man up”, nine times out of ten he’s really being told to submit to women. Incredible.
Rollo,
My wife and I watched Courageous with another Christian couple, and I had to reel my wife in repeatedly because every scene was driving her crazy. She thought I didn’t see the problems with it, but I was just trying to not offend our hosts. One thing she did see that I had missed though was that the men started to do the resolution man-style and the wives intervened and turned it into something else (great catch by Mrs. Dalrock). Part way through the movie they paused it and we shared our thoughts. It startled them at first but after we talked it through they could see it too. I felt a bit bad because they were so excited to be showing the movie to us, but it was impressive that they could see it once we pointed it out. We talked about Fireproof too, and the husband not only agreed he talked to his pastor about it, and after reflection his pastor agreed as well.
BTW, thanks for all of the traffic you have been sending my way. I’ve added your blog to my blogroll with a hover note that your site covers the pickup side of game.
Chaz, write it and send it, I will post it, or add you and you can post it.
I want to see the points, because looking back, I cannot see a time when PK was not a male soul robbing organization, they just grow more overt about it until those who saw it outnumbered those who didnt. Especially after the coach wrote that manifesto laying everything from faulty diaper adhesive to global warming on mens backs
Sort of on the topic of being the kind of fathers that children need, I though I’d throw out some raw meat to rile things up a bit:
”Though we often idealize and elevate the role of dad in a boy’s life, we don’t admit that actual fathers can be destructive. And, in fact, in my observations, the sons of mother-only families often had less to “prove,” because they weren’t faced every day with an idealized masculine model.”
&
“Make it clear to your son that he can choose qualities to emulate from both men and women. The boys I observed did not grow up in male-dominated homes where competition and control can be mainstays. Instead, they developed what are thought of as more “womanly” traits, such as self-expression, the ability to compromise, and a stronger attachment to the people, pets, and places in their lives. “
@Chaz,
PK made me queasy from the start, I’m not much of a “joiner” but it had the look of humanism to me. Not just man fixing himself, but man (not God) fixing men….
Needyhusband –I understand all that is being said here and I agree with it. However, I think we can take something positive from the film. It calls us to be better fathers.
if you actually DID “understand all that is being said here” you couldnt possibly come to the Exact Rong conclusion that these films “call us to be better fathers”
these films call us to be WHATEVER FEMALES AND THEIR FEMINIST CULTURE WANT
get it?
first, who are the Kendricks and their emacsulated “church” to be telling ANYBODY what fatherhood is? who anointed them? (hint: not God)
second, these films do NOT call us to be better fathers, they call us to be the servants of Woman and her State/Church, forcing fatherhood into more powerlessness, constriction, and degradation with each passing week
you’re a True Believer, Needyhusband . . . unfortunately in woman’s god, not the real thing
Chaz– I agree that the church today needs to be much more willing to offend. I’ve said for a while that by today’s standards Jesus was quite offensive and would probably last about 5 minutes into his first sermon as a head pastor.
the church would call the Sheriff’s Department and book him for Verbal Harrassment, then teach him some lessons about who is really the boss when he stands before Ms. Judge
the more things change . . . .
comment by Jacquie: powerful testimony; the truth always is
Ray:
I re-read the resolution from the movie and I still don’t have a problem with it. I agree that our culture is totally warped and misandric. It blames all problems on men and has a total double standard. This culture has seeped into all churches in one way or another. However, we, as men, can still operate on a higher level regardless of how the world sees us. We can do this dispite having a shrew for a wife. We can and should hold our heads high.
PK was not really too humanist IMO. It even made a good show of readily trying to get with men and God…..but one need only read the original promises list, and compare it to the creeds they are signing associated with the Courageous movie, to see the similarity. Its insidious how clever, because like most of these things, in a vacuum there is great truth in asking high things of men. But is it asking high things to assume low things? Thats what the church does generally, come at men from the constant machination of moral inferiority and having a fix. This appeals to women, panders to them…..do not make the mistake thinking PK didnt see the ladies as a source for growth as they patted their men on the back and sent them for what they endorsed as a wonderful boys weekend out. Some of these women sending men to PK would never allow the hubby to the grocer alone, and now she shuttles him off with a knowing smile? This all was the beginning. This was my neighbor who went year 1, and took me the next, who wore the t shirt w/ the promises when he and I jogged, whose wife then lefft with her Salsa teacher and abandoned her kids, and her home and husband etc. To her credit she made zero attempt to get a bunch of money, she just wrecked a family, even after hubby emasculated himself daily for her, she was more attractive than him, objectively speaking, and he was a bit momma boy and a white knight….look what it got him, he kept his promise though!
Needy Husband, your words are technically true, and practically without any utility. Its almost like while not hiding our light under a bushel, we need to hide the advice about hiding the light under a bushel, under a bushel, because of how it affects women. What Im saying is, whisper that to men in your circle, teach it behind closed doors, but saying it out is not bold, its not edgy, and it is counter productive.
What here is NOT being head high?
The stuff is so out of balance that there is no way that any corrective pressure on men that is done openly can remotely help, even if its correct. No one here that is a Christian suggests we we do NOT “operate on a higher level”…..unless I’m missing it, can you share it with us if they are not? So, to tell men who have no outward evidence of not operating at higher lever, that they need to operate on a higher level, is nothing but the fathers day sermon we will all hear a few weeks……yawn, sorry
“slwerner says:
May 4, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Sort of on the topic of being the kind of fathers that children need, I though I’d throw out some raw meat to rile things up a bit:
”Though we often idealize and elevate the role of dad in a boy’s life, we don’t admit that actual fathers can be destructive. And, in fact, in my observations, the sons of mother-only families often had less to “prove,” because they weren’t faced every day with an idealized masculine model.”
&
“Make it clear to your son that he can choose qualities to emulate from both men and women. The boys I observed did not grow up in male-dominated homes where competition and control can be mainstays. Instead, they developed what are thought of as more “womanly” traits, such as self-expression, the ability to compromise, and a stronger attachment to the people, pets, and places in their lives. “”
We hear plenty about how destructive a bad father can be. However we hear nothing at all about how destructive a bad mother can be. In fact, the very notion that’s it’s possible to be a bad mother is a foreign concept in today’s world.
And I don’t know who it is that’s making these observations, I didn’t and won’t click on the link because i can tell just from what’s here that it’s garbage, but their observations are in direct contradiction to the statistics and studies that clearly show a much higher incidence of all manner of problems in kids raised without a father. It’s so stark that in all but the worst cases of “bad father”, a bad father is probably better(less bad) that no father.
After a little more digging on the origins of PK I’m starting to see that perhaps it was problematic from the begining just that it was subtle enough to fool guys in higher numbers early on. The definitely did get more overt with the “guys are broken and need fixing” message later on though.
slwerner,
Funny how similar that Huffpo article is to the advice from Glenn Stanton. Heroic single mother? Good for you! Just find a man to man up, or watch TV and tell your son to be like the men you like.
Chaz345 – “sAnd I don’t know who it is that’s making these observations, I didn’t and won’t click on the link because i can tell just from what’s here that it’s garbage, but their observations are in direct contradiction to the statistics and studies that clearly show a much higher incidence of all manner of problems in kids raised without a father. It’s so stark that in all but the worst cases of “bad father”, a bad father is probably better(less bad) that no father.”
Sorry, I should’ve just warned you that this was a next or from a recent blog posting by one Peggy Drexler, the author of a festering t*rd of a book entitled:
“Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men”
Dalrock is quite correct, Glen Stanton should be proud of the work that Peggy is doing, helping those poor but heroic single and lesbian mothers raise their sons in the face of an army of men unwilling to ‘man up’. Who needs a real father when you can just find some guy to dump your kid off on and have him help raise and instruct your son? And, if you can’t find some chump, then the TV will help you provide a good male role model.
Jacquie,
Just don’t dwell on your anger to the point of bitterness. You’re light years ahead of most women. The only reason I was never a domineering shrew, was that I simply didn’t have it in me. I felt like a failure because I couldn’t (and didn’t particularly want to) thoroughly “manage” my husband. I felt like a total loser when my sister once told me I let my husband “control” me. For many years whatever I did right, was either by accident or laziness. But I was fairly content, so I didn’t rock the boat. Now I’m happy with the results. Ironically, but not surprisingly, she is now divorced from a cheating drunk, whom she started “controlling” when she went off the pill – because HE needed to take responsibility for birth control.
We have all been sold a bill of goods. Tell everyone you know, “The emperor has no clothes!”
@ Suz
Thank you. I believe I’m letting the anger go, and I would like to use my life experience to pass on what I have learned. I’m keeping my own blog trying to articulate what life was like before, what life is like now and the journey that my husband and I share in rebuilding what we could have lost.
I think it’s great that you don’t have the same things to look back on that I do. It may be by accident or laziness, as you say, but either way I wish I’d had it. I am ashamed when I think about how I could have destroyed my marriage, my life and my husband’s life. I’m sorry your sister made you feel like a loser for your ‘lack of controlling’ your husband. I deal with that to a degree now. There are other women I meet who don’t understand me at all and try to make me feel the same way.
My hope is that by sharing my feelings, observations and experiences that I might help someone else avoid the unhappiness we lived. I’m trying to tell as many people as will listen.
Jacquie
I see from your blog that your husband sometimes spanks you. I have spanked my wife occasionally over the years, starting from when we were first going out. She likes it a lot, and I have come to appreciate the benefits.
A little wifely discipline is another unspoken truth about what may be missing from many modern marriages.
David,
Yes, as long as it’s not the only “discipline.” If she likes it too much, it can become an incentive to misbehave. And of course it requires permission, which diminishes the authority somewhat. But occasionally, and perhaps unpredictably, I think it has merit.
Yes, Suz, it is problematic. And it does seem like classic topping from the bottom. It was very much my wife’s idea, and it seems to be something she likes sometimes. We have some very traditional practices, but not really a D/s relationship, or whatever it is called.
Also, I have noticed that the more dominant I am in real life, the less she seems to want spanking.
I think its chief merit is in reinforcing hierarchy, not creating it.
I saw my father swat my mother on the bottom once or twice. It was just done in passing and largely in fun. He wasn’t a violent man. I think he did it just to express exasperation.
Needyhusband — ok well i’m obviously missing something here
i cant disagree w any of yr statements — sure, as guys we’ve all got plenty of room to improve, etc
and yet — you support the film while saying men should “hold their heads high” — but the post illustrated conclusively how anti-father and anti-male the two films are, and how subtly coercive and shaming the Resolution is (even conceptually)
neither God nor the bible directs you to take vows concerning your faith … much less before strangers on the internet :O)
do you know something the bible doesnt Needyhusband? is the Resolution Group more advanced?
biblically theres no provision for vows in context of familial responsibility, nor in any other context for that matter — in fact, the bible specifically directs folks NOT to take oaths (and you prove God’s wisdom in making such an injunction)
“Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men”
must have taken a whole Convention of demons to engineer that title!
v impressive
Maverick Moms eh? Brilliant, guess they don’t need men to ‘man up’ after all. Can they please stop asking us to then? Hey, ladies, that means, no more welfare, no more child support, no more alimony, no more government subsidies of any sort. You have the children, you support them.
Oh, right, not so ‘maverick’ anymore now… are we?
Just how on earth do they propose to raise these men in an environment that destroys men from day one, discriminates against them at all levels of education, in the work environment and in family life. To literally deprive a boy of his father, you are abusing him. These are abusive mothers, they are cruel, callous, lousy, sinful and full of shit.
@ David Collard
Yes, it is one resource that has worked well for us.
It has helped me over quite a few emotional bumps. It’s therapeutic for me in keeping balanced and even tempered, cathartic you might say.
“Also, I have noticed that the more dominant I am in real life, the less she seems to want spanking.
I think its chief merit is in reinforcing hierarchy, not creating it.”
Exactly, after more than twenty-five years of living according to one set of parameters one could easily fall back into the former. Making such radical changes in the structure of our marriage there’s sometimes a need for a reminder of the defined roles. This helps with the equilibrium of the relationship, although what probably fits best is that it’s less of a need for it than a want.
I wouldn’t offhandedly suggest this for anyone as it takes a tremendous amount of trust from both parties.
Jacquie, it is pretty safe inside a marriage. We have done it about 100 times. I suspect she likes it when she is ovulating and desiring dominance.
We have been married 26 years. We have tended to follow traditional roles all along.
ray
and yet — you support the film while saying men should “hold their heads high” — but the post illustrated conclusively how anti-father and anti-male the two films are, and how subtly coercive and shaming the Resolution is (even conceptually)
neither God nor the bible directs you to take vows concerning your faith … much less before strangers on the internet :O)
do you know something the bible doesnt Needyhusband? is the Resolution Group more advanced?
—————————————————————————
Needy husband is at the stage where he can read what is written here and not get bent out of shape defensively, but feels the need to always stay on message with the male accountability stuff. This means he is moving along the spectrum, blue to red pill, no longer a fully knighted white knight, not a cloaked Neo battling for reality to be laid bare either. Some men dwell in that zone for a short time, some forever, and some move right through. Regardless, the responses you have given, i have given, and anyone else MAY give, directly to his thoughts, are likely not what will nudge him along. It will take either close proximity to a marital claymore, his or a friends, or just ongoing reading here and on other sites and experience vicariously thru local anecdote. Meanwhile its hard to argue with statements that are indeed technically correct. You , in fact , cannot argue with them, and be credible. Its not the statements, its the urge to make them from where the blinders come
On the movie, does anyone know if they have a new one in the pipe? Id be shocked if not. Also, how about that Utopia Movie, anyone see that or read that book, the golfing one that Duvall is in and claims a Christian message? My fried drove out to Utopia TX and looked around, and he loaned me the book which Ive not read. Since the main character is male, and is being mentored by a grisly old farmer about how to be a good men, Im going to go on a limb and guess its more veiled man-up stuff.
I should read it this weekend and write my own post, but curious if anyone already has that one pegged
PK made me queasy from the start, I’m not much of a “joiner” but it had the look of humanism to me. Not just man fixing himself, but man (not God) fixing men….
Perhaps it looked like men fixing men because it was aiming for an iron sharpens iron sort f thing. For all it’s flaws in how it framed the issues in terms of men needing fixing, PK definitely did not try to remove God from the equation in any way. Unfortunately in going the same route the church has in terms of “man bad/woman good” they did end up removing a lot of men from the equation.
Maverick moms eh. It’s funny how history keeps repeating itself.
In the 70s women divorced in droves – in the 80s they complained that men weren’t manly and were afraid to commit
In the 90s women defended single parenthood and spouted the “a child is happy if the mom is happy” nonsense – now they complain that men aren’t manly, don’t know how to lead, etc
Now we have maverick moms. Guess what the female meme of the decade will be in 2020, the same as the 80s and now.
It’s kind of like Groundhog Day except that women can’t see the repetitiveness of this insanity.
Hi Dalrock,
sorry to post this in the comments but I cannot find a contact email anywhere.
Would you be interested in coming on y podcast Christian Meets World to talk about what is wrong with Fireproof and Courageous? I used the nrase divorce porn to describe fireproof when instead link to this on Facebook and it raised a bunch of questions. I would love to do a phone interview if you were interested. It would probably take about an hour (?) on the phone and you can have final approval over he interview before it goes out if you want. Could you contact me christianmeetsworld@gmail.com if you are interested/willing or point me in the direction of someone who would be,interested in talking about it?
I would be happy to meet whatever conditions you have for the,interview.
Sorry to try to make contact this way but I couldn’t find anything else. I understand why you would not want to hand out contact details.
If anybody else reading this might be interested in chatting on th ehsow about something manosphere related (or if you would also dalrock) feel free to email me.
Jason
this might sound offensive to some people here but I really have no faith in Christianity anymore. the behavior of the followers is repugnant and yet totally justified by their religion. the church is afraid to judge women for their actions but they love to pile scorn on men. then they tell me I’m a stupid faithless cretin because I think evolution is real and that the earth revolves around the sun, I wasn’t a guy who considered science and religion to be mutually exclusive facets of my life, until the faithful drove me away. and now the church is practically promoting frivolous divorces, so their claim to superior morals has vanished, they are completely worthless to me.
The 90s statement was indeed PC nonsense, but unfortunately, the current description IS true.
SC –
False pride makes it much more difficult to see patterns and pitfalls, especially ones stretched out over a decade or more. Feminism is nothing if not infused with copious amounts of false pride, and those who have it usually receive the “big fall” they have earned.
After reading the movie review and the insightful replies. Christ warned about deception and the love of the majority gone cold – churches are embracing and promoting deceptive and destructive lies and the hence the consequences.
It is interesting that the Jews didn’t recognize their Messiah ( few did).
Is our generation handling “the Truth” any better despite numerous ministry with no real witness (hypocrisy and luke warm) and 2000 years of history to draw from ?
Getting cues from the secular media instead of the Living word ?
These are very interesting times we live in.
Thanks for the excellent review and insightful comments that support consequences and truth !!
@Firepower
I agree that it is true. My point is that when women removed men from the family, they created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of blaming the cause of the problem, they simply criticize the problem.
HisOj
The stuff you point out is correct. But you’d have found some other reason to ditch the church anyway. You both see some clear points and miss the point, at the same time.
There will always be problems with the church friend. ALWAYS. Has not a wit to do with whether we Christians are right or wrong, idiots, hellions, or heaven bound
slwerner:
As one that had to grow up without a father due to a young death, let me just say that writer is an idiot and actively dangerous. Unless there is abuse or abandonment, boys & girls need their fathers. It’s just as simple as that.
hisoj — this might sound offensive to some people here but I really have no faith in Christianity anymore.
faith is ONLY for our Father (as manifest Sonly) and NEVER for worldly institutions — whether or not they claim the spiritual authority of the Father or Christ
Jesus said he’d build his church thru the apostles and saints — that means selected PEOPLE, almost always INDIVIDUALS, as with the OT prophets . . . not edifices or denominational dogmas or career churchmen or businesses disguised as houses of worship
nothing was EVER said about Christ indwelling cathedrals or buildings or Bible Institutes or Christian Colleges or any other work of hands — in fact, we’re told explicitly that the “temple” that the Father and Son want us to build is NOT made by hands, but is contructed via our contrite hearts, humbled spirits, broken bodies, and plain old hard work
it is an elite and minority work, a fringe and remnant work . . . which the large, comfortable, co-opted religious structures of the world consistently mock, resist, ignore, and hate
sometimes a shoot, an actual budding church — like Chapel Dalrock — pushes thru the Concrete Denial and helps us learn a bit about biblical truths from one another, which we can then contrast with our culture for our individual and collective benefit
but save ALL yr faith for the Lord — only he deserves it, and only he preserves it
Ray,
Not only do I agree with you wholeheartedly, but that was beautifully said. (Don’t faint.)
i swayed a little tho suz :O) like a tired old tree in a gale
the feminist State and feminized churches had closed off resistance to western matriarchal cultures until the internet
suddenly the dove descends and the mouths of some (real) Christians open
the American woman is at the forefront of the west’s rebellion (tho she’s not behind it)
before certain sites hit the net, there was nobody to challenge feminism, and the wisdom of unlimited empowerment of the u.s./western female — media, govt, education, law, the christian and jewish churches/temples — all dominated by feminism or females collectively
virtually nobody was talking about our Christian duty to resist secular and ecclesiastic attacks on God, fatherhood, and masculinity
tho betrayed by arrogant women and weak men, God in his holiness is preparing the planet for the Eternal Kingdom, for Christ’s reign — that’s what we’re doing too of course, it’s not the most important thing to do, it’s the only thing
so in the unlikeliest and humblest of ways — via certain modest internet transoms — American/western women are offered forgiveness and mercy even amidst their pride, and the most virulent rebellion against God of all time
that’s how much our sorry pathetic asses are loved by a God we dont deserve
as Dalrock pointed out recently, the issue now is not one of information lack, nor of ignorance, but of OBEDIENCE (willful submission vs willful rebellion)
a last chance is offered by the loving Father we so casually reject, and by his kindhearted Son, hated and slaughtered . . . but still thirsting to pardon and welcome, even at this late hour
God is using Dalrock and others to offer women a chance to turn from selfishness and rebellion … to reject the false pastors who tell them what they want to hear, and instead obey men authentically about their Father’s business
the christymisty woman was a good example of female obedience, of how women should encourage other women in helpship to biblical men
no matter the sexual history of the female, Christ is making it clear that as part of his Inaugural Jubilee, he will forgive both feminist rebellion and sexual promiscuity IF the female rejects and disclaims feminism and anti-maleness, refuses sex outside marriage, and exhibits obedience to men — as signets of repentance before God
the spiritual virginity of truly repentant females will be restored, Christ will accept them into his kingdom, they will be paired (if not already so) and their physical virginity will be restored as part of their translated bodies — as extant signs of faith healed and sealed
apologies, i used yr brief reply as a launching pad! had been looking for an excuse to talk about this issue — this comment wasnt meant as personal criticism, rather the opposite
@Jacquie, David Collard
The discussion was going so well.
Clearly there is something wrong with the way our society rewards women’s wrongdoing, while stigmatizing equal or lesser transgressions by men. It is a pity that this thinking has permeated Protestant churches, and we need to resist and reverse that tendency using a truer understanding of Christianity.
But spanking?
How can I explain it. If your wife does not want you to spank her, then you are committing a crime against the secular law, and quite possibly also a crime against God. If your wife does want you to spank her, then you are not practising discipline in the true sense of the word, only in the BDSM sense.
I suppose another possibility is that your wife does not want you to spank her, but tolerates being spanked through a willingness to submit to your will. That seems to fit most closely with the rest of this discussion. However, it is uncomfortably close to BDSM, and also to the advice seriously given on some “game” blogs such as Heartiste, that a wife should submit to her husband urinating and defecating on her.
Whatever gets you through the night, honey. But it ain’t for me.
Ray,
While I don’t necessarily believe in all the same specifics as you, I think we’re pretty much on the same page.
Speaking of specifics though, “… OBEDIENCE (willful submission vs willful rebellion)” Great point! We no longer see submission as willful. We see it as a lack of will, but it’s not. NOT AT ALL. That needs to be on a billboard.
@ James K:
Spanking in moderation isn’t all that “out there.” It can range from borderline fetish to full blown fetish. Yes, it’s an indulgence in that it’s an arbitrarily assigned punishment, as opposed to a logical consequence. While arbitrary punishments are appropriate primarily in adult/child relationships, the adult/child dynamic is usually a tiny part of a dominant/submissive marital relationship as well – there are undeniable parallels. My husband doesn’t spank me beyond the occasional affectionate swat, but I think it requires a great deal of trust and intimacy to openly acknowledge the adult/child (dependence) aspect of a marriage, without diminishing the wife’s value. The only problem with it is the potential for spanking to replace real female accountability.
Suz —
modern females want to show me how smart and advanced they are, how equal to me — fully capable of forming thier own opinions about all matters, and of making strong, independent decisions about the nature of the world, of their societies, and of God
. . . able to pick and choose for herself from the vast smorgasboard of ideas and beliefs . . . an endless string of Independent Operators
anything and everything except obedience
Great couple of posts, Ray, describing the difference between Christianity and Churchianity! A perfect definition of how I use the term “Churchianity” is indeed this. It’s putting trust and faith in pastors, buildings, and organizations created by human hands instead of putting trust and faith in Christ alone like Christianity is supposed to be.
Ray wrote:
This said, hisoj, this was probably the biggest obstacle to acceptance of Christ and becoming a disciple of his is this: The people that speak Jesus’ name (all of them) are NOT a reflection of who He is. Romans 3:5-8 comes to mind. Each and every one is responsible for how willing they are to be made into Christ’s image. Some are better than others, but all fall short. The “followers” who are following their “church” made by their own hands will find their just end at the hand of an angry God if they don’t repent and look to Christ instead of trying to achieve their salvation through human effort.
The fact is, the religion as dictated in the Bible doesn’t justify it. Look to the sin of Jeroboam that was carried throughout Israel to its destruction as a parallel. In essence, Jeroboam created a substitute temple, and led people to recognize that false temple instead of the true one in Jerusalem. Looking to today, we have men that do not acknowledge the true temple God left on earth today, which is His people assembled into His church and is the presence of His body on earth today and His witness. Instead they build their own temples, and organizations and bow down and worship those and acknowledge those, even though they say the name of Jesus. They have been called to repentance many times and in many ways, and if they do not comply, they will find the same fate.
There is a big bible study behind all those words, but this says it as simple as any. Churchianity brings these verses up (16:13-20), but as men are they blow over something very important:
No one constructs any churches approved by Jesus and Jesus hasn’t given what He has made to anyone else. Look to Jesus and not to what men have made.
James K, Jacquie will have to speak for herself. Read her blog. I think she accepts being spanked as a way of underlining the new dynamic in her relationship. In my case, my wife likes it as foreplay. It is very common in marriages. I recall a Slate or Salon article which gave figures of about 25 per cent of marriages. You can be sure that feminists want to keep this quiet.
Oooofff, my church in Ft. Lauderdale is having a “very special” movie night this Friday to show Courageous in preparation for the forthcoming months-long mens bible study based on said movie.
ballista — No one constructs any churches approved by Jesus and Jesus hasn’t given what He has made to anyone else. Look to Jesus and not to what men have made.
he’s in you or he ain’t, that is the church and there is no other
soon his face will be before the world, and those that loved him without sight are gonna be in Fat City Foreverville
hell is being shaken (and stirred!) one post at a time, to the delight of our King — thx for your reply, and to PD for the site
These pseudo-Christian leaders/movie makers are evil men: they are wolves among the sheep; they know the truth yet oppress it and the sheep. They have no excuse.
Pingback: Godly unashamed unwed mothers. | Dalrock
Pingback: War is Peace, Good is Evil | Christian Men's Defense Network
Wife: Can I suggest that you spend a little more time with him?
Adam: Victoria all he wants to do is play video games and go run five miles.
Wife: (look of exasperation) Well then go run with him.
Adam: I’m 40 years old. There’s gotta be a better way to spend time with him than torturing myself.
Wife: Well you have got to do something.
Adam: He can help me build the shed in the backyard.
Wife: Yeah he’s gonna see that as your project. besides, he’s at school most of the time anyway.
WHEN I was a teenage boy, my father often “volunteered” me to help him do projects. During the projects he was intent on completing his goal, and if I didn’t step fast enough, I was angrily rebuked, which is the sort of impatient personality the Adam protrays. You are right that there is nothing wrong with the father getting his son to help him build the shed.
But the WISDOM of this scene is that if the father has the humility to reach out to his son and come off his fatherly high horse and get down in the dirt, to become a servant to his son, not only a Master, the son will give his heart to his father. There are those who lack confidance in their authority, and neglecting love, tromp around like a proud cock demanding respect. They may get respect but they will never possess the heart of their child. The father who acts as God did, laying aside his scepter of power to become our servant, is the one who can win his child’s heart.
By choosing to serve his son by jogging with him, Adam won his son’s heart and gained much greater authority than he ever had before. He possesses his son’s heart in a way a hard-assed Tutonic patriarch could only wish for.
@rememberingchina. What part of the Bible is it that Jesus served in such a way as the scene depicts. He called us to do the work of the father. He stooped to the level of a mere servant for his followers when he washed their feet. He did not join them in their work, but did the work they were unwilling to do for others. I sure that most fathers spend time cleaning up after their children and fixing things they broke, and any number of other things that is more representative of serving the child. Running the race with his son may have built up the relationship in ways, but not as you or the movie suggests. It would not give him authority in his son’s life. “Getting Dirty” for his son would do that. Asking his son to join him in his work would do that. I love to play with my kids at what they love to do, but that is not something that has to do with my authority over them.
My Dad has never been the handyman type. He worked in finance (semi-retired now) and made a good living and provided very well for my mom and us. He often joked, “If I had to make a living with my hands, we would all starve.”
But my maternal grandfather, he could fix anything and everything, from fixing smoothing a bent fender to overhauling an engine. One summer he even built us a tree house on stilts, from scratch. He also literally built the house my mom grew up in, himself. To this day, perhaps my fondest memories of childhood are “helping” him while he fixed and built stuff. So the idea that the boy wouldn’t enjoy helping build a shed… I find it ridiculous.
The premise that the movie bases that scene on is a simple cop out. Authority of a father comes from bonding with your children through love, discipline and sharing with them your knowledge of this world. That very often comes with sharing your passions, building things together, going on trips, teaching sports and many other activities. Even sharing the ability one might have in the higher faculties of knowledge, such as economics, computers or engineering. Yes, your son or even daughter might have very different passions to you, that still doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t spend time with them doing things they might not like. It could very well end in them actually finding something they do enjoy that they would never have thought of before.
I still find nothing wrong with him going on a run with his son. What I have a big issue with is the idea that, because he would have rather spent time with his son building a shed instead of a 5 mile run, he’s a bad father. Pure cop out!
@Feminist_Hater
Yessssssss!!!
I learned things helping my father with projects around the house, and it has helped me as an adult. Actually, I’m probably much better at it now than he ever was, but I wouldn’t have ever dabbled in such things if he hadn’t at least nudged me a little to help him. By contrast, my older brother would never get involved in those things with him, and he is completely incapable of anything like that now. Some of that is just our respective natural tendencies, but I think he would have been much better off if he had been expected to do more of that.
I think the movie really misrepresented the boy and the mentioned situation in a “Christian home”: What was presented was the furthest thing from reality:
– All the son want to do is go play video games (time consuming ADDICTION)
– Then go run five miles (got to be in decent shape to run 5 mikes)
I dont know see many in shape kids who have enough time to go running / train and then spend countless hours playing video games.
There is a major obesity problem due the inactivity of kids playing video games and lack of exercise.
How can anyone spend hours playing in a “mind numbing and engrossing ” state of video games then go running ?
Btw, good parents dont allow video games or put a time limit on them ( Chinese children as well as other cultures outside the USA raise smarter and well disciplined children ( ie arts, music, sports, education). Jewish and Mormon families do a great job with overall.
What was presented was inaccurate and “Crossless Christianity”
@Michael
As a video gamer myself, I actually bristle at this suggestion that there is something horrible about boys enjoying video games. Admittedly, the boy ought to have other interests as well. Most dad’s today grew up gaming themselves, and playing video games with your son is increasingly common rather than the exception, regardless of how Courageous tried to spin that.
The fact is, the video game industry is one of the last hold-outs of masculinity. In video games, boys are still allowed to play out their natural basic desire to be protectors and providers, to be selfless masculine heroes. These video games often have very drawn out and detailed plots, plots that are much longer and more complex than your average movie. These plots allow men an outlet for their masculine desire to be heroic and strong, something feminism has denied them in the wider culture.
Boys’ love of video games is derived from the fact that, everywhere else they turn, they are told they are wrong for wanting to be real men. Truly the video game industry is brilliant in realizing this gaping hole in our culture. But when boys disengage from the emasculation of the surrounding culture, they get blamed for “addiction.”
Non-sequitir. The video games have nothing to do with it. Chinese and other countries’ educational systems are less focused on self-esteem building, and more focused on instilling actual skills and knowledge. US K-12 education is primarily about 1) instilling “self-esteem,” 2) giving women (teachers) high-paying jobs while not holding them accountable for any actual measurable production or goal attainment.
Just as not always doing exactly what your children enjoy doing doesn’t make you a bad parent. Never doing what they do enjoy, or never trying new things with them or never listening to what they say or feel can, unfortunately, make you a bad parent, or at least a neglectful parent. From a Christian perspective I believe God knows we make mistakes, don’t always listen to his teaches or each other, do things our own way. He understands this dilemma rather acutely, since he made us, the nature each parent faces with raising their children. So… in the same way that each parent has to teach their children tasks their children don’t enjoy, or force their children to take a musical instrument or do their mathematics home work, God also wants parents to get dirty, with respect to raising their children, and that often means spending time doing what children like to do. Yes, I know, the horrors!
It’s all about balance.
In regards to vido games, please note the following:
– It is quite obvious the disconnection between the father & son occurred long before the movie suggested ( there is NO relationship – this is the thrust of the problem – when did it occur ?)
– by not allowing them gaming or “putting a time limit” is for the father to be involved with the son throughout his early years and they do things together ( and as a family). Instead of playing video games – how about something else with the kids ( how about surfing, snowboarding, mountain biking, skiing, wakeboarding, fishing ie time together sooner rather than later) ? Exercise, discipline, and a healthy lifestyle go a long way – the majority of Americans ( ALL AGES) are overweight(clinically obese) dont exercise let alone run 5 miles. Not to sound arrogant or brag – ( 8% body fat, 30″ waist, and squat 500+ lbs and can still do wakeboard, surf, snowboard – the same shape at 45 as I was at 20). Self “discipline” is all encompassing that consist of a healthy lifestyle that is spiritually, emotionally, mentally, physically disciplined. One can stay in excellent shape it if they “chose” to ( ie Jack LaLane). Its all about choice.
Where is the individual, family prayer & bible reading time ?
Lol !!!
Allow me to suggest “obvious” if a person ( young / old adult ) has enough time in the day to play video games after spending at least 45 minutes in prayer and another 45 minutes in the written word and then doing what is needed then go for the video games.
A couple of considerations:
– How time are much time is one spending with Jesus and His Word vs. gaming ?
– What games are really worth while ?
– Is there a correlation between teen violence and violent video games?
It called “opportunity cost”.
Jesus did NOTHING on His own. Nothing – only what He saw the Father do.
The best thing a father can give to his son is Jesus and this is “SEEN” in self discipline, and a good example so the son wants to be like his father. If the Father is “sold out 100%” for Jesus it will be seen in his life, his actions, his family, and his children – EVERYONE WINS !!
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Shalom,
Mike
What is really happening is that the modern American church is embarrassed by its high divorce rate. Instead of dealing with the real issues, it is trying to enable women in the hope that they stop divorcing their husbands. So… their solution is for the men to completely give in to their wives in all things. For real men, the church is calling them to perform one last action as a leader and that is to step down and give that position to their wives.
Even the interaction with children is unbiblical. The children are to follow the parents especially the father. Just as we look up to and learn from our heavenly Father, children must do like-wise with their earthly fathers. This is how they mature and grow as people. Instead it has been twisted and parents, especially fathers, are now required to acquiesce to their children’s bratty whims.
When it is all said and done, we will see that this approach (which is exactly the opposite of what is right) will accentuate the divorce rate even more. At some point, perhaps 10 years down the road, people will be disilluisoned with the churches and leave. Yet a remnant will remain that will go back to real Biblical teachings and will no longer care what the world thinks of them.
Gee, Michael, I kinda feel for the guy in Courageous when he’s unhappy about running 5 miles. I’m not a genetic lottery winner like you – even at twenty and in excellent shape, I had trouble running more than 4 miles. I had plenty of wind left, but my knees couldn’t take it. I ran a 10k once, and my knees were so swollen I couldn’t put my pants on the next day. My joints have continued to deteriorate, to the point of the doc telling me at age 40 to walk or bicycle (and take it easy on those) or I’d have to have knee and hip replacements. Dad got his joints replaced and still was in a wheelchair for the last 20 years of his life, I’d rather not do that.
Us regular folks with joints that creak make sheds in the back yard instead. I did, and my son and I had a good time doing it. He learned a lot more than he would have if I had run with him.
Given the availability of entertainement in the USA. To suggest that a American male teenager is only interested in video games and a occassional 5 mile run is LUDICROUS. Teenagers are a little more complex and more interest and not enough time. To suggests that a young adult has ONLY 2 interests is shallow and typical Hollyweird character casting. Its NOT a realistic portrayl.
Nice adhomieum !!!
Btw, Here is a little about discipline in regards to a healthy lifestyle. There was a point in my life I was 270lbs and 42″ waist. Diet and exercise (90% diet) have kept it off for 20 years +.
Good genes ? Nope – Average 5’11” at 170lbs. Its called “consequences” or simply a “athlete clean diet” . Guess what I found out ? if I eat like a athelete, sleep, and exercise 1 hour a day – I’ll perform like one, perform like one, look like one and can keep in shape even though I am older ( ie 6 pack) . Simply amazing !!!!! Dara Torres (extreme ) to Jack LaLane ( attainable) are great example of doing this.
Its called doing the best with what one has or “being perfect’ as I see in the scriptures.
I don’t reccomend running as it is hard on the joints. I eat like a athelete ( no alchohol) spin and lift weights which allows me to still do ANYTHING I want ( heck I blew out my ACL, MCL, PCL on a wakeskate at 42 and recovered just fine).
A person can sit there with a beer in hand , eat junk food, and watch a movie (make excuses ) or engage in a lifestyle of approariate exercise/activity, and diet. The qestion is what can one do with what they have.
The “discipline” principle also applies to mental, emotional, and spiritual.
I had an idea for a movie. A bunch of stuff happens and these women realize they are lousy wives. They get together and decide to form a “Christian wives who put out” club. They decide to stop making their husbands sleep on the couch when they have a fight and instead teach each other the power of make-up sex. They encourage each other to give unconditional respect to their husbands. They guys in the movie try to figure out what’s going on as it slowly dawns on them that they can pretty much get sex from their wives whenever they want. Instead of arguing about every little household issue, they are dumbfounded as their wives start anticipating their desires and helping their visions become a reality without complaining….
The guys are all flabbergasted and aren’t real sure how to handle all of this– it’s just crazy to them. But then… they realize that these wives are all holding each other accountable behind the scenes. Immediately the husbands have this face-palm moment. And one of them says… you know… this isn’t good enough. No… the women have to make a list of all this stuff and make a pledge to uphold it in front of the entire church…!
That’s the ticket!
…
[Okay… I just don’t see what women get out of publicly humiliating their husbands. It would never work the other way– what exactly would the guy get out of it in the above scenario…? I guess… back here in the real world… women get off on keeping their husbands in a state of perpetual marital purgatory…. It’s just sick….]
@someguy
Have you read Gemma’s history, here in the green panel on the right.
http://passionwithinmarriage.blogspot.co.uk/
i believe she is writing an autobiography to try to warn other wives away from her early ways.
Someguy
That would be Promise Keepers for the ladies….yea, they even have tee shirts with the list on it
Someguy, I hate going to movies but I would pay ten bucks and sit in a dirty noisy theater to see that one. I’d even buy overpriced popcorn!
Pingback: God Is Dead | Jonathan Frost
@Michael Singer
I don’t see it as obvious at all. The only thing that is obvious is the wife is interfering with the father son relationship. The boy is a teenager, an age of rebellion against fathers. However, he appears to be overall a good kid. The only information we have is the father wants the son to do a very appropriate father/son project with him, and the wife beats the idea down because it would be the father leading, not the son. This is classic Kendrick, where the actual issue is just murky enough to encourage all fathers to see themselves as failures, along with their children and their wives. What teenage son filled with anti father angst didn’t see the message that his own father needs to stop trying to lead and do what the son wants him to do? This is very much like everyone knowing that the husband in Fireproof is addicted to porn and is refusing to meet the legitimate needs of his incapacitated mother in law. When you examine the evidence presented in the movie it turns out to be deliberately weak. There is no evidence that the father doesn’t care deeply about his kids. Even the mild nature of the son’s rebellion seems to point to a boy who had a good father involved in his life.
Pingback: Reframing Christian marriage part 4: judging the performance. | Dalrock
Dalrock – you are correct. I presented a incorrect conclusion based on a incorrect premise. Thanks for pointing that out. After thinking about this – here is a “reframe”.
What was presented in the movie is a grossly delusional situation – as you observed “he appears to be overall a good kid”.
“Good overall kids” that plays video games and exercises by taking a ocasional 5 mile run is quite intentional and not random in a morally corrupt backslidden society such as America where porn, drugs, and sex, and drinking is available and the norm despite a parents best efforts. To depict “Good overall kids” and ” overworked but not really present father ” situation is a insult to any USA parents intelligence whether secular or Christian.
“Good overall kids” requires “Good overall parents”.
Good overall kids requires swimming against the flood of peer pressure.
Good overall parents are quite involved in providing a Godly home and are very aware of cause / effect ( ie consequences).
Your thoughts ?
Pingback: Linkage | Dalrock
Pingback: Marriage and the EAP: Content in No Circumstances | Christian Men's Defense Network
Pingback: Why Feminists Are Ugly
Pingback: Random Boundlessness | The Society of Phineas
@bskillet81
Sorry for the delay in reply, I lost this post and just re-found it to reply to the chain of conversation.
I just read Dalrok’s review of Courageous, and I see and agree with some of the points he made. I intend to make the majority of my reply to that review on his blog, but one point I have to make concerns both Courageous and Fireproof.
Over-all, I think that a lot of these movies are left open, and vague enough for people to insert their own opinions into. It makes them more watchable. If a man watches one of these movies, he’s likely to insert some of his own frame of reference into it.
For example, when I heard about the negative effects of children growing up without fathers, I nodded, and agreed. And then I noted to myself that this is, in many cases, caused by
—–
—–
I just read your review of Courageous, and I see and agree with some of the points you made made.
Over-all, I think that a lot of these movies are left open, and vague enough for people to insert their own opinions into. It makes them more watchable. If a man watches one of these movies, he’s likely to insert some of his own frame of reference into it.
For example, when I heard about the negative effects of children growing up without fathers, I nodded, and agreed. And then I noted to myself that this is, in many cases, caused by divorce.
That was never mentioned. In Fireproof, many people watching presumed that the wife coming into the fire station was repentant, and wanted to be reformed, and wanted to be shown how.
There is a tendency for people to see some of their own perspective, and project it onto the screen. Those who go into a movie intending to review it critically are far more likely to see it’s flaws, rather than it’s good points, and also note the fact that certain events are notably absent, the same kind of event that people watching the movie with an eye to enjoy it are likely to see.
My experience watching “Avatar” for the first time are diametrically opposed to that of my family. They watched it for the spectical, and the familiar plot line. I saw unsupported bashing of western ways of life, and a “hero” who instead became enamored with a woman of the tribe he was staying in. I saw him abandoned his responsibility toward seeking a peaceful solution to instead attack his own people, causing a war that could otherwise have been avoided.
The Sherwood film movies seem to fall into this category. I, personally, watched all of the movies in this serries. I was glad to finally see some films that acknowledged God, and acknowledged the importance of male roles in SOME way. As a result, I went in expecting to enjoy the movies, and glossed over a lot of their negative points, while focusing on the more positive ones.
For example, the action scene in which the black cop saved his daughter’s life.
Another example is the fact that Adam and his son bonded over an activity where they helped each-other to become physically fit. Further, how this new fitness lead to Adam being able to better do his job. I really do think that movies encouraging men to better their fitness in a way unrelated to beign eye-candy for women is a good thing.
I admire the hispanic father for working hard to make sure that the needs of his family are met, and for standing up in an honest and courageous manner to his employer. However, I was disappointed that he didn’t use the resources he needed to make sure his efforts were as successful as possible. Yes, if his wife can carry the groceries (possibly with the help of his kids) while he go looks for cash to PAY for the groceries, then yes, that should happen.
That said, there were a fair number of negative themes in the movie. I found the continual pokes in the eyes of fathers to be jarring and discouraging. In a movie that is supposed to build up responsible fatherhood, it is disheartening to see that many knocks against fatherhood, in various forms.
A few of the moments I found most jarring include the following.
“Where have all the good fathers gone?” This sounds remarkibly like the feminist complaint “Where have all the good men gone?” This is especially jarring when there are two good fathers sitting at that table.
“I know how young men think. They want to win your heart, but they don’t know how to treasure it.” … ahuh. No talk of consequences, no talk of how to best secure her future… just vilification of men. At least he says young men want to win her heart, rather than just trying to get at her vanjina… though I’m fairly sure there are some players like that.
I also found the knocking of other fathers in the midst of the inspiring speech to be jarring as well.
I also agree that the sassy black wife insisting that the men “do this right” was odd and jarring to me. The pledge or affirmation is the important part, not some wierd cerimony, or fancy duds. Especially not if it puts off making the pledge in the first place. It felt awkward and artificial. I think that it would have fit a lot better had they just decided to make the pledge, or not, then done it.
Now, to address some of your specific points.
If the father had agreed to be at his daughter’s recitle, and forgot about it, that is a negative, and it’s reasonable for him to regret it. That said, the wife’s instant attack on his entry was a negative message to send.
I think the idea of the father running with his son is a good one, and I actually liked that thread of the movie. I simply dislike how it is introduced. It shouldn’t have been as an either-or proposition to working together on the shed, rather than an and proposition. Had they worked on the shed together and gone running, I think that would have been a better message.
I agree that the father should lead his son, and that having the son help his father with building the shed would be a good bonding exercise that would teach his son valuable life skills. This is doubly so if, for the period of the project, they define the space as a male one. Oh, sure, the wife can come out to see how they’re coming. She can bring them drinks. But it should be a space for the Father and his son.
However, this touches on one of the areas I think that “Facing the Giants” could have done better on. It is assumed that even a teenager who would be considered a man in biblical times must have his relationship with his father entirely on his father’s terms.
We have an artificially prolonged adolescence in this country, and one of the complaints I hear out of the MRM is that it is getting longer. The age of rebellion that most people think of as still a part of childhood (the teen years) is when men typically used to become their own men, to find their own way. It is a natural step in the journy into adulthood. It should be channeled, not beaten down.
It is my personal opinion that as a son reaches this stage, a Father should encourage his son to become independent, and have his own interests. I think that the father should encourage the healthy interests, and possibly validate them by showing interest in his son’s activities, or participating in them.
The father of the rebellious son in Facing the Giants did in fact watch from the bleechers even durring practice, later on. Unfortunately, that message is never as overt as telling 17 and 18 year olds to unquestioningly obey their father in all things.
All in all, I think that these messages regarding the relationship between a father and his teenaged son could be improved upon. Still, I think that the messages in that reguard were in acceptable ranges. I think this is true both in Facing the Giants, and in Corageous.
I still think that Courageous and Facing the Giants are worth keeping in my collection. This is especially so compared to a lot of other movies that I’ve bought, and not returned. They contain enough positive messages, and enough of a positive view on masculinity and fatherhood that they are better than the vast majority of entertainment I could buy today. I think that compared to a lot of other stuff in our culture, it’s a step in the right direction. That said, it’s far from perfect.
As for Fireproof, I have already arranged to return it, and will be printing the labels to return the movie this week.
Ug. I was editing that post in another window to prevent loss through browser error. As a result, some cruft at the top got copied over when I went to make my post. Everything above the separator shouldn’t have been posted. You have my apologies.
Pingback: Why Christians need game. | Dalrock
Pingback: Guest Post: A Voice In The Desert: What Christian Men Need Isn’t Game | The Left Half
Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock
Pingback: Connecting the pathological fear of husbands having power with the peter pan manboy syndrome. | Dalrock
Pingback: The watchmaker is dead « Jim’s Blog
Pingback: Commentary on Christians on Marriage « Thinking 8
Pingback: Single mothers and the failure of Christain men; it is time to Man Up! | Dalrock
Pingback: A Fathers Day call to repentance. | Dalrock
Pingback: Gentle and Quiet Femininity On Display | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Brilliant advertising. | Dalrock
Pingback: Fragging Christian Headship | Dalrock
This is shockingly unoriginal. Blame the scarlet women for leading the innocent men astray with their feminine wiles. Wow. Flashback to Gen 3. Women often sleep with men because they are desperate for love… love they never got from a dad. They raise their kids alone because dad goes to jail. Next guy comes along, and surprise surprise, he expects sex and definitely is NOT thinking marriage. Sure, she *should* keep her legs closed and aim higher, but the sad truth is that they truly don’t know any guys who do want marriage, and they’v never actually experienced real love. I have worked a lot with the population mentioned here- gang bangers & unwed moms, and it is a deep cultural phenomenon that I think dates far further back from than the sexual revolution (and free love wasn’t itself solely a woman’s dream– lots of guys in feminism too!); back to slave culture where white men had the final say on black women’s sexual activities, from marriage to their own pleasure, and black men were not allowed to take responsibilty for their families (at least in slaveholding cultures). Matriarchs were all that kept families together. Drugs & gang & prisons have done nothing to foster healthy families.
“Wife: You missed Emily’s piano recital.
Adam: (exhales ashamedly) Totally forgot about that.”
Not the overplayed bad-parents-miss-piano-recitals-school-plays-and-baseball-games meme…wasn’t this horse beaten to death, whipped after that, and then beaten again just for good measure all throughout the movies & TV of the 80’s and 90’s?
Good parents treat their kids as human beings rather than pets, it’s really as simple as that. Quantity of time is irrelevant, it is quality that matters. The irony of these superficial “displays of superior parenthood(TM)” such as attending children’s public activities is that while there is a cultural myth that “good parents” attend these things they are actually wasted parenting time because no connection is made during this time (i.e. key “connecting” activities such as: demonstrating/expressing values by showing yourself to be an authority towards them/within the family unit/within the world at large, expanding their wisdom and abilities and strengthening your own by mentoring and sharing/vetting knowledge, building their resilience & confidence by accepting mistakes as learning opportunities & providing encouragement, setting boundaries & enforcing/permitting exposure to consequences, and most importantly giving them a sense of self-worth by showing UNCONDITIONAL LOVE and INSTILLING AN UNSHAKEABLE SENSE OF SECURITY).
I’ve decided to throw in my 2 cents with a critique of this “pledge”…this “resolution”…not just from a biblical perspective, but rather a masculinity and survival-of-civilization standpoint:
I do solemnly resolve before God to take full responsibility for myself, my wife, and my children. I WILL love them, protect them, serve them, and teach them the Word of God as the spiritual leader of my home.
[Dohn: In this day and age of confusion regarding the biblical definition of “serve” in this context it would have been prudent to word it as “server their best interests” as opposed to “serve them”, unless we’re talking about washing of feet here.]
I WILL be faithful to my wife, to love and honor her, and be willing to lay down my life for her as Jesus Christ did for me.
[Dohn: Already covered with “protect” above which, if done dilligently with a man’s full intellect and resources, does so without the need for unnecessary martyrdom. A line expanding on the broader meaning of what it is to protect your family would have made for better use than redundancy.]
I WILL bless my children and teach them to love God with all of their hearts, all of their minds, and all of their strength.
[Dohn: This line is great. You wouldn’t be a spiritual leader of the home if you didn’t.]
I WILL train them to honor authority and live responsibly.
[Dohn: This is problematic from a masculinity/civilization standpoint. Authority can (and always does, eventually) become corrupt. Personal integrity must always be above “Honoring Authority”, enabling a truth-to-power mindset. In fact it is masculine to BECOME authoritative with your integrity and values. The bane of our civilization is the lack of holding those in authority accountable to the integrity and leadership they must exhibit in order to be followed and honored as leaders with authority at all.]
I WILL confront evil, pursue justice, and love mercy.
[Dohn: On God’s terms, not just the potentially twisted words of someone in a suit or frock.]
I WILL pray for others and treat them with kindness, respect, and compassion.
[Dohn: Sold Christian attitudes. Great line.]
I WILL work diligently to provide for the needs of my family.
[Dohn: The second pinnacle of Masculinity, why it is so far down this list I do not know.]
I WILL forgive those who have wronged me and reconcile with those I have wronged.
[Dohn: Turning the other cheek is important but this needs to be balanced because it is also important not to toss our pearls before swine.]
I WILL learn from my mistakes, repent of my sins, and walk with integrity as a man answerable to God.
[Dohn: The third pinnacle of Masculinity: confidence. Also wondering why it’s so far down below.]
I WILL seek to honor God, be faithful to His church, obey His Word, and do His will.
I WILL courageously work with the strength God provides to fulfill this resolution for the rest of my life and for His glory.
[Dohn: Translation – go read the Good Book for the rest, our pretty little certificate frame is only eight-and-a-half-by-eleven, dontchaknow 😛 ]
it’s fascinating listening to the whining of men in this thread making broad statements about how men have their children ‘ripped away’ from them by harridan wives, and how of course they could’ve been better fathers if their evil feminist wives hadn’t divorced them. if you bothered to look at actual scientific studies on the topic, when men pursue custody of their kids, they actually win MORE times than the women. the simple fact is that most men don’t even BOTHER to pursue custody because kids would cramp their style. in essence, when you look at the actual numbers, if more men pursued custody of their kids, they’d have them. the truth is that they don’t want them, because 99% they are the absent father figures that barely know their own kids or how to care for them.
[D: I’d love to have the names of and links to the studies you claim to be referencing.]
Notice how the women don’t have to do anything. The more men do for women the less they respect you. Every man needs to just go MGTOW.
Pingback: The Christian alternative to 50 Shades Of Grey. | Dalrock
Pingback: This means war. | Dalrock
Pingback: Only if he finds a better woman than his mother and grandmother | Dalrock
Pingback: Modern Christian culture’s deep antipathy for fathers. | Dalrock
Pingback: Firebombed STRAIGHT TO HELL! | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Don’t fear marriage and fatherhood, but beware those who are working to destroy your family. | Dalrock
Pingback: Honor Dads
So, I take it that the Kendrick Brothers’ idea of a failing father is a guy who is getting shot at by criminals all day who gets nagged by his wife for missing his daughters piano recital?
This says more about the ungrateful and hateful culture of the authors than it ever says about fathers.
Seriously? Is this the best that Christian movie makers can come up with? Tyat being so, we may as well indulge Hellywood.
Pingback: The roots of modern Christian wife worship. | Dalrock
The ironic thing is, the fathers of these men are likely Baby Boomers or older, and those generations were stronger on fatherhood than the present generations.
Pingback: Headship tomorrow and headship yesterday, but never headship today. | Dalrock