The contrast between how modern Christians treat good faithful fathers and unrepentant unwed mothers is truly astounding. For the latest installment of this, I offer you the CBN.com (Christian Broadcasting Network, 700 Club) article Janine Turner: Single Mothers Can Change History.
The article is an unabashed plug of Turner’s book Holding Her Head High: 12 Single Mothers Who Championed Their Children and Changed History. According to the article, the book tells us inspirational tales of abandoned mothers and widows. But while the story is about women who had no choice in becoming single mothers, the target audience is clearly today’s mass of baby mamas. There is therefore of course the standard sleight of hand regarding Janine’s own story:
“I was not a single mother by choice,” she says. “I think circumstances happen to people that are sometimes beyond their control in the relationships they’re in. I also learned that the definition of single mother is very broad; it means, widowed, divorced and abandoned.
The murky language of circumstances in relationships could of course indicate that Janine is a rare exception to excuse #6, or it could mean that she simply got knocked up out of wedlock by a man not interested in fatherhood or marriage. No doubt Focus On The Family’s Glenn Stanton would consider her a hero either way, but to some of us this still matters. According the stats on Famous Hookups.com her history of serial monogamy includes three “celebrity relationships” which averaged roughly 9.8 years each, and she has never married. I can’t confirm the information from the gossip site, but I can find no reference of her ever marrying in my own web search. By my calculation based on Wikipedia’s stated 1962 birthdate for her she was approximately 35 when she gave birth in 1997.
But Janine isn’t just your garden variety baby mama. She is a Christian baby mama. The article stresses that this book urging baby mamas to hold their heads high is entirely wholesome and Christian:
One of the prerequisites Janine pushed for was that the women she researched and included in her book had to be women of faith.
“There are a lot of women out there who did great things in their life, but they didn’t have faith, and to me, that’s pivotal,” she says. “I really believe children need a foundation of faith, morals, and guidance.”
We learn that her act of sexual immorality and profound disobedience has strengthened her walk with God:
“One of the things God would always say to me is, ‘I’ve given you a flame inside and don’t let anybody put that out. Not circumstances and not people.’ ” When Juliette was born in 1997, Janine’s walk with God deepened. “My faith immediately deepened to another level with God,” she says. “I’ve taken my daughter to church every Sunday since she was three months old.”
With her holy hamster commanding her to be true to herself, how could this not be the case?
I haven’t read her book, but I was curious about the Christian baby mama inspirationfest I was missing out on. I am only a married faithful father, so I can’t ever become one of Stanton’s heroes. However, perhaps I can bask in the glory of godly unwed mothers vicariously. Looking at the amazon.com preview page for her book I found the endorsements section. Pastor Gary Richmond loves this book because it dispels the myth that fathers are essential (emphasis mine):
I love this book because it dispels a horrible myth: As a single-parent mother, the best I have to hope for is survival for my mediocre emotionally damaged children. Janine’s excellent research proves what we now know to be true. Women who are willing to work hard and dare to dream can provide everything their children need not only to succeed, but to change their world for the better. She truly provides hope in hard times for the women who need it most.
Gary Richmond
Pastor to Single Parents, First Evangelical Free Church
Pastor Richmond has written his own book, Successful Single Parenting. I haven’t read Pastor Richmond’s book either, but I did skim through parts of it with Amazon.com’s preview. Lacking Pastor Richmond’s many years of in depth biblical study, I was unaware of the rich Christian tradition of unwed mothers. In chapter 3 he tells the story of the Bible’s first single mother, Hagar. He opens the chapter with:
How well do you know bible history? Can you name the first single mother?
As he is telling that story, he explains:
God has promised that He will be a Husband to the husbandless and a Father to the fatherless.
You can preview the chapter via google books here for the whole empowering story.
Janine Turner photo licensed as creative commons by Alan Light.
Can you imagine a Christian cad writing a book about how God told him not to let any woman tie him down in marriage, but instead to keep on fornicating with multiple women? Can you imagine Christian media and pastors writing glowing reviews of something so asinine?
Because, honestly, I can’t. It is amazing to me how far Churchianity is willing to go in order to protect women from true repentance.
At this point things are not going to change, there will always be women and men that do not want to live by Christian rules. If you want to be with a woman that you consider Godly then don’t get involved with women that you do not consider worthy of marrying you; find the ones that you believe have morals. You really are preaching to the choir on this blog, the people you would like to reach won’t read it and so nothing will change. All you are doing is fanning your anger when you rail about the reality of today’s world and the state it is in. Not all women in society today are sluts just as not all men are cads. Misogynists maybe…. Why not live your lives according to your own standards and don’t worry so much about what other people are doing, you can only be responsible for what you do. But then I guess everyone deserves a forum to voice their anger and opinions.
Women getting knocked up out of wedlock by choice is now considered Biblical to these wenches. Why do they even bother shaming men? They obviously have all they need to make a success of society. They have their personal God and Jesus. They can do everything a man can and do it better. They have no shame in being single moms, in fact it would seem by her account that it was God’s will for her to be a single mom, as he spoke to her directly.
If this is what real ‘Christian’ women are about, they can count me out. Seriously, time to leave these hags to Stanton and the like.
It would seem to me that these Churches and women and their pastors and priests, the Driscolls and the Stantons, believe that men are no longer required. Men are evil and worthless, that men cannot be good, moral actors that are needed to raise good, wholesome children. If I am to believe Ms Janine Turner the sex burner, God has decided himself that men are of no use.
If I was apart of these Churches, thank God I’m not, I would spend the time dissecting their worthless, toothless and gutless, politically correct, mambo jumbo and then print my dissections, place them all over the Church, in the pews, in the hymn books and Bibles, until the message sank in. Perhaps I should do that here, before we become like America.
Any women who thinks God has spoken to her directly and advised her that getting pregnant outside of marriage was the Godly thing to do and that she should be proud and hold her head high… is deluded or has been visited by a demon. This is twisted beyond all sanity.
“I was not a single mother by choice,” she says
Was she widowed? Was she raped? If not, then it’s a choice.
http://www.constitutingamerica.org/juliette/
Here, ask the little wenches daughter yourself.
No, I don’t want to pester the daughter. Her mom’s sin is not her fault.
In fact, that’s a pretty darned good website.
She’s got those “crazy eyes” in that photo, if I ever met her looking like that I’d be out the door as fast as I could!
When I was a regular at a church I’d run into these types all the time. They were incredibly proud of the fact that they were single mothers and I remember on one occasion this gal stood up and announced that her daughter was the most important thing in her life and that even if married her daughter would come first. She wasn’t too bad looking, if she lost about 40 pounds she would have been hot but I just remember thinking at the time, “ya good luck with that”. Well about a year later she’s married to some poor beta that must have been desperate for some nooky. I just couldn’t believe it but just goes to show that there are still plenty of church going beta suckers out there willing to “man up” for all those brave single mothers. By the way she was an unmarried mother that the church decided to show the “love of God” to by providing support (financial, emotional, etc) to as the bad boy father had taken off as soon as the kid was born.
I assume she simply means that the pregnancy was not planned, when she says it was not “by choice”.
The trouble is that this is now being baptized as normal. That’s one very big Armstrongian step towards being considered superior, but even if that step is never made, norming single motherhood for Christian women is basically the end of the game. The church ends there, to be honest.
We’re probably witnessing the end-phase of a process of apostasy that began quite some time ago, and which is resulting in a winnowing of the actual church to a very small body, much smaller than those who profess the faith to some degree. It makes perfect sense that Christian pastors would conclude that mothers can perform the work of mothers and fathers just fine, because the church itself has mostly decided that it doesn’t need men, per se, other than as figurehead pastors and foils to beat to whip up emotional support from their mostly female worshipper bases.
The ministry of the truth (the Gospel) has become the Ministry of Truth (1984).
My guess is she got baby rabies and found the most ‘suitable bachelor’ she could at the time, either got married then divorced, or got pregnant outside of marriage and nagged the man till he left.
God gives women ample time to find a good husband. That’s if they’re serious about it from the start. Not career orientated or interested in sexual hook ups. No one’s fault but her own on the account of her only having her child at 35. Seems she put off the wait far too long and then got burned by not choosing the right man. Oh well, she still gets to hold her head high and tell the rest of us about genuine Christianity. Wheee!
Over the centuries wasn’t it mostly women who filled the churches? I guess they were praying for all of the men that could not make the service…. Do you really believe that women want to raise children on their own? It can be done but then a man can raise a child on his own as well. Do you think that it is often a woman’s choice to have a child out of wedlock or are there sometimes extenuating circumstances; such as a man leaving the woman. Obviously, it is much better to have a mother and a father, who would not opt for that if she was married to a good, loving man.
This madness has to end.
It’s time for high concentrations of slut-shaming and the denying of marriage to these women.
The only thing they will ever recognize or submit to is merciless judgment of their actions until they knuckle under to reality.
Keep the heat on.
Willow, anytime a women has sex out of wedlock, minus rape, means she made a choice to have a child out of wedlock. Yeah. I know, expecting women to take control of their sexuality is problematic. That’s why sluts need to be shamed, single moms taunted – unless they were widowed;- and the Church needs to stop pretending that it’s something to be proud of. Otherwise men are going to look and see that they are nothing more than an accessory to the self-actualisation fantasy of a stupid, self obsessed doormat of a ‘Christian’ monogamous slut.
you really believe that women want to raise children on their own?
Manosphere Prime Directive: Don’t trust what women say, watch what they DO.
And what many, many of them do, is intentionally have kids out of wedlock. Many more divorce their husbands for no good reason, and take kids away from their fathers. So, yes, based on what they DO, we have to believe that many, many women want to raise children on their own.
Actually, no. Before about the 13th century, it appears the church was split evenly, 50-50, between men and women. In Eastern Orthodoxy and associated churches, there is still to this day a 50-50 split between men and women. Only in Western Christianity do we find the 2/3rds to 3/4ths female bias.
The reason for this is the rise of spiritual eroticism/bridal mysticism, and the associated confusion brought in by Aristotelian gender identity concepts. Western Christianity became about fulfilling emotional desires (eros), and the Western churches began to teach that men must become like women (emasculated) in order to be saved. This began with Bernard of Clairvaux, and with the exception of a few brief respites, has continuted unabetted.
Obviously, men dropped out of the western churches. Read Podles’s The Church Impotent, which is available free online in PDF.
Yes. Do you really believe they don’t? If they don’t, why is it that the number one determinant of who seeks divorce is who is likely to get control of the kids? If they don’t, why do they engage in serial monogamy?
One can either believe what women say, or what they do.
Ah, if they are fornicating and they have a kid, and she wasn’t raped, then, yeah, it’s her choice. That’s called choice and consequence.
I don’t understand why women lust after cads instead of dads, and then cry a river when the cads bolt. Seriously.
Witness several posts on Dalrock’s blog about woman who admit that their husbands were “a nice guy and a great father, but I was unhaaaaapy” and therefore frivolously divorced him. It is better for the child to have a mother and a father. But in purely selfish terms, it might be better for the mother to strike out on her own with the father’s credit card, but not his companionship. It’s the ultimate in cucholdery: She gets a beta to provide for her and her spawn (at the requirement of the state), while she gets hot alpha sex without consequences.
Correct. I find it hard to believe that large swaths of women forget about the possibility of pregnancy in the ‘heat of the moment’. 5%? Sure.
But not as many as get pregnant now.
I have an answer to all of this. Chauvenism.
Control language, said Orwell, and you control the people. The women Turner writes about are not “single mothers.”
A single mother is a women who has not married and bears a child. From the overview of Turner’s book, it seems she’s writing a lot about **widowed** mothers and I’d venture to say there’s probably some **divorced** mothers thrown in. There is a difference. But the media throws all these women under the umbrella of “single mother,” which is technically inaccurate. There is a political agenda here. But whatever the case, if you’re married w/kids one week, and divorced the next, you do not magically become a “single mother,” you become a divorced mother.
In Eastern Orthodoxy and associated churches, there is still to this day a 50-50 split between men and women. Only in Western Christianity do we find the 2/3rds to 3/4ths female bias.
I think Podles is generally right about what happened in the Western part of the Church to make it more female-oriented. A related development was the split between piety (which became fairly quickly rather feminized) and theology (which remained largely scholastic, and more male), something which didn’t really take place in the Eastern church either, due to different historical circumstances and different intellectual currents. I think Podles is very close to being right on target here in his analysis. The key, though, is that this already existing trend in the West has now metastasized really due to the emphasis of outright feminism, piggy-backing on the pre-existing feminization. The endgame there is: no men needed/wanted, and we’re close to that endgame.
Does this perhaps play to what I was describing on the previous thread as America’s Can-do attitude – where no impediment might not be triumphed over,”Give me your tired and huddled masses” (except that here – as it is aimed at feckless women – the impediment is one of lack of impulse control). Even the title of the book plays to the same attitude: not that the child is merely brought up successfully (which begs the question anyway) but that he or she goes on to change [surely she means create] history! By definition all but a handful will do that. This is lottery style advertising – it could be your child! – but as sure as eggs are eggs it won’t.
There is however, perhaps a danger of taking this too seriously. I worked out that about 300,000 people have seen Courageous. That equates to one tenth of one per cent of the American population or 0.01% Not exactly a tipping point. I assume much the same will apply to the book.
I never cease to be impressed by how the Bible can be used to justify absolutely anything or how, so often with women, their own personal relationship with God justifies their behaviour, and that they can do so without embarrassment or shame or any concern for less ego-centric or conventional interpretations. That cat-heding (4) ex of mine from NY with three ex husbands was no different, but I obviously lack Christian charity, for the idea that I was going to man-up to become no.4 was I am afraid something I would have preferred less than eating barbed wire – it is such a tough life for heroic single mums, who can’t (as was the case) even get their daughter up on time. May her daughter change the world (for the better) though of course the changes may be for the worse.
There is a political agenda here. But whatever the case, if you’re married w/kids one week, and divorced the next, you do not magically become a “single mother,” you become a divorced mother.
Right, although she herself has never been married (it says that several places on the internet, and given her book, if this were not true, it would be corrected or at least the corrections would be findable). So she was neither a widow nor a divorcee, but someone who got pregnant outside of wedlock, and then had other non-marital LTRs. How is this being praised by Christian organs like the Christian broadcasting network and published Christian pastors? It only makes sense in the context that the mainstream Church is equal to feminism now, full stop.
[D: Agreed. If she were going to correct the record her autobiographical page would seem like the logical place to do so. I see no reference of a husband, nor even the name of the child’s father.]
F Scott Devlin has argued that women really don’t want the inconvenience of a boring husband to service, and would mostly prefer “sexy time” with a stud and then cheques from the government.
Food for thought.
Maybe it is time to accept that women, unless controlled pretty tightly, are mostly not very moral by nature. You know, Sin of Eve.
There are two ways to make a husband attractive. Have him be genuinely powerful and exciting, or have him be the only means to a decent life. The latter option has largely gone.
The Church is streets behind on this issue, because it no longer believes that women have Original Sin. Meanwhile, millions of abortions later …
What BS…It is easy to be a single, unwed mother when your “baby daddy” and his father own the Dallas Cowboys and you and yoru kid make more in a month via support than the average american makes in 2+ years.
I’m not so sure it’s an endgame here. What the church is morphing into is a baby mama club, with non-Christian alpha cads knocking up church girls and then bolting. Or the women frivolously divorce their husbands. The church, along with the state, then steps in to act as father, and kids are being raised in the church by their single mothers. Half of these kids are boys and will likely end up leaving. The other half are girls and some might stay. How long can this go on is the question.
The answer to that question depends on how many of the daughters of unwed mothers remain in the church. 50%? 75%? Obviously it has to be less than 100%. And thus, eventually it will fall apart. But whether it is close to ending depends on the replacement rate.
Of course, the response from the church isn’t, “Oh no, what are we doing wrong that we’re alienating half the population?!” It’s, “Those evil nasty men! Why can’t they man up?!”
There are two ways to make a husband attractive. Have him be genuinely powerful and exciting, or have him be the only means to a decent life. The latter option has largely gone.
Again, back to Manosphere basics:
Have him be genuinely powerful and exciting = Alpha
have him be the only means to a decent life = Beta
The Church is streets behind on this issue, because it no longer believes that women have Original Sin. Meanwhile, millions of abortions later …
Remember, those abortions are the fault of men, not women. The man didn’t “man up” to fatherhood. Oh, she wanted to abort anyway? Well, in that case the man didn’t “man up” and avoid having sex with her, because if he were a real man he would have known she would be inclined to abort, so he’s primarily responsible in that case, too. That’s the logic: men are responsible when women do things that the church dislikes, so instead of critiquing women, you critique the men. This is easier for the church, both socially (in the society at large, where criticism of women is tantamount to misogyny without any analysis whatsoever) and inside the church itself (where it makes for bad PR with most of the church-goers, whereas the “it’s his fault” approach works great to keep ’em coming).
What the church is morphing into is a baby mama club, with non-Christian alpha cads knocking up church girls and then bolting. Or the women frivolously divorce their husbands. The church, along with the state, then steps in to act as father…
This experiment has already been tried. It’s called the black church. Large portions of it, anyway. It’s every bit as much a disaster as you’d expect, it has forfeited all witness and influence in its world,and it is completely incapable of civilizing men, with savagely predictable results. And now the same is happening in the white community… .
Of course, the response from the church isn’t, “Oh no, what are we doing wrong that we’re alienating half the population?!” It’s, “Those evil nasty men! Why can’t they man up?!”
I think there was one article a while ago (at Boundless maybe? Maybe somewhere like it, can’t remember) which said that the church has to specifically focus on retaining boys as they grow into men. Of course, the main “issue” it was trying to address was that the ratio of “good men” to women churches was negatively impacting women (“where are all the good men?!?!?!?!”) and the solution is to “create more good men to make the women happier” — while in the process the article outright stated that the author thinks that most men who *do* attend churches these days are fags and pansies. Great way to get men back in your church, buddy.
@Opus
The crucial point is that Christians are the sole force in the west even theoretically representing traditional sexual morality. What I’m showing are the opinion leaders for Christian thought. Where Courageous and Focus On The Family go, Christians in the nation (and the west) follow. Actually, generally speaking we are already there. The problem is the widespread denial. Nearly everyone has this fantasy view that Christians are proudly standing up for biblical sexual morality and the traditional family.
This is why, as the problems become more severe, the church becomes more and more vitriolic against the innocent beta men who are, in the end, victims of the sexual breakdown. It has nothing to do with the betas themselves. Rather, by castigating these betas for knocking up the women with whom they will never actually get a chance to sleep with, the church can create a paper trail that looks like standing up for sexual morality. In fact, the opposite is occuring. Betas get blamed. Women get affirmation. Alphas get the Sunday Morning Nightclub. Christian leaders get full offering plates and book royalties.
Everyone ends up happy but the poor beta schlubs who don’t realize what’s going on right in front of them.
And we’re back to the Mark Driscoll Fallacy: blaming the righteous, rejected betas for the sexual sins of the wicked alphas.
@Bskillet81
Don’t forget the kids victimized by all of this. Millions of new fatherless children every year, and the rate continues to increase. The ones the Kendrick brothers were so concerned for that they made the movie Courageous.
@Brendan
Something like 60-70% of Sunday school teachers are female. Perhaps if churches started obeying the Biblical injunctions against female teachers (1 Cor. 14:33, 34; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12), young boys growing up in Sunday school wouldn’t get the impression that church was just for girls. But, you know, that whole obedience thing is passe. It only applies to beta schlubs. No one else.
So… let me get this straight…
They’re “Christian”, but not “Christian” enough to keep strange cock from between their legs?
Got it.
Brendan is this the article you were thinking of?
Reminds me of the passage in romans 1:18-25:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is
plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
You can preview the chapter via google books here for the whole empowering story.
So… he tells the story of Abraham and Sarah and Hagar. And how God tells the abused, fleeing Hagar (preggo with Ishamel) to go back to Abraham’s ca,p. Because otherwise, according to the author, the kid would sure end up a slave (p. 44). And Ishamel’s character? He shall be a “wild donkey of a man, every man’s hand shall be against him, and his hand shall be against every man”, says the Lord. Oh, but the hope of the single mother, “maybe in the meantime, he’ll be a good little boy” (p. 46). All single parent kids will be damaged by their circumstances and will never completely heal. (p 48). Indeed, Ishmael he’ll be angry all his life (p. 49).
To recap:
Single motherhood puts your kid at risk of slavery
Even polygamy is a better environment for the kid, than single motherhood
The kid is going to be a violent combative rebel, even if you hope he’s a good little boy.
He’ll be damaged and will never heal.
He’ll be angry all his life. Oh, and 3000 years later… his descendants are still angry… and they are a CURSE ON THE EARTH!!!!!!! Besides controlling all the oil…
And this is supposed to be a book on “successful” single parenting?
With all this going on.. why doesn’t the church say: Willingly entering into single Motherhood is WICKED! It can cause damage that lasts for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. So…. Don’t get have sex/get pregnant out of wedlock, don’t marry an unbeliever, don’t divorce unless your physical safety is at stake. DON’T DO IT.
Brendan is this the article you were thinking of?
That’s the one.
go to page 50 and read the second paragraph… and vomit.
In Eastern Orthodoxy and associated churches, there is still to this day a 50-50 split between men and women.
This matches my experience in an EO parish. It is a masculine theology. At my children’s baptism, the priest recited, in part, “ever protect him (her) a warrior invincible against them who vainly raise up enmity against him (her).” I found that rather remarkable. The hymns sung at Pascha (Easter) recently are full of imagery of victorious battle – the trampling and scattering of enemies. Protestantism seems downright wimpy in comparison.
@van Rooinek
To quote it here:
Vomit indeed. Anyone else get the impression this guy might have tested that line on the women in his congregation on whom he has whelped bastard children?
“Listen, girl, you know I love you, but I have a ministry just like Abraham did. I really want to own up to our kid, but God won’t allow me too. But the kid is trading up to a better dad than I could ever be anyway. Just like Ishmael, he’s getting God as his dad. And you and God are going to raise him to be the father of many nations, just like Ishmael.”
This simultaneously absolves the cad of responsibility while satisfying the woman’s hypergamous desire to trade-up. It also feeds her holy hamster a great big juicy steak. Just looking at it from a game perspective, apart from the immorality of the message, this guy is an absolute ARTIST!
I think she is another supposed political conservative/Tea Partier/Constitutionalist.
@Dalrock
I see what you are getting at, yet surely there must be other voices – to begin with, I know you have a lot of Catholics, and Episcopleans, and I guess they would not take kindly to propping-up single motherhood?
I looked at the link you provided for Brendan: The first thing I noticed was: ‘The dating scene in the church’. It is so different over here, where the idea that Church is a place to pick up women would leave people open-mouthed.
I would put it this way (so you can see where I am coming from). In England, the church (CofE – but the same would I guess apply to the Baptists and Methodists – Methodists being Baptists who know how to read – apparently) is the middle classes at prayer – some of them. Teenagers are not usually to be seen in church – ever. People like Driscoll just do not exist and would be viewed with extreme suspicion by the religious as much as the non-religious. The odd pronouncement from the Archbishop of York or Canterbury is all you get – and the hot-button issues for them are appeasing Islam, Gay Bishops and Gay Marriage. There is even a view that increasingly Christians here are black: that is to say white people just do not attend church. I donate 20p to The Salvation Army most Friday nights – we all love them, in their uniforms.
American churches – it seems – merely reflect the prevailing cultural mores and pick and mix the Bible for that purpose. Pandering to women’s vanity (which is what it is) fills the aisles. Is it easier to get women into church?
I would have thought from the way Jesus treats Mary Magdeleine that the Christian position was clear enough – but obviously not. I don’t recall that Jesus’ Mum was a single mum, or can it be spun that Joseph was merely manning-up for someone else’s child? Were all those Apostles married and abandoning their wives to follow Jesus? I forget the finer details. I would have thought Paul was sound enough on Promicuity – all that burning in the flesh. Perhaps I need to attend Sunday School to bring myself up to speed and then report back. Perhaps if I were to study the Bible I could find a Rossyesque reading justifying PUAs.
I view this – at a distance – somewhat in disbelief. Where’s a Jesuit when you need one!
@Opus
I keep looking for those other voices. Due to the rules of logic I can’t prove they don’t exist, but no one so far has shown me where they are. If there is a strong movement fighting the trend I point out on a regular basis, they are incredibly shy about it. At some point I stop assuming that every example is an exception to a rule no one can find actual evidence of.
If you were to ask the average American, Christian or otherwise, what they knew about the group Focus On The Family they would tell you it was a hardline traditional family Christian group. It is the vanguard of pro family evangelicalism in the US, and famously conservative on the issue of the family, to the point of being seen by a large percent of the country as extreme. The average American would laugh in your face if you told them it was pro single mother or the least bit feminist. Yet as I’ve shown the nonsense spews forth from their Director Of Family Formation Studies. And it isn’t just in his radio interviews, but in his podcasts, his articles, and his books.
Moreover, if you were to ask the average European whether Americans were hardline on social issues like sexual morality and marriage they would no doubt tell you we were insanely so, especially those loony American Evangelicals. So where are these missing voices? America is the most strict of the strict in the west, lead by Focus On The Family, and exemplified by movies like Fireproof and Courageous.
Edit: Furthermore, if you ask where Americans are most ideological on the issue of conservative family values, they will tell you the bible belt. This is where I live. If it isn’t here, in the most conservative part of the most conservative nation in the west, where is it? Why can’t I find it?
@VR
I like the classic “man dumping aging wife for younger model” meme he uses in the breakup at the bottom of page 9, as if that’s the typical scenario.
The problem with these unashamed unwed mothers isn’t that they are unwed, but that they are unashamed.
No, really.
There are two main branches of philosophy and religion split on the point of whether people are innately good or bad.Christianity used to be firmly of the latter. Pop psycho-babble however asserts the former, as does atheism.
I know the great majority of Christian churches and not a few whole denominations have embraced the “I am good” idea in direct contradiction of the foundations of their faiths – and so Dalrock et alii obligingly calls them Christian, but I only sadly comply.
Catholicism is probably sympathetic to single mothers, but not encouraging. Americans seem to have a penchant for talking up whatever life situation they find themselves in, which might be a cultural factor in the American evangelical attitude. I write as an outsider, an Australian Catholic.
“You are a Single Mom (Wiccan/Lesbian/Missing a Leg/Blind)! Well, that’s just great!”
Conservative organisations tend, like most organisations, to drift to the Left over time. National Review is a convenient example. I saw this happen with Amnesty International. Maybe women and leftists simply have more time for activism. There have always been “church ladies”, but they seem to have become virulent.
I have a bit to do with Latin Mass Catholics, and their priests are good on “gender issues”. They will even preach on the specific weaknesses of women (disobedience, verbal porn).
My impression of the Catholic Church in general in Australia is that it is not too bad. Cardinal Pell is no liberal, and the intact family is still normative.
People dot com lists the father of Juliette Turner as a ‘long term relationship that didn’t work out.’
The honourable Ms Turner also says this: “I loved her father.”
Translation: i got bored with him. He was good enough to get knocked up by, but not to commit to. Wealthy women don’t need men, just a faux moral framework to give a semblance of normality, which the church happily provides. Neat move.
Honestly, were i still single, the farce of women’s continuing deconstruction of civilisation would make the forthcoming sexbots all the more appealing.
There are two main branches of philosophy and religion split on the point of whether people are innately good or bad.Christianity used to be firmly of the latter. Pop psycho-babble however asserts the former, as does atheism.
It’s true that the postmodern worldview generally embraces that kind of Rousseau approach (in very general terms) of the basically good humans entering into a social contract with each other, rather than the earlier Hobbesian view. Darwin threw a wrench into this, because evolution doesn’t really make the development of humanity look like the result of good-natured people entering into a social contract, but rather, at some deep level, the will of the stronger over the weaker, until cooperation became more adaptive. This has led more recent theorists, like Marc Hauser, to hypothesize that morality also evolved (again, trying to preserve to some degree the Rousseau view over and against the more Nietzsche type view that seems to accord more with evolution), but this has not been proven out very well, and he was also had up for falsifying his research not too long ago. Generally this school works like hell at this theory because it hates religion and wants to prove that religion is not needed for morality (despite evidence to the contrary, which they dismiss as being mostly concerning sex, which in their view is not about morality properly considered, but rather about control — the crux of the argument against religion as a moral force). Others like Robert Wright seem to understand the importance of religion to the mores of the “common people”, and seem to want to broker a “peace” between religion/metaphysics, on the one hand, and science/empiricism on the other, but almost entirely on the terms of the latter, with the former giving almost all of the accommodation.
The churches, for their part, have imbibed the ambient culture. So, the scientism-ists (not scientists, but people for whom scientific empiricism is a new religion) attack what religion used to be, not realizing that as a practical matter religion today has been thoroughly suffused with the values of the ambient culture in every way other than officially (and even officially in some churches). With the embracing of Rousseau’s idea, Christianity becomes moot, because salvation from Original Sin is no longer necessary — the idea that humanity suffers from Original Sin is rejected. Of course, this is in terms of the ambient culture — that is, lip service is given to Original Sin, but the actions speak louder than the words in many cases, and in fact the ambient culture’s marination in the values of Rousseau is the dominant theme in this area, as in “it’s only natural”.
David Collard said: “F Scott Devlin has argued that women really don’t want the inconvenience of a boring husband to service, and would mostly prefer “sexy time” with a stud and then cheques from the government.”
Slight correction there — his name is F. Roger Devlin. I’m glad you mentioned him, because is writings about hypergamy and how feminism altered relationships are proving more and more influential to forward-thinking bloggers. Here is a Web site that compiles the best of what he’s written, especially his “Home Economics” series. There’s a lot of stuff here, and some of it needs to be read a few times to be fully absorbed.
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/
I’ve never heard a bona fide atheist describe people as “innately good.”
As to Janine Turner, I poked around a little, it would appear the most likely scenario was that the father was married to someone else, and some claim it was an “open secret” in Dallas that the father was the married son of the Cowboys owner. Whether or not he’s the guy, if the father was already married, then to say she was “not a single mother by choice” is to absolve her of every choice she made up until the birth of her child. The hamster is strong with this one.
I keep saying this: there are no grounds for assuming that women are better than men morally, in the Christian system. Arguably, they are worse. If they were better, women would be charged with authority. And they are not.
Male Christian leaders who push women as moral arbiters are doubly wrong. They are looking for moral leadership in the wrong place and they are abandoning their own.
Brendan, I don’t think it is fair to damn the entire attempt to derive a Darwinian morality on the basis of Marc Hauser’s overreach. The concepts of kin selection and adaptive self-deception, to take just two, due to Hamilton and Trivers, are a good start in marrying evolution and morality (including the concept of Original Sin). There is a lot of productive work to be done on a reconciliation of Darwin and morality. Unfortunately most religious people and most evolutionary psychologists are simply not interested in a rapprochement.
Thanks, F Roger Devlin is no doubt the correct name. I think he, and Steve Moxon, and there are probably others, deserve credit as the seminal thinkers in this area. In fact, I think there has been a great deal of rediscovery and renaming of the basic concepts. Open to correction, but I think Devlin was probably the first.
If that girl at the top of this post is the woman in question, then she is probably such an outlier physically that normal rules do not apply to her. If a woman is “hot” enough, she can get away with just about anything.
Darwin’s work, saying nothing on or of religion and philosophy, was prostituted by those wishing to add a sexy scientific draw to their murky arguments. It’s unfair to indict Darwin’s research with those salacious acts performed under duress.
Now that fat earth mother whore, she was honest in her own way. She never needed these guys to pimp for her, although she didn’t mind them taking a cut as they made the procession orderly. One could say that she was treated badly, unceremoniously dumped for a fresh lean looker, Darwin’s naive and innocent assertion.
I’m enjoying this way too much.
“The hymns sung at Pascha (Easter) recently are full of imagery of victorious battle – the trampling and scattering of enemies. Protestantism seems downright wimpy in comparison.”
Protestants used to have hymns like that too, but the progressive leadership took them out of the hymnal or changed the words decades ago.
Brendan, I don’t think it is fair to damn the entire attempt to derive a Darwinian morality on the basis of Marc Hauser’s overreach. The concepts of kin selection and adaptive self-deception, to take just two, due to Hamilton and Trivers, are a good start in marrying evolution and morality (including the concept of Original Sin). There is a lot of productive work to be done on a reconciliation of Darwin and morality. Unfortunately most religious people and most evolutionary psychologists are simply not interested in a rapprochement.
I would not have a problem if the “morality is explained solely by evolution” branch were not primarily interested in obviating the social role of religion. I have no issues with evolution as science. I have issues when evolutionary scientists veer into metaphysics, or seek to obviate the need for metaphysics or religion, which they often do.
Yes, some evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists are annoying religion-bashers, like Dawkins to take the best-known example. But we do not have to accept their premises to use their data.
Rousseauism bites the dust thanks to Darwin. In many ways, Darwinian insights into human nature are more friendly to a Christian understanding than the blank state ideas we used to be stuck with.
Crank – ”…it would appear the most likely scenario was that the father was married to someone else, and some claim it was an “open secret” in Dallas that the father was the married son of the Cowboys owner.”
So, sounds like she pulled a ”Rielle Hunter” (and even beat Rielle Hunter by over a decade).
Actually, I’d bet that it’s a fairly common ploy to have a baby and get a lucrative retirement package as part of the deal. I’d doubt that John Edwards and Stephen(?) Jones are the only married rich guys who’ve paid off baby-mommas who targeted them for big pay-out pregnancies.
Good thing that her Personal Jesus understood the desires of her heart (a baby to love, and money to love even more [/snark]), and gladly absolve her of any sin in pursuing her dreams so that she could go on to brag of her exploits as a Godly Conservative woman and heroic single mother.
David —
I agree, but, again, the tendency to dictate terms in metaphysics (outside of their sphere) and obviate religion. As you know, I have no issue with the data and theories of evolution and evo-psych. It’s just when they step outside their brief, which they often do, that it raises concerns.
@werner
“I’d doubt that John Edwards and Stephen(?) Jones are the only married rich guys who’ve paid off baby-mommas who targeted them for big pay-out pregnancies.”
I doubt she “targeted” him in that sense. She was a reasonably successful actress who had made a fair amount of money, and could have made more in the future. I just think his status and power gave her the tingle and her hamster let her chock it all up to God’s plan. I’m sure the payments he makes helps that process.
By the way, that picture of Janine Turner should appear in a dictionary, to illustrate “simper”.
Crank – “I doubt she “targeted” him in that sense. She was a reasonably successful actress who had made a fair amount of money, and could have made more in the future.”
Perhaps she didn’t “target” him quite the same way in which Hunter targeted Edwards.
Still, I find it quite a stretch to try to believe that an intelligent successful women in her mid-30’s wouldn’t know how to not get pregnant if she didn’t want to have a baby.
She may not have been specifically looking for the big pay-off, but I’d still bet that she was looking to get pregnant (by the most alpha guy who’s sperm she could get – Human evo-psych, and all that), and do so before her fertility faded. Even before the science definitively demonstrated the precipitous fade of female fertility approaching 40, women intuitively felt the urge to get busy getting pregnant.
maybe it wasn’t all about the money, but I’d still have to believe that her “oops” pregnancy was just like so many others – and accident by careful and purposeful design.
“I think she is another supposed political conservative/Tea Partier/Constitutionalist.”
She is a regular guest at Bill O’Reilly’s Factor show every week.
P. S.: Dalrock, this article shoud interest you: Some Interesting Facts and Figures About Divorce.
If it is a given that women are incapable of not succuming to their inherent hyperagamy and alphas are free to follow their biological imperatives (though within their capacities to control such urges) then doesn’t it follow that alphas are the crux of the problem.
Isn’t PUA theory and its alpha adherents thoroughly endorsed by women but MGTOW and betas are villainized creeps? Where’s the MGTOW version of Tucker Max?
Was marriage 1.0 (with its inherent shaming) a mechanism to control women or was it an institution to control alphas and then women vicariously? If the 80/20 rule is correct then doesn’t it make sense to curb the 20 rather than the 80?
If someone steals milk from a cow do I blame the cow or the thief?
While I find the embracing of single motherhood by the church to be quite disturbing (though there is, of course, always room in the church for true penitents), Turner’s bio has a lot of prosperity gospel in it as well:
http://www.janineturner.com/journey.html
Last I checked the Bible, God never “had a plan” for someone that included becoming successful in Hollywood/making a lot of money taking off clothes in modeling sessions and mini-series. Seriously, that’s absurd. I run into it a lot, though – people who make horrible, irresponsible money decisions and then expect that it will all work out because they trust God and God has a plan. God doesn’t care if you have a 5-bedroom house in a gated community and a late model car. God doesn’t care about your Las Vegas vacations. God is fine with bankruptcy as a result of unfettered greed.
It sounds like Turner is a hard worker, but she’s reshaped scripture to fit her own life and avoid looking too hard in the mirror. Modeling is not an especially godly career, neither is acting in Hollywood TV series or shacking up with men or having babies out of wedlock and elevating that to Face in the Wind heroism.
Well, Grerp got me to do some searching on Ms. Turner by making a reference to “making a lot of money taking off clothes in modeling sessions and mini-series.”
Sure enough, the Mr. Skin Web site has a page dedicated to her semi-nude scenes. There’s only a few, but still: http://www.mrskin.com/janine-turner-nude-c949.html
I think people just do whatever they want, then twist the bible to justify it. That she got a book deal out of it is disturbing.
Oh, and as for her alleged “baby-mama payout” with a guy who was supposedly married: I wouldn’t say that just because she was a successful actress she knew how to save money. Practically every week a story emerged on a star who mishandled money and is either filing for bankruptcy or heading to jail on tax evasion charges. She had nowhere near the success of Wesley Snipes, for instance, and look what happened to him.
With so many Christian -intentionally -single- mothers around, who needs communists. It was one of the goals of communism to destroy the family. “Useful idiots” for the communist left. Joe
inspiring testimony, much overdue
the prior piece on the texas scumbag who thinks he’s hot shit … also v good
a lot of guys, few of whom comment, take solace from this blog — helps them see that the world’s far crazier than they are
water from da rock
Given a recent issue were somebody quoted the word of God to fit a “sluts are nice marriageable girls even if they sleep with married men, don’t judge them!” at another red pill site.
I’m convinced that all of you got it wrong. There is an edited version of the Bible in USA that only says the parts that people like and omits the other parts they don’t like, in their version after Jesus said: “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone” he never told the woman that repent or sin no more she just went back to banging men with Jesus smiling approvingly.
I’m sure that is the same one that this lady and all the people that defend single motherhood as the christian thing to do.
I’m going to call this book the Bible of Oz, because it presents itself in different form depending on the reader.
/End rant.
@werner
I have to agree with you on that one. It probably wasn’t about the money specifically, but she at some level wanted to get preggers and imagined him leaving his wife for her and the new kid. Didn’t happen. So, in that sense, she didn’t “choose” to be a single mother, because her first choice was to break up their marriage and have him as a husband.
Dalrock,
Have you and your readers read “The feminization of American culture” by Ann Douglas?
Her thesis is that there were three factors driving the feminization of the church (and then the culture) starting in the 19th century.
The first is the downfall of the austere Calvinism that was present in many Protestant denominations until the early 1800s. I don’t think I need to argue that this theological strain is more congenial to men than women. Churches became less Calvinist as the state churches were disestablished — i.e., no longer supported by tax money. That left them dependent on congregational giving, and pastors began catering to the majority of the congregation: women.
Why were women the majority of the congregation? Herein comes the second factor. As industrialization began in America, men began working outside the home and middle class women no longer needed to be economically on the farm or in the family shop. They could have a life of leisure, and with their free time, they began driving the literary and church culture of America.
The third factor is the onset of the mass consumption culture. Women with free time and money (from their working husbands) became a big market for buying all sorts of items that were now produced in factories. This is also the beginning of advertisting. Women were flattered to make sales.
All these factors are still operating today. Few churches are genuinely Calvinistic or confessionally Protestant, and women still spend the most money and engage in the most consumption. And it’s hard to make a sale by telling someone that they — not their husband, boyfriend, father, or men in general — are a sinner who needs to repent.
The modern evangelical church loves men and hates women. They warn men of their sin and call them to faith and repentance. For women, they make a broad path to hell.
@Tanizaki
May 8, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Can you give us the name of the songs with those types of imagery?
@ Purple Tortoise:
“The modern evangelical church loves men and hates women. They warn men of their sin and call them to faith and repentance. For women, they make a broad path to hell.”
No, because they redefine sin for men, to mean whatever the women don’t like. If they genuinely loved men, they wouldn’t burden them with extra guilt, and excoriate them for women’s moral failures, in the typical modern-day blame-shifting game they engage in.
So, they hate men, and, inadvertently, by not calling women to repentence and holy living, they hate women, too; the latter appears superficially as anything but, but ultimately, that’s what it is – like a parents who spoils their child, doesn’t love them the way one who disciplines them does.
“The first is the downfall of the austere Calvinism that was present in many Protestant denominations until the early 1800s. I don’t think I need to argue that this theological strain is more congenial to men than women. Churches became less Calvinist as the state churches were disestablished — i.e., no longer supported by tax money. That left them dependent on congregational giving, and pastors began catering to the majority of the congregation: women.”
The downfall of Calvinism is certainly important, but as to how that happened, the churches began to be influenced both by theological liberalism on the one hand, and an anti-creed, anti-confessional, evangelicalism / pietism, on the other. Gary North’s excellent book “Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church” details precisely how this happened in the Presbyterian Church in America; well worth reading; it can be ordered from Amazon, or a free pdf download is available, at:
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/243a_47e.htm
“So, they hate men, and, inadvertently, by not calling women to repentence and holy living, they hate women, too; the latter appears superficially as anything but, but ultimately, that’s what it is – like a parents who spoils their child, doesn’t love them the way one who disciplines them does.”
It’s like the old joke that liberals are worse than Klansmen, because Klansmen only hate some people, whereas liberals hate all people.
“That’s the logic: men are responsible when women do things that the church dislikes, so instead of critiquing women, you critique the men.”
It would be legitimate to hold men responsible for for women’s behavior if the women were acting under the man’s authority. Since women have, by and large, removed themselves from their husband’s, and therefore God’s authority, the men have no responsibility for the women’s actions.
Nothing but Baby Rabies. Front to back.
@Willow,
“Over the centuries wasn’t it mostly women who filled the churches? I guess they were praying for all of the men that could not make the service…. Do you really believe that women want to raise children on their own? ”
While women have at times exceeded men in attendance that isn’t a universal norm. Traditionally it was men who were required to attend and women who were optional attenders since the man is the priest of the family. Review the Law, men have duties for religious festivities, women (other than certain rituals) don’t.
I believe some women don’t care and are evil or otherwise corrupted. So yes, it is possible that some are willing to have children and damn the consequences.
I am not aware that Catholic women have ever been exempted from attending Mass, although, a minor point, if their domestic duties require it (cooking for guests) that is apparently a legitimate excuse for not attending. But in general all Catholics are required to attend Mass on Sunday.
The husband as the priest of the family has validity as a concept though.
In Latin countries, I am told, women often attend Mass, while the men don’t, or only linger around outside. In the Australian church, women may somewhat outnumber men, except in the Traditional Latin Mass community, which men tend to favour.
@Dalrock
Let me see if I can come at it from another angle.
You mention that you are in the Bible Belt, and the Belt does indeed have exactly the reputation you describe, indeed Professor Richard Dawkins (or it may have been Bertrand Russell) described the inhabitants of the belt as Pious Peasants – and that was not meant as a compliment. It is the land of the Protestantism. By contrast the CofE is not really a Protestant Church. It differs from Catholicism merely as to who is head of the Church, one or two doctrinal matters (Transubstantiation, The Trinty) allows married Priests (although many now seem to be – unlike the Catholics – Homosexuals) and does not have the sacrement of Confession. There are doubtless other differences, but what they are I do not know. One thing however that the CofE and the Catholics have in common, is that they each have their special book; for the Catholics their Missal (and Rosary) and for the Anglicans, The Book of Common Prayer. In other words they need not go near the Bible. Catholics and Anglicans are large top-down organisations where there is little room or opportunity for break-away charismatic leaders. Even when they approach the Bible it is largely the New Testament. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas continue to hold great influence. They do not tend to dredge the more obscure and less familiar passages in the Old for passages to fit their desires. Orthodoxy comes from above.
The Bible Belt is different. Armed with a Doctorate in Divinity, a Charismatic personality and Media connections one can (without any top-down organisation) gain like Stanton, or Driscoll, or before them Graham – and indeed many others now long forgotten – national or at least local attention, but these people come and go. It is (in theological terms) going from a log-cabin to the White House. It seems to be inherently American and what greater fun is there than watching some of them being hoisted by their own petard as they fall prey to sex or montary scandals (like Haggard).
By contrast however there is really and frequently little difference between our secular and spirtiual authorities, indeed our laws are made ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, Spiritual [CofE Bishops] and Temporal’. Take Dawkins for instance, who you might at first blush regard as about as opposed to religion as one could get, but I think not. He appears to me to be essentially a traditional Christian and if one did not know that he knows a lot of Biology could easily be mistaken (if appropraitely dressed) and from his vocal delivery as an Anglican Bishop or other senior cleric. Like the Bishops he enjoys to bait he has merely ditched the Old Testament but he is (I won’t site the references) a believer in Jesus and is clearly desparate to find some common ground with the Anglicans (who he accuses of not believing what they say they believe i.e. the Old Testament) and whom he enjoys hanging out with – but I digress.
I have no idea what the solution to your problems can be – other than to continue to call them out. How one can promote Single Motherhood via the Bible, continues to defeat me. Christians are famous for charity but there comes a point where one goes beyond charity to ‘supping with the devil’. Might I recommend ridicule?
Opus, very interesting and largely agree. A few quibbles.
While Dawkins does resemble an Anglican bishop, with his rather fruity good looks, I think he is indeed a militant atheist.
I understood that Anglicans do have Confession. I rely on AN Wilson for this, in his biog. of CS Lewis. Are Anglicans Protestants or Catholics? It seems to depend. The chap who writes the blog Midwest Conservative Journal is a disaffected Episcopalian who admires Calvin (he is a nice guy though and friendly to Catholics.) On the other hand, I had to do a bit of research to determine that the Midnight Mass depicted in the movie Metropolitan, set in Manhattan, was Episcopalian not Catholic. Low Church to High Church covers a very wide range.
Where I share your puzzlement, Opus, is in understanding the free market in American Protestantism. The Catholic brand is tightly policed. Personalities who get too big tend to get cut off and wither. Google Fr Corapi for a recent sad case. To a Catholic these guys like Driscoll and, a fortiori, women for God’s sake, seem to be rogues. No Catholic would listen to a jumped-up Catholic laywoman. A good nun, like Mother Angelica, might get some real respect though.
Another minor point. Catholics hear readings from the NT and OT every Sunday in the Epistle at Mass.
I want to make clear that I would and do listen to advice and read material by Catholic laywomen. It is only when they purport to have a public teaching ministry that I object.
@David Collard
Thanks.
I’d like to think that you coming from Australia and myself from England, our respective (left field as the Americans might say) view might provide a useful and different way for D (and any other American) to gain a different perspective.
I realise that my view of Dawkins is bound to raise eyebrows, but he accepts Jesus existed (and as all we know of JC comes from the NT what else can one conclude other than that Dawkins broadly accepts the stated facts minus the miracles, except that way makes little sense), waxes lyrical about Evensong, and more importantly he wrote an article entitled Atheists for Jesus. What else can I say!
He is a Christian in the same way (and more so) than all the NewYork Jews are Christian – they all believe in Jesus, so I am told.
Completely agree about ridicule, and I think the English and Australians can help here. I struggle constantly not to descend into ribaldry. I mean, look at that bit of fluff at the top of this article. Who cares what – or indeed if – she thinks?
I am not aware of any Catholic vs Anglican differences on the Trinity.
A number of unrelated points on re-reading the entire thread:
1. Strikes me that Driscoll and his ilk are simply Pimping for Jesus with his ready band of Hoes. Let’s call them out on this.
2. Surely a good catholic would would tell Turner that it is not God talking to her but Satan. A materialist like myself would of course say it is merely wishful thinking with nothing involved outside her own brain.
3. Devlin and Moxon are required reading, (thoroughly recommended) – as is Hobbes (Leviathan).
4. On the question of church history I understand that part of the attraction of the church in the early centuries was that women were accepted, unlike with Mithraism (popular with Legionaires) which was male only – and fell by the wayside because of it – a Christian is of course unlikely to accept that as the reason for the decline of Mithraism.
Can you give us the name of the songs with those types of imagery?
Sure. A lot of them are called “Psalms”. They are in the Bible. Orthodox think they are for praying and singing. I don’t know what other Christians think they are for. One of the psalms sung for Pascha is Psalm 67 (Psalm 68 for most other Christians), “Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him. As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.”
Most of them do not have names as Protestants might think. There is no “Please turn to page 143 of the hymnal to ‘How Great Thou Art’.” Rather, there are troparia and kontakia that are mostly just called “Pascha troparion” or “Kontakion on the Nativity”. The Pascha troparion goes, in part, “Christ is risen from the dead, Trampling down death by death.”
I recommend Googling for ” troparia and kontakia” and you will get a lot of hits. However, here are a few of the daily troparia that are sung on the various days of the week, every week.
Supreme Commanders of God and ministers of the Divine Glory, guides of men and leaders of the angels, ask for what is to our profit and for great mercy, since ye are the Supreme Commanders of the Heavenly Hosts.
O Lord, save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance. Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries; and by the virtue of Thy Cross, preserve Thy habitation.
What western church sings this way?
Tanizaki, I suspect the Gregorian chant at the Latin Masses I sometimes attend would have similarly robust imagery and language. Also the ordinary and the propers of the Mass.
A Catholic would probably tell Janine Turner that scripture read in the light of tradition is her best guide and that God is happy to receive our prayers but we don’t get personal exemptions from moral laws.
CofE is not really a Protestant Church. It differs from Catholicism merely as to who is head of the Church, one or two doctrinal matters (Transubstantiation, The Trinty) allows married Priests (although many now seem to be – unlike the Catholics – Homosexuals)
Ahem. The Catholic Church doesn’t officially allow homosexuality but in some parts of the world there’s been a massive covert takeover of their clergy by homosexuals. Catholic sources have estimated that as many as 50% of the priests in the USA….
I say this *sadly* as a nonCatholic. No bashing. I sincerely wish it were not true.
Tanizaki, I suspect the Gregorian chant at the Latin Masses I sometimes attend would have similarly robust imagery and language. Also the ordinary and the propers of the Mass.
Maybe. You suspect, but don’t know. If you do not understand what is being said and sung, they might as well be humming.
I’m a Roman convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, and I remember a lot of Protestant hymns being sung in the Roman church. “Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee” was a popular one.
John XXIII, not the dopey liberal of popular imagination, decreed that homosexuals were not to be admitted to the priesthood. His directive came to be effectively ignored. Many homosexuals entered the priesthood, and eventually the bishopric. The rest is history.
I suspect that the large number of homosexuals in the Church in places like America is one reason for the weakness on feminism. They lack normal male attitudes to women.
Tanizaki, there are translations in the missal.
@ Lavazza: Exactly. 🙂
I’ll ask no pardon of y’all, because I’m going to enjoy raining all over your holier-than-thou torch-the-bitch fantasies.
Just what comfort do y’all propose to offer any unwed mother that she might remain a member of your slut shaming congregations?
I understand that amongst the come-to-Jesus crowd, so very busy patting yourselves on the back for making the right decision, that it’s damn uncomfortable to remember that – before God – you are no better than the slut you propose to ‘guide’. Just who is it you think you are to talk down to anyone?
While y’all are looking up and practice reciting wisdom beyond your intelligence, spend a little time finding the bit about loving your neighbor and consider how you’re going to get *that* part done.
Yeah, Dalrock, I’m talking to you too. You’ve correctly identified a serious flaw in mainstream Christian church philosophy and practice. Are you going to just kibitz?
It’s a sin how much I enjoy smacking posturing fools upside the head and I’m ashamed even as I smile. I so want to cite a dozen or two scriptures, defiling the comfort of God’s word by using it as a weapon in an argument. This is why I can’t be an Elder ( the guy in the front talking ). I’m given to fighting.
Shun me and ban me. i don’t give a s#!t. I’ve done my job.
Sure. A lot of them are called “Psalms”. They are in the Bible. Orthodox think they are for praying and singing. I don’t know what other Christians think they are for. One of the psalms sung for Pascha is Psalm 67 (Psalm 68 for most other Christians), “Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him. As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.”
Most of them do not have names as Protestants might think. There is no “Please turn to page 143 of the hymnal to ‘How Great Thou Art’.” Rather, there are troparia and kontakia that are mostly just called “Pascha troparion” or “Kontakion on the Nativity”. The Pascha troparion goes, in part, “Christ is risen from the dead, Trampling down death by death.”
I recommend Googling for ” troparia and kontakia” and you will get a lot of hits. However, here are a few of the daily troparia that are sung on the various days of the week, every week.
Supreme Commanders of God and ministers of the Divine Glory, guides of men and leaders of the angels, ask for what is to our profit and for great mercy, since ye are the Supreme Commanders of the Heavenly Hosts.
O Lord, save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance. Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries; and by the virtue of Thy Cross, preserve Thy habitation.
What western church sings this way?
Okay, but we as Orthodox have to be careful not to attack the entire Western tradition. This is a tendency to some extent among Western converts to Orthodoxy, and it’s something I’ve gotten past over the years (easier over time). The West also prays the psalms and sings them in church, for example, and it’s quite true that Gregorian chanted hymns are very doctrinally little o orthodox (although also quite rarely used in the typical Catholic parish — which was not the intention of the Vatican when it rolled out the VII reforms). The West has its own integral true tradition, which is distinct from the Byzantine/Orthodox tradition in many ways (always had much more of an emphasis on Christ’s redemptive suffering in the West than on the Paschal conquering on Easter that the East has and so on). The key is for the West to rediscover its own authentic tradition, which is Orthodox in itself, rather than becoming Byzantinesque.
The church proper is doing the whole “loving your neighbor” thing just fine. The problem is, no one is bothering to tell them that they are often responsible for the predicament they find themselves in. Instead, they give them a good helping of “you go grrrrl” and invite them to their special single mother’s day of pampering. But never what they actually need – a good dose of Biblical truth.
As the quote goes “Truth without love is brutality. Love without truth is hypocrisy.” Does Dalrock lean harder towards the “Truth” side sometimes? No question. But only because the rest of society has otherwise completely forgotten Truth in favor of an infantile, simplistic “God is love” theology.
@George Booth
Rain away. All I ask is that you make a coherent point.
He did make a coherent point. Other than Dalrock, how many of the men on this blog are happily married? Or still married?
No George,you have not done your job, you are part of the problem.
Ever hear of warning your neighbor when the path they are on leads to ruin/destruction?
It is in fact a DUTY to do so!
You sir are remiss in your duty,not performing it!
What’s more George, you see a snare in the path and not only add camouflage
to it, you encourage others to enter the snare.
This is commonly known as a stumbling block,a tool of the devil.
Well George, rain on our parade, please. Give us a reason to care about the defunct Church. Really, I dare you.
There are some Presbyterian denominations where only Psalms are sung in the worship service — no hymns.
And George, this is not an unwed mother who repents of her mistake and asks for forgiveness and comfort. She revels in her ‘single motherhood,’ she wrote a book over it and the positives of being without a man. She blatantly states that her sinfulness ‘strengthened’ her relationship with God.
I simply do not see atonement on her part. She is not apologetic to either God, Jesus or her daughter over the fact that she couldn’t allow her daughter to experience the joy of growing up with a father. She has sinned, she revels in it, makes money out of it and both her and her daughter seem to think it’s a positive attribute, this being a single mom; and then the Church, the Conservatives and every other person responsible for carrying God’s Gospel, supports her.
So please, enlighten me… just what is Dalrock, myself or any other commentor on this blog meant to do, if not to ‘kibitz’ amongst ourselves?
@ George Booth
I see this and the Courageous post as intimately related. This connection needs to be brought to light. As such, I have written a post on my blog that contains a response to your question:
War is Peace, Good is Evil
Pingback: War is Peace, Good is Evil | Christian Men's Defense Network
I’m pressed for time, but I’ll offer a quick recap of the main points of the post for those who want to point out my error:
1) Unrepentant unwed mother. Note that she says she didn’t make the choice. It is impossible to both repent and deny responsibility at the same time.
2) Said unrepentant unwed mother writes a book encouraging “single mothers” to hold their head high. For those living under a rock, check out current rates of out of wedlock births and wife initiated divorce for an understanding of who she is speaking to.
3) CBN/700 Club picks this up and packages it as wholesome.
4) Pastor writes a glowing review, praising the book for dispelling the myth that fathers are essential.
5) Pastor tells women that God will be their husband and their child’s father in substitution for the human man they elected to dispense with.
Edit: 6) As Bskillet pointed out, note the profound difference in how men and women are being addressed in the issue of fatherless children by Christians. Good fathers who are present are being beaten down and told they need to man up and rererererererererecommit to being a better man. Unrepentant unwed mothers are offered up as godly teachers.
The two things that I find offensive about Turner’s message are – and I realize I’ve banged on about this many times before –
1) The promotion of single motherhood by rich celebrities or people of upper middle class means. These people can essentially afford to “buy” a second parent in the form of a nanny or nannies, housekeepers, etc. For the average single mother in America, an illegitimate child is a one-way ticket into poverty and unending parental grind, as well as significantly decreased outcomes for her children. These books/articles/blog posts are truly a bait and switch, and all because these women will not face the fact that they made bad, often selfish decisions in regards to their own children. They should not be encouraging other mothers of lesser means to make the same bad, selfish decisions.
2) The promotion of “Dads are optional” ideology. Fathers are not optional. Turner says in her online biography that her #1 priority has been her daughter since the day she was born. It’s too bad her daughter was not her #1 priority since the day she was conceived because no matter how beautiful and smart and talented she is, having no father leaves her with a big fat empty in part of her life and identity. My son is adopted. He will sometimes ask why his birthparents threw him away. And no matter how I explain unwanted pregnancy and hard choices or tell him how much he is loved by any number of people, he knows he was rejected and abandoned and it hurts. How can it not?
Fathers are crucial. Long term paternal investment is the glue of a successful society. To ignore that or rationalize it away to save yourself guilt or shame is a terrible trend on all levels, personal, social, societal. Mothers, even super mothers, can’t do it all, and many of them don’t even try. So many kids are in foster care because their mothers can’t or won’t make the extra effort. Many of them, in fact, choose their new boyfriends over their kids and then there’s only more abuse, more trauma, neglect, more abandonment, the price KIDS pay for all of this sin.
George Booth, I’ve commented here before about the presence and danger of babymommas in any church, and given the example of a “traditional, conservative” Protestant church that I’ve visited where a woman with 3 children by 3 different fathers is part of the membership. So I have something of a clue. I’m not going to discuss theology, but practicality.
The notion of unconditional acceptance is pretty standard in the West, and therefore in Western churches. That’s a big problem. Churchian people like to chant “Hate the sin, love the sinner” but all too often it seems to devolve to “love the sinner, don’t talk about the sin”. I’ve seen various versions of that in the churches I get invited to in various travels.
So the solution is what some would call “tough love”. Two or more securely married women, probably with either older children or grown children, need to be involved in a babymomma’s life. So do their husbands, although to a much lesser extent. The babymomma needs to here the same message from multiple women, and due to women’s innate preference for going along with other women, it’s got to be women. The message needs to be “You messed up, bad. First, admit you messed up, and don’t just say it, you gotta mean it. Second, admit there’s a right way to do stuff. Third, you gotta do right, and we will help you”. Babymomma needs to have a new circle of friends that don’t screw around. Babymomma probably needs a social life with no alcohol in it.
Does this look kind of like a 12-step program? Probably, the original 12-step I’m sure was church based.
Babymomma does not need unconditional acceptance. That’s part of what got her where she is. She needs to get the proper mother she very likely never had, gently in her face. Babymomma’s children need to see a functioning family, from the inside. That’s how babymomma’s son learns to be masculine, and babymomma’s daughters get some mental imprinting on what a man-who-is-husband looks like, as opposed to babymomma’s “boyfriends”.
So I’m not Dalrock, but I am of the opinion that babymomma cannot be completely repaired, but she can be fixed of some of the damage, provided there are women strong enough to get in her life and tell her, over and over again, right from wrong. They don’t need to be perfect, but they do need to be women rather than “angry men with boobs”. Unfortunately, a whole lot of women in the West are either overaged adolescents who are still rebelling against authority figures, or short, angry men with boobs.
GKChesterton on women in church:
I believe some women don’t care and are evil or otherwise corrupted.
Well. That’s progress.
So yes, it is possible that some are willing to have children and damn the consequences.
It’s more than possible. It’s reality, as the numbers “40%” and “50%” clearly demonstrate.
The key is for the West to rediscover its own authentic tradition, which is Orthodox in itself, rather than becoming Byzantinesque.
Of course, there is also Western Rite in the Orthodox Church. However, I think you are speaking to liturgy while I am speaking to the underlying theology. The Byzantine Liturgy of an Eastern Catholic church does not make it theologically correct, and the western liturgy of a Western Rite Orthodox church does not make it theologically wrong.
Yo.
Never married here.
Are you trying to say that never married men, non-happily married men or men who have been through the divorce meat-grinder shouldn’t have a voice in Church or in main-stream Christianity? While sluts, single moms and all divorced women get a ‘born again virgin patch’ upon proclaiming their newly found Churchianity, men get nothing but shame, adulterated shame, scorn and shunning. How’s that for silly Church fellowship, huh?
grerp
So many kids are in foster care because their mothers can’t or won’t make the extra effort. Many of them, in fact, choose their new boyfriends over their kids
I know at least two or three families where men and women in their 60’s or older are raising their grandchildren. Not because the mother is dead, as was all too common in previous centuries, either. In one case, the birth mother got sent to prison; her parents chose to take the children rather than let the state have them. In another case, “mommy” basically dropped her kids off at her mother & stepfather’s house one day, and announced she was tired of smallville, and splitting for Los Angeles, bybye. Another case is not clear to me, but the man of the family was a retired Federal contractor who gave up teaching at the university undergrad level to “help take care” of a granddaughter. Without too much work I can find more such depressing situations.
So there are children being raised by people who are nominally retired, because the birth mother is so irresponsible she can’t/won’t do her job, and it happens that some adult related to her keeps the children so they don’t go to foster care. Please note that I’ve not mentioned skin color here. This is happening all across the country, it’s not a “black thing” or a “poor thing” or a “hispanic thing”. This is middle class princesses deciding that children don’t fit into their Disney fantasy, and just dumping them. I wager every person reading this could find some older couple with their grandchildren, without too much work.
But the first step is to open your eyes and really look around.
No Willow, you and George are playing the silly game of ‘love the sinner, love the sin, hate the consequences’ and it ain’t going to end well.
It’s not about having a voice; obviously you have a voice but are you reaching the people that you want to reach or just sharing your anger with each other. If you have never been married what do you have as a basis for comparison. There are good, Christian women as well as good, Christian men available. I guess you just never met one of the good ones. Every one should have the right to attend church……most of us are sinners.
Is this blog about trying to change the way things are or just a venue to vent your anger. I think that we are responsible to help sinners, baby mommas so to speak, see the error of their ways but all I see is hatefulness and anger here. You won’t accomplish much with that.
*standing ovation to grerp*
And to all those who make great points in this post.
Thank you for your wisdom and insight.
Willow
He did make a coherent point. Other than Dalrock, how many of the men on this blog are happily married? Or still married?
What difference does it make? This looks rather like the argumentum ad hominem fallacy to me.
[D: Exactly. When you can’t argue with the point, attack the person making it.]
@Feminist Hater
That could be. I hope George will write something coherent which explains his objections to the post. I assumed he wasn’t playing that game since my post is going after religious teachers. To plead for tolerance of sinners in that context feels very much like a non sequitur. Could it be that he just this morning stumbled on to my Slut! post and accidentally commented on this one? Could he be responding to a post by another blogger entirely?
Or does he want to provide cover for what the 700 Club, Janine, and the pastor are teaching?
“She blatantly states that her sinfulness ‘strengthened’ her relationship with God”
She stated that her daughter, not the sex, did this.
George, I hope you stick around; we actually agree. Many here are the typical “women suck, so I just bang and dump them, but SCREW that unmarried mother” type, and you can’t expect anything else from them. However, some are serious Christians, and Christian or not, I appreciate the calm and intelligent responses that SOME addressed to you thus far. I disagree that Turner is deliberately upholding unmarried sex and single mothers by choice; to say so is a big leap. Christian women make mistakes and sometimes end up with fatherless children. However, the problem here with Turner is the omissions; the book, or at least the article, doesn’t make a single mention of how dangerous umarried sex, unplanned pregnancies, and fatherless children are. Instead, the story is about just how much women can do without men. That pastor was right, single moms can give their kids a lot, but there is simply NO guarantee of what will occur in that child’s makeup and life without a father; you CAN’T make up for that.
Grerp was correct about the mass differences between rich people and the far more regular single moms; like, say, single women in bad neighborhoods living on welfare. Take a guess on how their kids are living? Whatever Turner’s personal beliefs, it’s become popular for rich female celebs to CHOOSE single motherhood; we look at their free choices and their glimmering kids, and aren’t they cute? What privilege, what a noble fad. I’m not saying they don’t love their kids, but their comments about how women don’t need men to raise kids (Aniston philosophy) is not loving at all; I wonder if their male children ever get the message that children are such a blessing, and maybe someday their own will be raised by heroic mothers without them. Turner’s book should be about God helping women, NOT God as a holy welfare source when human daddy’s not around. Unwed moms hold their heads high? Against who? Who, in this society, is telling them not to?
How about my parents marriage, or my uncles and aunts marriages, no divorces there I might add? What about my friends, their families and all the other people I engage daily? Do they not form part of my ability to discern reality? Really, honestly, in order to understand marriage one must have lived through it before? You really think I’m stupid enough to jump into marriage without actually looking at the problems surrounding me?
Please enough, come back when you’re sane.
She also stated that having a child out of wedlock was not her choice. So, ah, what was she thinking while she was fornicating? Probably, she was making repeated appeals to her personal Jesus:
“Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!”
So I guess that makes it okay.
But there is no evidence here of her repentance.
Actually, virtually no one on Dalrock’s or my blog ever states that. Quite the opposite. These are Christian men who–unlike you and other of Janine Turner’s enablers–are clear that fornication is a sin, and those who are un-married would rather remain celibate than disobey. Of course, evidently you agree that fornication is a sin… for a man. Apparently not for a woman though. Thus saith the holy hamster.
He did make a coherent point. Other than Dalrock, how many of the men on this blog are happily married?
I am.
Yes, they are examples, sounds like they are good ones too but it is not the same until you have lived it. Maybe they worked hard at their relationships or maybe they were just lucky. When you have personally walked where they have walked then you will have credibility.
Dorsey, Good for you.
@Willow
I WAS happily married. Very happily. But she wasn’t. I did all the doting and obsessive stuff the culture told me would make me the ideal husband. You know, the stuff people like Willow say I should do.
She responded by cheating on me with the opposite of the “ideal husband.” Yeah, but, you know, we aren’t allowed to point out that things aren’t really the way we’ve all been taught. And if we do, someone responds with shaming tactics rather than logic and reason.
But since we’re now asking personal shaming questions rather than engaging in actual discussion, Willow, how many men have you fornicated with? Have you ever cheated on your husband(s)? I guess, as long as you’re happy, then facts, truth, and morality don’t matter.
“Actually, virtually no one on Dalrock’s or my blog ever states that”
Then you apparently haven’t seen a lot of his commenters, plenty of whom have made disgusting sexual addresses to me; I guess you haven’t been here as long.
“These are Christian men who–unlike you and other of Janine Turner’s enablers–are clear that fornication is a sin, and those who are un-married would rather remain celibate than disobey. Of course, evidently you agree that fornication is a sin… for a man. Apparently not for a woman though. Thus saith the holy hamster.”
Did you even remotely read the rest of my post? What a fantastic way to distort my words, Brian. Did I or did I not say that Turner was remiss in not mentioning the dangers of unwed sex and pregnancy, that celeb single moms are selfish and you can’t replace a father? Talk about selective reading.
By that logic, since Jesus never sinned, He lacks all credibility when He commands us not to fornicate.
That a pastor would say that men are optional in raising children is reprehensible and ungodly. To say that men are optional is a denial of the creation ordinance. This society needs stronger men who emulate the character and person of Christ. Strong and true, standing for Truth.
@Jennifer
You immediately discredited yourself by putting words into the mouths of Dalrock’s readers in an attempt to shame them into agreeing with you. Any qualifications thereafter are only an attempt to hide the obvious absurdity of your arguments.
All hail the holy hamster!
Actually, I never gave you any instructions as to what you should do. I was married for 38 years, raised my children and then was left behind. I still do not hate men, nor do I hate my ex and if I could find a really good guy would do it all over again. I am one of the women who married at 22 so there is never really a guarantee, now is there. I am just saying that hate and anger accomplish nothing. We can only change ourselves and God will ask us what we did, not what others did.
Jesus was the son of God and no he never sinned.
What fantastic bullshit. I know what some of his readers are like, Brian; should I pretend several foul-mouths have not been here so I won’t be shaming them? I also clearly said that many were Christians and even some of the non-Christians answered George well. You’re pissed in general, so you decided to put meaning into my own words that’s not there, then accuse me of doing something similar and ignoring whatever else I had to say. LOL Considering the fact that most of the men here already agree with me about single motherhood, I’d have no reason to shame them into doing so.
Willow, allow me to introduce you to the “reducto ad absurdium”. That is to demonstrate the incorrectness of a premise by taking it and applying it to situations that are clearly absurd.
Now then, you claim that no one can opine on marriage unless they have been married. Let us see where that leads.
Is robbing banks at gunpoint wrong? Don’t answer hastily, because by your standard unless you yourself have committed armed robbery you can’t really know what it’s like, and therefore are in no position to judge bank robbers.
Shall I continue, or does this help clear things up for you?
“Willow says:
May 9, 2012 at 9:11 am
He did make a coherent point. Other than Dalrock, how many of the men on this blog are happily married? Or still married?”
If you are trying to suggest that the only reason for the men here to feel the way they apparently do is because they are not married or have been divorced or are in a lousy marriage, you are sadly mistaken.
Many of the men here are in basically happy marriages but are, to be blunt, pissed off, at how current attitudes and policies about gender are destroying families and kids.
@Jennifer
No one here has said this on this thread. The closest is PMAFT, who rarely comments here and is clear on his disagreements with the rest of Dalrock’s readership on the ethics of the Sunday Morning Nightclub route. What you’re doing is clearly a strawman intended to deflect responsibility from Janine Turner onto the “many” men who read Dalrock’s blog and–somehow by extension–are therefore guilty for Ms. Turner’s promiscuity and irresponsibility. It is, once again, an attempt to blame innocent men for the sins of immoral women, much like the movie Courageous. You’re trying to remove moral culpability from Ms. Turner and the rest of Stanton’s Heroes by blaming Dalrock’s readership.
It is transparent and absurd.
Not suggesting that at all but if you are happily married why not just be happy and continue to live your life. Do you think you can change society at this point? If so then widen your audience to people who do not agree with you, people who might benefit from your viewpoint and change their lives. I can see that what I am saying is not resonating with you and so I wish all of you the best of luck. Be happy.
Jennifer – ” Did you even remotely read the rest of my post? What a fantastic way to distort my words, Brian. Did I or did I not say that Turner was remiss in not mentioning the dangers of unwed sex and pregnancy, that celeb single moms are selfish and you can’t replace a father? Talk about selective reading.”
So, then you are willing to say (as Brian made specific reference to your NOT having mentioned) “that fornication is a sin”?
Otherwise, it seems like you’re dodging that part of the over-all issue with Janine Turner’s situation. She sinned, but remains unrepentant – and is lionized by Churchians for having been so successful despite her sins.
Perhaps you’d like to see the Churches return to selling Indulgences for the rich and celebrity?
@brian
Usually, pastors who preach the opposite are better known as “former pastors.”
“Jennifer says:
May 9, 2012 at 11:04 am
Many here are the typical “women suck, so I just bang and dump them, but SCREW that unmarried mother” ”
Who are these “many” you speak of? Seriously, if it’s such a common attitude you should have no problem providing several in context examples.
I’ve seen that attitude a couple of times but to be honest, most of the time I’ve seen it, it’s been in the context of someone saying that it’s wrong but that they can understand how someone might adopt that attitude.
Allow me to try again:
I’ve now dug a bit further into Janine Turner, an actress whom I had not previously been aware and who (despite the early picture above) is now 49 and looks it – she has hit the wall pretty badly judging by the picture I saw on Wikipedia. Looking at her movies on IMDB the only one I had heard of was Steel Magnolias and she has a very small role in that. Seems she’s a Telly actress.
I then looked at Amazon and her best-seller is currently about 530,000 in their list. Now that is about as popular as some of the books I buy from them, but I prefer to read things like Hobbes and Rousseau and Steve Moxon, whose women racket is at 257,000, so this book by Turner is clearly not flying off the shelves.
Holding her head high: twelve women who championed their children, is the title, yet that suggests supporting one’s children is rare, even for a woman. I doubt it. Why (if you are a widow) would you need to hold your head high, as if you are giving yourself a pat on the back. No one has ever had any bad things to say against widows, in fact quite the reverse. She however is not a widow but an unwed mother. The sleight of hand is duplicitous.
Dare I suggest that deep down Turner knows she is a trollop who basically has failed her daughter by not providing herself with a husband. She has put the cart before the horse and is trying to justify her failure – at least that is what it looks like to me. No one ever suggests that having a husband makes life worse for ones children and from my own observation of mothers married and unmarried the married ones clearly have more successful children – on average. Every one knows that but this book asks us to pretend otherwise.
@Brian,
You should also read my earlier comment here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/godly-unashamed-unwed-mothers/#comment-37281
Richmond’s justifications for Stanton’s Heroes, used on page 50 of his book, is classic Game. In fact, if it weren’t so wicked, one would have to admire his skill. He both convinces women they are trading up by denying fathers to their dad’s, and he feeds their hamsters by telling them their kids will turn out great and have an excellent life and be famous like Ishmael.
He did make a coherent point. Other than Dalrock, how many of the men on this blog are happily married? Or still married?
Me.
@Booth
“There are two main branches of philosophy and religion split on the point of whether people are innately good or bad.Christianity used to be firmly of the latter. Pop psycho-babble however asserts the former, as does atheism.”
I disagree with some assumptions here. Calvinism does as you describe (and claims Christianity has always done so). Christianity historically takes a paradoxical approach. Men are the Imago Dei and are therefore good in so far as they are not corrupted. Since we are born into corruption true nature is being overcome by the “air of the world”. We therefore, as Chesterton said, see a paradox of good and evil. This isn’t Manichean in that we don’t expect evil to win and know it will eventually be cleansed.
@TFH,
“Kickstart…documentary”
If Kickstart doesn’t record contributions I’d kick in a bit.
@Purple,
“Churches became less Calvinist as the state churches were disestablished — i.e., no longer supported by tax money. That left them dependent on congregational giving, and pastors began catering to the majority of the congregation: women.”
If that’s the thesis it is broken. The state churches in Scandinavia and the UK are some of the most feminist in existence. It is specifically those churches that have had more independence that have remained anti-feminist longer.
The comment thread was too long Dalrock, no time for me to read it, but I hope someone pointed out that Hagar wsan’t a single mother in the way we picture it today.
She was a second wife who didn’t know her place in the hieracrchy and got tossed out of the house because she was attempting to subvert the Master Plan.
Talk about twisitng Scripture to make an unbiblical point!
Let’s be honest here, she didn’t do either, she simply said that when her daughter came, her faith immediately deepened. Taking her at face value, the arrival of a child, born out of wedlock, through fornication with a man, out side of marriage – hint, hint – immediately, not after breakfast, not after being born into Christ again or being visited by the Holy Spirit, nor after repentance but immediately deepened her faith with God. Now, don’t call me a saint, but there’s so many falsities there, it’s scary.
This charmer of a lady fully believes she conversed with the Almighty, as if they were bosom buddies on a vacation, speaking about the fire within her, blah blah blah, freaking blah. You would think that if she was in personal communications with our Lord, as if he was just a phone call away, she wouldn’t have made the incorrect choice of mate in the first place, or the mistake of getting preggers outside of marriage. Grrrrrrr power indeed!
That Turner’s hamster would solve the reliance on fossil fuels forever.
He did make a coherent point. Other than Dalrock, how many of the men on this blog are happily married? Or still married?
Me
Adding on to my reply above about how churches should treat babymommas, the single mother in question would have to be willing to admit to herself and others that she did wrong. And she would have to accept the idea that someone else knows more about life, the Universe, and everything than she does. That could be a rather tall order in an era of self-esteem training, when “You’re Not The Boss Of ME!” isn’t just something that toddler say, but rather a social motto. Admitting that someone else knows better, and agreeing to obey what that person says, would be the heart of proper rehabilitation of a slut, or a babymomma.
Theodore Roosevelt once said that people will be controlled. Either they will control themselves, or of necessity they will be controlled by others. Unfortunately, “self control” has a bad reputation nowadays as it gets in the way of “self actualization”.
Another note on Ms. Turner’s book. From her Wikipedia entry:
Now, no doubt this Wikipedia entry is maintained by her agent/publicist, or her book’s publisher. This is how these things are done. Unfortunately, in holding up Rachel Fawcett–Alexander Hamilton’s mother–as a great example, they have done just about the stupidest thing possible. Rachel Fawcett was not an “abandoned single mother.”
From Wikipedia’s entry on Hamilton:
Far from being an “abandoned single mother,” Fawcett was the the epitome of Eat, Pray, Love (aka, Cheat, Betray, Leave). She was not abandoned. She was an abandoner. She left her husband and went trolloping through the Caribbean, no doubt because it was “exciting” to do so.
More of the story:
Note that she was “abandoned” by her baby daddy as she was being divorced by her abandoned husband. One cannot help but note the delicious irony in all this. She died when Hamilton was young, leaving him an orphan, which is another aspect of the Stanton’s Heroes lifestyle that doesn’t get touched on.
But note this: Hamilton was born likely in 1757. His single mother died in 1768. Far from being raised by this heroic single mother, he spent a great deal of his youth as an orphan. If anything, this is more a testimony to Hamilton’s pluck than it is to his immoral mother’s influence.
I call bullshit on Turner’s entire book. It’s one thing to lie. It’s another entirely to lie about something so well-known and documented.
The stupid is strong with this one.
Richmond’s justifications for Stanton’s Heroes, used on page 50 of his book, is classic Game. In fact, if it weren’t so wicked, one would have to admire his skill. He both convinces women they are trading up by denying fathers to their dad’s, and he feeds their hamsters by telling them their kids will turn out great and have an excellent life and be famous like Ishmael.
Indeed. That quote bears a revisit in the cool clear morning:
[Ishmael] apparently had a great life. Let’s review it. First, he enjoyed the love and favor of Abraham for at least 15 years. Second, God took over the child-rearing responsibilities, so Ishmael moved from a good father to the best.
Yeah, really. A boy has the love of his father til age 15, and then TOTAL REJECTION. Betrayal. This results in a LIFETIME of anger. Ishmael’s descendants have inherited that rage, and it’s still causing problems today — THOUSANDS of years later. Would that more churches… would that even ONE church.. would preach that breaking up a family, can screw up the world for millenia.
Remember Johnny Walker Lindh? He was an American kid, the product of a seemingly happy normal 2 parent home. Unfortunately, they lived in the Bay area, and when Johnny was 15, his Dad abandoned the family, became gay, and moved in with a fellow sodomite. Did Johnny find an even better father in God? No… Perhaps, to his credit, he tried… But in his rage, he converted to Islam instead — the preferred spiritual path for the still-angry sons of Ishmael — and fought for the Taliban. Yeah, he got to be “famous like Ishmael”.
PS. when Johnny was 15, his Dad abandoned the family, became gay, and moved in with a fellow sodomite. ….in his rage, he converted to Islam ,,
As he saw his father abandon the family for another man, perhaps it’s no coincidence that Johnny converted to a religion that prescribes the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality. It’s sort of fitting in a way.
Well, of course y’all would impute to me the issues you love to rail about.
And freebird, I warned you didn’t I? That job is done.
IMHO, one bluntly tells an unwed mother that she has f***ed up. One tells her about the hash she has made of her child’s life before it even got started. One speaks the awful truth.
But one doesn’t speak it in damnation of her. She is not ours to damn and damnation is not ours to do.
She needs the awful truth about her options, about the consequences of her choices yet to be made. Some things she might choose to do a Christian can support and aid, and some a Christian can’t.
But she’s not trash to be thrown away, no more than y’all are.
Perhaps an example will help.
After my divorce, I reassembled my family under my roof. I didn’t remarry the ex. The members of the church I attended told me I was very welcome to attend, but I couldn’t be a member. I could have no voice in the affairs of the church. I was living with a woman I wasn’t legally married to. They said my judgment was suspect. Well, there were a lot of days I wondered about my judgment too.
They cared. They hoped for the best for me. They shook their heads from time to time, but they didn’t hold themselves above me. I saw the Elder in the pulpit hold back tears at the memory of some of the crap he’d done.
None of that is what most of y’all are suggesting.
Y’all talk about the failings of those Christians in those churches with indignation. How dare they do and say such things!
Don’t you get it? Those Christians are destroying their own lives as surely as that unwed mother has laid waste to her own. When those Christians won’t speak the awful truth to that unwed mother, all the children of all the members take note. You don’t need to wish justice upon them. They’re going to get justice.
What I see is y’all being callous so you can call yourselves righteous.
@George Booth,
“I’ll ask no pardon of y’all, because I’m going to enjoy raining all over your holier-than-thou torch-the-bitch fantasies.
Just what comfort do y’all propose to offer any unwed mother that she might remain a member of your slut shaming congregations?”
Slut shaming doesn’t propose ungoing demoralization of the individual. It requires not celebrating the sin. That’s the point you are missing. As to your question of how to handle such an individual I think St. Mary of Egypt is a wonderful example. Try reading her sometime.
“you are no better than the slut you propose to ‘guide’. ”
No. No. No. No. No. We are just as deserving of DEATH. This is not the same thing as just being “no better than”. You make a mockery of the entire Law. If what you say is true the Law would have _one_ punishment. It doesn’t and the Law acts as a guide.
@Anonymous,
Funny…how I’ve felt that way my whole life. You just insist on being an ass. Given that you are smart and have good things to say you might want to work on that.
@Jennifer,
“I disagree that Turner is deliberately upholding unmarried sex and single mothers by choice; to say so is a big leap. Christian women make mistakes and sometimes end up with fatherless children.”
For that to be true we would have to turn back to St. Marry. Compare the above article with the comments of St. Mary:
“”I am ashamed, Abba, to speak to you of my disgraceful life, forgive me for God’s sake! But as you have already seen my naked body [tradition has her wasting away in the desert on purpose to destroy the beauty that had tempted men] I shall likewise lay bare before you my work, so that you may know with what shame and obscenity my soul is filled. I was not running away out of vanity, as you thought, for what have I to be proud of — I who was the chosen vessel of the devil? But when I start my story you will run from me, as from a snake, for your ears will not be able to bear the vileness of my actions. But I shall tell you all without hiding anything, only imploring you first of all to pray incessantly for me, so that I may find mercy on the day of Judgment.””
Is there anything in the two “confessions” that is even remotely similar?
@Willow,
“If you have never been married what do you have as a basis for comparison”
Let’s play a game and change some words:
“If you have never been a murderer what do you have as a basis for comparison”
You see how silly that sounds? Personal experience (which I have) has no bearing on the outcome of the argument. The facts should have the outcome. The argumentative form you are proposing is distinctly anti-Christian.
@Jennifer
“Did I or did I not say that Turner was remiss in not mentioning the dangers of unwed sex and pregnancy”
Dangers? That’s the best you can do from a Christian perspective? Regurgitate sex-ed?
Here you can read how she spins the tale of Alexander Hamilton’s immoral mother, turning her into a heroic saint.
What an idiot.
@George,
“But one doesn’t speak it in damnation of her. She is not ours to damn and damnation is not ours to do.”
So I searched this thread for “hell” and “damn”. None of the comments it hit even vaguely touch on the idea of omniscient judgement. Could you quote? I’m guessing not. But its worth a try.
As to your passive-aggressive shame you still are not doing the woman in question any good _even if_ everyone else notices enough to get the lesson. Given the OP and the sales of the book in the OP not everyone is cluing in.
Yes slwerner, of course I believe fornication is a sin. Which is why most of my post addressed the sin of omission in Turner’s book. Thank you for at least asking. Chaz, I can’t recall all of the names, but TFH was one such guy who used filthy language towards me and damned women in general; Green Lantern is another, being himself stuck in an unhappy marriage. There was Greyghost, who bragged on sleeping with a 20-something and using women while they were young; the board used to be damn near full of foul-mouths. “Private Man” also justified the idea that female sluts are bad, but male sluts are just clever. If you and Bs haven’t noticed this trend lately, it would look like the threads have cleaned up a bit; thank God! I haven’t been over for a while, for exactly that reason.
“What you’re doing is clearly a strawman intended to deflect responsibility from Janine Turner onto the “many” men who read Dalrock’s blog and–somehow by extension–are therefore guilty for Ms. Turner’s promiscuity and irresponsibility. It is, once again, an attempt to blame innocent men for the sins of immoral women, much like the movie Courageous. You’re trying to remove moral culpability from Ms. Turner and the rest of Stanton’s Heroes by blaming Dalrock’s readership”
Bs, you’re spewing downright gibberish. Yes, “somehow by extension”, I blame silly posters for a celebrity’s mistake; you’re speaking the most asinine crap I’ve seen any online person post for a long time. I’ve disagreed before with you, namely finding your belief that the Bible calls women morally weaker and the disasteful game terms you use unnecessary and inaccurate, while still finding your general posts solid and respecting you as Christian. You completely took me by surprise today, because I never took you for a jerk or a fool*, but that’s what you’re speaking like. You project all you want onto me out of your own anger at personal injuries, Lord knows men have a justification weasel, but I’d recommend as one hot-tempered person to another that you think more before you speak again.
*If this is too “shaming” to you, tough; I’ve grown sick of men acting as though shaming is worse than anything else you could say. I would ask that you tell me how you’d prefer me to speak, whether you prefer the typical acidic mockery that anti-shaming men use, or for me to just tell you to screw yourself, but that’s not my general preference as a Christian, so people will just have to deal.
GK, I imagine you know that sin is always dangerous, and by dangerous I meant far more than physically; sin and loose sex are emotionaly dangerous to all involved. I also mentioned how fathers are needed, but you didn’t include that in your quote.
Feminist Hater, Turner may well have repented before her child was born. The sin here, again, is one of omission, what she DIDN’T say, more than what she did.
See you around, Dalrock. If I look into Turner’s book and find mention of repentence, I’ll let you know, but I’m not getting my hopes up.
bskillet81 – “Here you can read how she spins the tale of Alexander Hamilton’s immoral mother, turning her into a heroic saint.”
Perhaps if Barak Obama wasn’t such a Democrat, Turner could have spun a tale regarding his mother, transforming her from unashamed and unrepentant skank and child abandoner to heroic self-sacrificing “super-mom” as well.
You clearly stated that “many” men on Dalrock’s blog believe in humping and dumping women, and that we then rail against the baby mama’s who are humped and dumped. There is no other way to read your statement. You are indeed trying to make us responsible for Ms. Turner’s immorality.
Your exact words, which I will dissect clause by clause:
First off, “Many here.” No examples though. Next, “Typical.” Really? So not only are we “many,” but this is also “typical” of Dalrock’s readers? Third, “so I just bang and dump them.” Who has said this? I’ve noticed the “typical” response here is the opposite. At most, a very few might have said anything like that. Fourth, “SCREW that unmarried mother.” As if our alleged “banging and dumping” results in the “unmarried mother” whom we then castigate. Clearly, you are blaming the “many here” — “typical” of Dalrock’s readers–who “bang [women] and dump them” for the plight of that “unmarried mother.”
Yep, you are indeed accusing us of whelping kids on baby mama’s.
Your vitriolic response indicates that I have deeply wounded your hamster and you are doing everything you can to defend her by ignoring the facts. All that would be necessary is for you to say, “I apologize for insinuating that Dalrock’s readers are the ones who whelp illegitimate children on these women. I accept that Ms. Turner is responsible for her own actions, and Dalrock’s readers had nothing to do with her illegitimate child.”
Thankfully, I’m neither. But you have committed a baseless insult to the honor of Dalrock’s readers. Evidently, you know so little about men that you don’t realize insulting a man’s honor is one of the worst things you can do to him. And, like most similar women, you have never experienced a real man standing up to you, defending his honor from your baseless insults. Clearly this is new territory for you. Hopefully you will learn something.
Personally, I had you pegged for a hamster-driven silly little Disney Princess from the beginning, though perhaps a bit more bearable than most. Sadly, I was wrong on that last bit.
GK, I imagine you know that sin is always dangerous, and by dangerous I meant far more than physically; sin and loose sex are emotionaly dangerous to all involved. I also mentioned how fathers are needed, but you didn’t include that in your quote.
But it is still using the wrong language. And that is a problem. You also defend George who appears to have no point. I’m sorry your argument, despite the fact that I’m the closest thing to a White Knight here, just doesn’t hold water. You seem to be vaguely defending her position when she has born a bastard and is now advertising her current position as valuable. While you are keen on pointing out things I might be missing in what you’ve said you have not done any comparison between the topic of the OP and say St. Mary of Egypt. Everything you’ve said makes it appear that you want to have the cake and eat it too.
BTW tangentially related to some posts in the past:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2006/02/17/the_return_of_patriarchy?page=0,1
GKChesterton
@Anonymous,
Funny…how I’ve felt that way my whole life.
So you say now, but when you first began posting here you could not even bring yourself to criticize a murderous woman like Mary Winkler. Therefore, from the sole perspective of what you write here, I see progress.
You just insist on being an ass.
Eh? No, I’m a dog with rabies, you said so earlier on when I finally got you to admit that some women were evil, after multiple go-rounds. Then I asked you to draw a conclusion, and apparently that’s too much to ask. Later on one GKChesteron claims “I’m not here to call names”, but now I’m a donkey. There is a pattern, here. It’s rather passive-aggressive, frankly.
I believe that it is common for tradcons to pop in here and attempt to “set straight” men who are righteously angry. When we fail to bow down and worship the totally awezome wisdom being handed to us, then the shaming language and/or name calling begins. Because what tradcons apparently can not do is admit they don’t know something, or worse yet that they are wrong about anything at all. This pompous arrogance looks particularly funny next to the absurd nonsense that is all too often part of the “wisdom” bestowed.
So far GKChesterton has tried to play the chest-beating shouter-downer, and that failed. Then he turned into Holy Joe, but after playing name-calilng and shaming cards, that is just hypocritical: anyone who wants to be Holy Joe had better not start the discourse off with fighting words like “You’re just a mad dog!” Now it apparently is back to the shouter-downer, but with a snarky schoolmarm overtone.
Why not try acting like an adult, instead? Start by admitting that calling other men names like “mad dog” is not exactly taking a page out of Norman Vincent Peale – it’s no way to win friends and influence people. Or is admitting error something that Holy Joe just doesn’t do, except with other members of his Churchian club?
Given that you are smart and have good things to say you might want to work on that.
RIght back atcha, sport. You might want to work on that whole name-calling business, if you expect other men to take your opinions seriously.
But what do I know? I’m just an animal with rabies, not a thinking human being.
See that’s the thing Anonymous…I never said the person in question was anything but. And please don’t try to take the moral high ground, you started the name calling. So color me unimpressed when I’m not talking to you in thread, you drop a zinger, and get called for it and then try to take the crucified position.
I really haven’t changed any of my positions.
I must say, I find the premise of Jenine Turners book quite interesting. I looked on amazon to try to find some information on who those ‘history changing’ single mothers were, but the blurb doesn’t extend to that kind of detail.
Off the top of my head, the only history changing figure I could think of with a single mom came to power in germany in the thirties.
Should we be racking our brains trying to think of more examples?
GKChesterton
See that’s the thing Anonymous…I never said the person in question was anything but.
In fact, you wouldn’t take a stand at all. Presented with examples of women doing evil things, you chose to dodge and evade and avoid and pretty much do anything other than come out and actually criticize a woman. It was like pulling teeth. And even then you could not bring yourself to reach any kind of general conclusion.
And please don’t try to take the moral high ground, you started the name calling.
When? In what posting did I do that? Be specific. Post the URL of the offending comment.
Unless you are arguing that “tradcon” is name calling – it isn’t, it is a short way to type “traditional conservatlve”, like “socon” for “social conservative” or CoE for “Church of England” for that matter. If that’s what got you worked up, you must live a very sheltered life.
What you seem to miss is this: I only know about you what you tell me. I can’t read minds. I don’t know what unspoken premises are in your head. So all I have to go on is what you write, and what you do not write.
So when you dug your heels in and refused to even offer the slightest bleat of criticism of women who murder, that told me that sure as heck you wouldn’t criticize women for anything else. And when you can’t draw a general conclusion from examples such as “women should not be given a blank check for any behavior”, but instead resort to name calling, that tells me you are just a bully-wannabe who is frustrated that you can’t silence those who disagree with you. And when you obviously see that name calling doesn’t shut me up, then switch to the Holy Joe act, that strongly suggests a man who likes to preach to others what he won’t do himself. In other words, a hypocrite.
So color me unimpressed when I’m not talking to you in thread, you drop a zinger, and get called for it and then try to take the crucified position.
Color me unimpressed with bullying hypocrites, especially those who strike Holy Joe poses in the process. The comment stream is open to anyone. Even “mad dogs” get to point out facts, no matter how much that may bother the hypocritical.
Anon Reader,
Great comment on how a congregation should approach a single mother. It would be far more kind to the woman herself and her children than what is being done now in the name of girlpower/self esteem.
@GKC
I have tried to hold off while he figures out what he is angry about and converts that into an argument, but since he continues to comment without actually doing this I’ll speculate on what his point is. As best as I can tell the argument in his mind is a long complex series of “what if” questions, followed by a magnificent finish:
In an insane sort of way he is right. I have no doubt that the alternate reality Dalrock (if he exists) would be very taken aback by alternate reality George’s powerful rebuke.
@tspoon
I already documented on this thread her outright dishonesty regarding Alexander Hamilton’s supposedly heroic and amazing mother Rachel Fawcett. I plan, when time allows, a more thorough take-down of that point on my blog.
To summarize: Fawcett was a wild, adulterous woman who deserted her husband and had two illegitimate sons with a guy she met in St. Croix. Having already willfully denied her son the gift of a stable father and home, she then died when Hamilton was 11 years old, leaving him an orphan at an extremely young age. Apparently, this level of umitigated sexual immorality coupled with abject irresponsibility in regards to her children, is to be lauded.
At every point where Fawcett makes a major decision that could likely be construed as grossly immoral, Turner invents new facts to somehow justify Fawcett, while denying both the damage Fawcett did to her family, and Fawcett’s moral responsbility for that damage. It is truly astounding. Turner’s hamster could bench-press a Buick.
@Jennifer
‘Chaz, I can’t recall all of the names, but TFH was one such guy who used filthy language towards me and damned women in general; Green Lantern is another, being himself stuck in an unhappy marriage. There was Greyghost, who bragged on sleeping with a 20-something and using women while they were young; the board used to be damn near full of foul-mouths. “Private Man” also justified the idea that female sluts are bad, but male sluts are just clever.
Three or four is hardly many and you didn’t provide actual examples, only what you say they said. Having spent many years on a board where women will hugely distort what has been said when it suits there purposes, I’ve got zero reason to accept your word for it that what was said or meant was anything close to what you say it is.
I have contacted my government officials and they have assured me that had they known of her hamster’s awesome power, they would never have started building many more coal power plants in an effort to keep the power supply in line with the demand. They have also assured me that the Chinese are heavily investing in the production and encouragement of every women’s hamster, so that they hit that wall sooner, as their economy continues to place heavy strain on other resources and needs more ‘renewable’ energy to continue to function at current levels.
The project, aptly named, Girrrrrrrrl Power.
So, at most she can come up with exactly one guy whom ALLEGEDLY admitted engaging in the “bang and dump” lifestyle she claims is “typical” of “many” of Dalrock’s readers.
As for the others, the most she can accuse them of is not being nice, or using naughty words. Jennifer appears to be confused about basic biology. Using naughty words or being not nice, doesn’t cause women to become pregnant out of wedlock. Coitus does.
@Dalrock,
“I have no doubt that the alternate reality Dalrock (if he exists) would be very taken aback by alternate reality George’s powerful rebuke.”
Which is why I like reading here. The “Good Guys” don’t hate women. But we aren’t, as a friend recently coined the term, part of the Religion of Nice. Aslan will kill you. And when he isn’t killing you, he’s doing things like:
“The very first tear he [Aslan] made was so deep that I thought it had gone right to my heart. And when he began pulling the skin off, it hurt worse than anything I’ve ever felt. The only thing that made me able to bear it was just the pleasure of feeling the stuff peel off. You know – if you’ve ever picked the scab of a sore place. It hurts like billy-oh but it is suck fun to see it coming away.”
Forcing people to read Lewis and then asking them _questions_ about the “icky” parts I find to be a helpful corrective. Of course the movie ditched this; the most important scene. Most women would do well by reading “That Hideous Strength” and understanding why Jane Studdock eventually becomes happy (and the reasons she isn’t in the beginning).
Hear, hear about Narnia, GK. A great set of books. My favorite line:
@bskillet
Yes that’s a wonderful line too and something that we miss when we worship with the Religion of Nice.
I am happily married.
Grerp’s points are good. And, as I said, a woman from a privileged family, very pretty (a kind of secular princess) has nothing to say to the average schlubette. It is about as useful as cooking advice from Prince Charles.
For the record, the Masses I attend are full of robust imagery. And we sing traditional hymns.
BTW, Lewis’ “Till We All Have Faces” is on the Red Pill side and is very sympathetic to women while it is driving the point home.
“Using naughty words or being not nice, doesn’t cause women to become pregnant out of wedlock. Coitus does.”
I might add that it has to be condom less coitus and the chances of fostering a child is not guranteed even with condom less coitus, as those of us wanting to sire children know.
Since most men here seem both moral and careful I doubt that many have had condom less coitus with women we were not prepared accepting fatherhood with.
But what do I know?
I am on a slow temporary link and have not reloaded, plus I have a meeting in a few minutes. I’m going to point to an issue GKChesterton has:
GKChesterton wrote about women:
So yes, it is possible that some are willing to have children and damn the consequences.
And I replied:
It’s more than possible. It’s reality, as the numbers “40%” and “50%” clearly demonstrate.
This is an example of cosseted, “bubble world” thinking. At a time when 40% of births in the US are to women who are not married, and 50% of births to women under 30 are to women who are not married, one has to be willfully ignorant to write “it is possible” that women are willing to have children without a husband. If I wrote “it is possible some young men are willing to get drunk in bars and start fist fights in the parking lot” I’d look like a child with no knowledge of the world, or a recluse who never goes out after sunset, never reads a newspaper, never gets any news from the TV or radio, and generally is ignorant of human nature.
“It is possible” that reality actually exists. That’s blinkered, living in a floating-bubble kind of thinking. And it smacks of a pedestalization attitude towards women, along the lines of “women are inherently good but it is possible that some might be bad”. Which when combined with the pronouncement some months back by GKChesterton that (paraphrasing) “women just want to be helpers” again smacks of pedestalization. A man who lives in the real world might write that some women want to be helpers, or good women want to be helpers, or women who were raised correctly want to be helpers, or Christian women want to be helpers, etc. But to write flat out that women — implying all women, every single solitary one of them including Mary Winkler – want to be helpers is to write something that denies the reality around us.
GKC, there is a definite ivory-tower quality to your writings. The world you refer to isn’t the one that I live in, or the welder I know who moved away lives in, or the guy whose wife divorced him when he couldn’t get her pregnant in 2 years lives in, etc. I don’t have the luxury of living in whatever world you post from. I have to live in reality.
Now I’m late for a meeting. I’ll check in later.
“You go, Girll!” should always be correctly read as “You go, Grill!”
@Alarm
More to the point: If any of the commenters here or in the larger sphere father an illegitimate child, are unrepentant, write a Christian book telling other men who do the same thing to hold their heads high, which is then promoted by the 700 club and pastors who praise it for dispelling the myth that marriage and mothers are essential, I’ll write a post on them too.
Until then, why are we talking about that?
I am not a Christian, so I only oppose such behaviour for societial/child interest reasons.
[D: I understand. If only the average Christian really cared, even if only for pragmatic social reasons we would live in a very different world.]
@Willow
This is off topic but fundamental to the discussion. One of the root causes of the current disaster is the fundamental misunderstanding of what marriage is. It isn’t a state or church sanctioned version of boyfriend and girlfriend. You don’t marry because you are really, really, in love and you want the whole world to know. You shouldn’t marry if you aren’t in love, but that is something different.
There isn’t “working hard on your relationships”. This is the farce an entire industry of Christians who sound like Oprah are busy with. There is only being faithful in your marriage vows. The bible has a fairly short list of the expectations of both husbands and wives, a list which would shock the average Christian if they ever encountered them. Keeping mama happy isn’t one of them, nor is guaranteeing that she “feels loved” or feels “in love with him”, although a husband who loves his wife will surely want her to be happy, feel loved, and be in love with him.
I know plenty of men who have fathered children out of wedlock, but nobody who has abandoned their child. My best friend has even fathered an out of wedlock child while married (separated).
And on paper he’s also the father of an in wedlock child, until the DNA tests are done and the court case is closed.
Ever heard of ‘deadbeat dads’? Having sex outside of marriage brings with it the risk of out of wedlock birth. That’s rather obvious, even with condom use. What you miss is that legally a women gets all the options, i.e. birth control pills, abortion, femidoms, injections, patches, and on and on; a man gets none but instead gets responsibilities, if a baby is born, that society will shame him into doing, with jail time if necessary. Until they start shaming single moms, not the widow variety, as ‘deadbeat moms’ I think you should come off that horse for a bit.
As a Christian, it’s not really a problem, or it shouldn’t be really. You know, no sex before marriage and all that silly stuff.
If 80 % or even 90 % of all men were good and never had sex before marriage. 100 % of women could still get pregnant out of wedlock, if they so wanted. This is a useless debate.
[D: It is very useful to those who don’t want to face the uncomfortable reality.]
FH: “Until they start shaming single moms, not the widow variety, as ‘deadbeat moms’ I think you should come off that horse for a bit.”
“Horse” as in “high horse”? I don’t get it. I just want to say that those of us who are not Christians have propably not taken the risk of fostering children with women we are not prepared to bring up children with, and that for societial/child interest reasons.
Hm, I have to apologise Alarm, I misread your comment completely.
I won’t argue against George Booth. I think their arguments have been proved to be false once and again. However, different opinions and debate are good for a blog (and for life).
What I find completely irritating is the smugness and haughtiness of this guy. It’s this attitude I found when I was living in America among many men. Kind of : “You are a bunch of losers so I am going to teach some basic truths that you should have known at the age of four, just in case you decide to use your neurons. Shut up and listen to my superior wisdom, which you don’t deserve it, you pathetic bunch. ” Of course, I am exaggerating but it’s to make my point. How do you say in English? “Self-importance”?
Is there something in American culture that produce this kind of attitude? It has always seemed shocking to me. Is it only posturing or this kind of men really believe that they are God’s gift to humanity?
Ever heard of ‘deadbeat dads’? Having sex outside of marriage brings with it the risk of out of wedlock birth…… Until they start shaming single moms, not the widow variety, as ‘deadbeat moms’ I think you should come off that horse for a bit
Manopherians, may I propose a new term for the woman who INTENTIONALLY deprives her children of a father — whether by single-motherhood, by unjustified divorce, and/or by visitation prevention (legal or otherwise). Such a woman should be called a DADbeat mom.
Since the father’s absence from the child’s life is often enforced by restraining orders, under threat of police intervention & assault under color of law if he tries to see the kids, “dadbeat mom” is a very literal term in some cases.
@ Brendan
Exactly. “The church” is really a thing of the past once “believers” begin to openly ratify the marginalization or disposability of men & fathers. What you then have is an extremely individualistic and quietist philosophy. Which is fine, but it’s not really Christianity.
@ Dalrock
Another great post.
I laughed out loud here. I appreciate the patience and good humor with which you consistently address the intellectual dishonesty and strawmanship of your spluttering detractors.
@tspoon
Off the top of my head, the only history changing figure I could think of with a single mom came to power in germany in the thirties.
Minor quibble, but who are you referring to? Bruning? Schleicher? The mustachioed one came from a nuclear family.
oh what a comments thread.
dalrock, question….is there a correlation between the number of hits that come via search engines and the number of white knight and evangelical feminists commenting? What I mean is, if they were, in this case, searching for Janine Turner and were sent here, then found this , or somehow found other threads of yours by similarly searching google benignly, then they come in as if they have found the mother load of outliers.
based on the content here, im thinking that correlation holds.
Oh, George Booth, you try very very hard to say very very little. As stand alone blog entries, its can be intriguing, as engagement with others, not so much. Its like over complicating the obvious and predictable, then tossing in a few random tangents, basing much on personal anecdote, and a dash, just a touch, of condescension, walla…..delish…
Willow, “we cant know unless we walked their shoes”….yea, i know, we are all unique and special and all that. Oddly, from 10000 feet men look very similar to other men, women to other women, from 30000 feet, we all look similar to each other. Women are behaving in bulk, then explaining it away in bulk, when called on it they say its too complex to judge, never mind that the cases 80% look alike, too complicated and we cannot comment. Come on…..her comment that she wasnt single by choice is cliche its so common. Women discuss divorce as if it is a sentient thing acting on its own, even if they file it and force it. A woman can say, and keep a straight face…..I never wanted to be single, it was not me that made me single….I told him I felt unloved, taken for granted, he couldnt meet my emotional needs, I warned, he stayed same, i filed divorce, gave him another chance, same result…..so we ended up divorce, not my fault……tHAT is the kind of crap you are talking about…………
The guys here are done with that BS…..utterly done. Whoever it was that assumed we are a bunch of bitter divorced dudes by the way…..yea thats an original one, best just think it….if it helps you to think it…..meanwhile, most here arte NOT bitter divorced men. i got 22 years and 4 kids in personally. But more important, the level of discourse here exceeds that of a gang of bitter men, and even the discourse of a gang of bitter men would be a step up for a group of women complaining about how their divorce “just happened”…..
My favorite line “the marriage ended last year ……etc. etc.”
imnobody, yes, George’s attitude is that of the pompous American know-it-all, familiar all around the world.
Trust me, people just roll their eyes at comments like his.
Good point above about norming morphing into superiority. It is like the attitude of gays. They don’t just want tolerance, they want to be seen as superior as to their sexual expression, more exciting, more sensitive, more evolved.
Classic will-to-power.
Janine Turner wants to be worshipped as a queen, in all her attributes, including her single motherhood. Female vanity in action.
Father died when he was thirteen. Klara raised the children as a single mother…
Your quibble is reasonable, although my statement was not incorrect
.
Iamnobody, and david C
(my keyboard shift key is killing caps)
About the American pompous man, well that beast takes on many forms doesnt it? This particular form is a pseudo academic, philosopher, wise old kung fu master, whatever. its very different tham the traveling American ranting and yelling in other countries, which to my perception has really improved a lot (gone less) I guess as more of us make our way around the world more often. Saw one guy at a coffee stand in a European Airport week before last yelling that ‘we do THIS in America’…about his coffee….sneaked away. Anyway this strain you see here on george, culture IMO doesnt produce, or at least not without the raw material. ive met some/several over the years, and they can actually go in a different direction than this one and be interesting. but I have to admit, and my perspective is from lots and lots of travel (which is not anywhere near same as living abroad i know) Ive not found this flavor yet over seas, in English speaking countries or otherwise. SO…..fair points. maybe its large geography affording mush isolation should one wish to have it…..dont know really, it kills the ideas that Americans are lock step simpletons religious fanatics etc that Dalrock was referring to earlier, we got our outliers like anyone else
I find your points on this interesting and though off topic, wanted to respond on it.
@David Collard
Nice point you make; that when that which is not normal is normalised then rather than achieving normality it instantly treats itself as superior. There are far too many examples in modern life (and irrelevant to this blog) which I will not mention, but Turner’s attempt to normalise single motherhood is a case in point. Single mothers find it difficult – nature shows that a pair are needed to bring up offspring – (especially males) thus their difficulty becomes heroic, yet they have created their own difficulty. The point seems almost Hegelian. Equality is thus simply not possible, no matter what the politicains may wish.
Yes, empath, I was being unfair. Pomposity knows no boundaries. Coming onto a thread with dozens of other men on it, and purport to correct us all, does take a special kind of pretentious arrogance though.
Opus, it is a perverse desire to pretend to believe the unbelievable. People have trained themselves to tell lies reflexively. Nobody really believes the polite fictions, but repeated often enough, the flattered believe the flattery. I think this is why so many women are so shocked by the Manosphere. They read what men really think.
@David Collard
That is another, rather different, though excellent point, namely: women (new to the man-o-sphere) really do seem to be shocked by what they read, and I am not referring to the sometimes crudeness or ranting and raving; I mean the general idea that men are less than impressed by cupcake’s behaviour or demands. Men, tend not to voice their views directly to women and the media and politicians pedestalise remorselessly so it must come as a considerable shock; the moreso when faced as they are by the better commentator and by clearly thought out and factually based views to which I have yet to hear good counter-arguments. Indeed the better female commentators seem to be generally in agreement.
If you have spent your entire life imbibing the idea that you are part of a group that has been unfairly discriminated against it is hard to grasp that in fact your attitude is just another version of ‘let them eat cake’ – and that you are a modern-day Marie-Antoinette, though no one ever quite explains how your group has achieved the superiority which you now notice is yours for the taking (or for that matter that you are still wearing water-wings).
Compare the above article with the comments of St. Mary
In Eastern Orthodoxy, the Sunday of St. Mary of Egypt is the Fifth Sunday of Great Lent. I was pleasantly surprised when my son told me her life was the topic of his catechism class that day. (he’s seven). While I am sure his class of 1st graders did not get the full discussion of her previous behavior, he did learn the basics of the story. And of course, her life was the topic of that Sunday’s homily.
George Booth-
You’re just another omega cheerleader of bad female behavior.
And you could not be more ignorant about Christianity.
Unless and until these women start repenting and showing some level of contrition about their ways, they have no claim on grace. They want grace on their own terms, and they want to enter the presence of God head held high, sins RATIONALIZED away.
As far as raining on our parade? Hell no! We’re glad to have another beta chump show up and make an ass of himself.
By the way, George, I found a video of you “smacking us upside the head”:
RE:
“Willow says:
May 9, 2012 at 10:53 am
It’s not about having a voice; obviously you have a voice but are you reaching the people that you want to reach or just sharing your anger with each other. If you have never been married what do you have as a basis for comparison. There are good, Christian women as well as good, Christian men available. I guess you just never met one of the good ones. Every one should have the right to attend church……most of us are sinners.
Is this blog about trying to change the way things are or just a venue to vent your anger. I think that we are responsible to help sinners, baby mommas so to speak, see the error of their ways but all I see is hatefulness and anger here. You won’t accomplish much with that.”
YES WILLOW,
Many men are very angry that womenkind slut it up, ignore good guys for scumbags, destroy their life and that of many others, and when they finally hit the wall, EXPECT society to clean up their mess, gloss over their trampy past, raise their bastard kids. This blog is a place for men to vent about this all too common narrative. The men of this blog HOPE women will read, face facts and join us men in civil behavior…unfortunately, FAT CHANCE!
Once men have swallowed the red pill (via this and other blogs), they are better equipped to make a cogent decision about whether they want to expose themselves to the treacherous path of marriage and LTR’s here in the “west”. What you see as not accomplishing much, is blinders on your part. The fact is men are bowing out of marriage, protecting assets, encouraging each other, offering fair warning etc…cheers to DALROCK and his ilk!
One thing I’ve noticed on women who wander into the androsphere and start commenting on blog posts and so on: They are absolutely shocked when the men here dare to fight back at them. I think this, even more than the contents of posts, is mind blowing to them. They’ve never had a man actually disagree vehemently and unashamedly with them, without subservience and deferential pedastilization. I think this fact shocks them more than anything else. Men who say “NO” to them. A different species than they have heretofore encountered.
That is another, rather different, though excellent point, namely: women (new to the man-o-sphere) really do seem to be shocked by what they read, and I am not referring to the sometimes crudeness or ranting and raving; I mean the general idea that men are less than impressed by cupcake’s behaviour or demands. Men, tend not to voice their views directly to women and the media and politicians pedestalise remorselessly so it must come as a considerable shock; the moreso when faced as they are by the better commentator and by clearly thought out and factually based views to which I have yet to hear good counter-arguments. Indeed the better female commentators seem to be generally in agreement.
I think it’s that the ideas are generally not welcome, and the rants and raves are used as targets to discredit the ideas that are not expressed that way. Of course, feminism had a great, great deal of ranting and raving back in the day (and today still has some of that, but much more muted because they have essentially won), but the problem is whom the ranting and raving is directed against and who is doing it. When it’s directed against women from men, it’s seen both as threatening *and* as unmasculine (i.e., “real men don’t rant, they act”). So it makes us easy to attack.
Willow-
The purpose of blog like this is to encourage men to say the truth publicly and act on it.
It is to make men bolder about calling things are they really are.
Women have broken the social and moral contract with their slutting around and then trying to pawn off their used asses on some good man who went without a wife for years.
Eff that.
Willow: Your statement comes very close to shaming language, in accusing men of being angry, which we are, and have every right to be.
Recognize that such scolding is the only tool you have left to try and control and direct the thoughts and actions of men, and that tools is losing its power.
It is time for women to start treating men as equal partners to the social contract, instead of chumps to be played and shamed into giving women exactly what they want.
Now, maybe you’re one of the good girls, I don’t know you, so I can’t say.
But MOST of you women owe us men a deep and heartfelt apology for the way you have abused the goodness we have shown you.
American females are a disgrace, and deserve to feel great shame for what they have done, even thought they may not have fully realized how grave their sins are. Men are finally doing what God has called us to do- TO BRING REPROOF TO THEM.
And we will not stop doing this until we break their stubborn pride.
Willow:
I’ll even give you an example. A couple of weeks ago, some girl was complaining about her sister’s problem with repeatedly getting dumped and treated poorly by jerky boyfriends.
My reply? Well, then maybe she should stop being such a slut.
The pain and distress in this girl’s eyes was clear. But it was the truth, and she KNEW it. She knows what her sister is. I’m done playing the sympathy violin for these chicks. If she wants to be a f***-toy for a string of a-holes, LET HER.
The coolest part was that this chick realized that even though I just called her sister a slut, she could not doing anything about it. She was powerless to stop me (obviously this is not a workplace example, where women can control the dialog).
Her one tool, shaming language, didn’t have any more power, and with no means to force a retraction, my judgment stood, loud and proud.
I know that women care deeply what men think of them. Even men whom they have no interest in.
I’m withholding that approval from bad women, as are many of the men here, and it is starting to have an effect.
Have never used nor abused men. Always treated men with respect although did not always get that in return. You lump all women together as sluts. Do you really think men have always treated women as equals or with respect? Never mind, we just have a different perspective. Have feminists gone too far, absolutely. I have nothing to apologize for as I treat all as I wish to be treated. Are you allowed to speak your mind, for sure so rock on.
@jack
This is a powerful epiphany on the part of both sides. No matter what feminists do, this will always be their Achilles heel. What if men stop pretending that what we say is true? This is absolutely terrifying to women like that. To those of us on the other side who have made the same realization, it is something else entirely. The world won’t actually end if you think and/or speak the truth. In fact, it turns out they really can’t stop us. Why were we so afraid to do so for all of those years?
This is the part that much of our sphere still doesn’t get. It is the next step of the epiphany. If we could help even 1/4 of the men in the west understand this, there would be a sea change in sex relations.
I have noticed time and again that groups that win arguments by bullying tactics in ordinary life, including the ability to gag their opponents by various social means, repeatedly lose debates online. The level playing field defeats them.
No, they can’t stop us. Why did we never do it in the past? Because we would suffer in real life if we did. And because we used to have no platform.
As Steve Sailer says, the Internet liberated conservative male voices, not progressive female voices. We had already heard everything official spokeswomen had to say. It has however given a podium to the small group of women who secretly reject the fashionable view on how men should be treated.
Every young Christian man needs to be told that marriage is not longer “til death do you part,” but rather “til she gets bored with you and feeling unhaaaaaaaapy.” They need to know that women view him as just a chump to be taken advantage of if he is at all “beta.” They need to know that if things go at all sour with his wife, his church and pastor will assume he is merely a loser. They need to know that their wife’s girlfriends will tend to egg her on in doing something stupid with her life and his. They need to know that women are rarely shamed, are assumed to be in the right in any marriage dispute, and get cash and prizes for doing the wrong thing. They need to know that social trends have resulted in an entire generation of essentially feral women that will blithely justify outright evil actions with the help of their mental hamsters.
If men ever expect to get out of the second class legal status we are in, we need well-funded high profile organizations to promote our interests. When I got divorced and went through custody hell a dozen years ago, I hired the absolute best attorney I could. Having an expert with a fiducial interest to represent my interests allowed me to fight like hell but not get my hands dirty or waste my precious energy from all the poo flinging that inevitably occurs during such a fight. It also allowed me to win the most important battle of my life. I also belong to a PAC and business lobby. Men’s Rights organizations should be patterned on such a relationship. They are there to carry out our interests and not apologize, grovel, or fear any sort of personal reprisals by women who instinctivly loathe and resent our power. Nothing personal my Dear, it is just business.
Willow-
This blog has definitely been a help to me. I am a 25-old-male that has been perplexed my whole life as far as women are concerned. A lot of women have a habit of contradicting themselves. I can’t count how many times I had tried to kiss or get close to a girl and have her reject my advances saying she didn’t know me well enough. Then, I would later see her making out with a complete stranger or sleeping with a guy who treats her terribly. I found a pua site online that confirmed a lot of things that I had seen but didn’t want to believe. Suddenly everything made sense, and I was pulling girls pretty regularly but that still comes with its own set of problems trying to placate them all the time. I feel like these women didn’t like me for me, but how close I was to fitting this archetype they had in their head. Honestly, it is easier to find 3 women willing to share me than it is to find one that wants me all to herself. The moment she feels like she has you, she is instantly looking for the bigger, better deal. When I refused to play the games I was playing the attention went away.
Even with my new success I still wasn’t happy. I eventually found this site and prefer its focus on marriage. I’ve always wanted to get married, but I’m beginning to realize that is not guaranteed. Just looking in the numbers and the people around me, not a lot of people are in happy relationships. I see the tide turning as far as female attention goes. It’s funny seeing firsthand the phenomenon I’ve heard here of women noticing you more once you get out of college and really on your own. Even with the influx of choices I’m not sure I’ll be willing to get married. It actually hurts that women who ignored me when I was younger are coming around now. I used to be a hopeless romantic, but seeing the dating game for what it really is may have soured me on the whole deal.
David
You were not being unfair, I wasnt being overly defensive about the American thing, all i was saying is I cant connect it to our culture (whetever that is) directly
Opus
Water Wings!….outstanding….
I watched in my private laboratory (christianforums.com) and learned a great deal about how women react to indeed unexpected rebuke from men. Evangelical white knights, same. Its a range of things, not the least of which to say anything that seems against conventional wisdom, things everyone knows—-right—–to say that is to seem like you are telling of being abducted by aliens, you are WEIRD. But, then another man chimes in, and another. Now what can we do?
We can try the “must be a group of bitter angry men” thingy. it progresses through all the levels, notice lots of those women just drop out early on.
the women at christianforums circled the wagons and fed off each other, then held the white knights out like kevlar, HERE is proof AND a shield.
To celebrate Janine Turner FEEEEEEELS good. In fact, it feels better than to be plain old boring obedient to God….I mean thats fina and all, but folks are not coming up to you with gifts of frankincense and EMPATHY. you cannot keep going back to the well, if you have been boring and obedient, but you can be an attention getter as a VICTIM of your own bad choice(s). Plus, you get to show off YOUR personal Jesus, where the obedient ones kind a keep him in the box because he isnt having as much asked of him
Goodfoot, There are still women, both young and old who want to be happy with someone and are willing to make the effort. Not all women today are like Janine Turner and her ilk…..some really are good women. Just keep trying and be who you are. And you are right, there are no guarantees.
conflation of the word “widow” with by-choice unwed motherhood has arisen in recent posts, and there’s a reason why churchianity and the false relgionists constantly inject that word into sermons and “lessons”
“widows and orphans” has been a major triggger-phrase of american gyno-churchianity for a hundred years now
as is so common with modern fem-pastors, scripture is twisted and removed from context to fit the female-serving obsessions of modern “worship” (our churches worship females, not God)
“widows and orphans” is constantly trotted out by the chivalrous “churchmen” as biblical command to charity . . . but notice who that “charity” is directed at
that’s why the churches are starting to combine “widowhood” with any/all unwed motherhood — the onus of charity simply slides into a (greatly) broadened category of women-and-their-children (the newl “femily”)
the bible injunctions address the ancient world, in which widowhood WAS a serious condition, often leading to starvation/death . . . thus, exactly as western politicians, pastors guilt-trip their male parishioners with emotional language (starving, dying women!!) to trigger the protect-woman impulses in the Big Strong Men
of course, it’s all lies and nonsense (but v profitable and useful nonsense)
the vast majority of homelessness and real poverty is suffered by M-A-L-E-S, not poor oppressed Widows ‘n Orphans
but that gets no sympathy nor interest from the Business Churches of Babylon — there’s no tithe-stream nor chivalrous thrills nor female approval forthcoming for aiding the ACTUAL poor and downtroddenn
for fifty years i’ve been listening to American pastors and the “christian” radio networks (Moody, etc) trot out this terrible spectre of oppressed Widows an Orphans rotting in the streets of our nations
i’ve been all over this country, and i’ve never seen ANY widows-and-orphans living in the streets . . . overwhelmingly, i see MEN and BOYS living (and dying) in America’s streets
hopefully this comment helps explain why the “widows” meme is currently being folded-in to the arsenal of fem-propaganda issued by our churches and State — it could be considered a sub-set of the State/Church defining “family” as “women-and-children” (and any male they deign to allow as a temporary-joiner . . . until mama gets bored, wants more romancing, etc.)
the self-serving cowardice of “conservative” churchgoing men about this issue is mirrored by the leftist male in his use of secularism/Statism to overprotect (even unrelated) females while holding down other (potentially competitive) males
the whole pile of bullshit is then sold as progressive and just (left) and biblically sound (right)
it’s just more amasculine pandering to Woman, the true American Pastime — under the cover of biblical obedience and Christian Charity, the law’s letter is fulfilled, and its spirit is destroyed
Pingback: Caution as the time is year. | Dark Brightness
Willow says:
May 10, 2012 at 9:36 am
You lump all women together as sluts.
Who has done that and exactly where?
FYI, completely off topic but who cares, it’s got the word Vagina in it!
Dalrock:
Somewhat OT, but have you seen the latest justification for infidelity by wives?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-shapiro-barash/why-women-cheat-how-women_b_1468736.html#s595115&title=QUESTION_Who_did
I’m not holding my breath waiting for an article in the mainstream media about how “men’s infidelities can save marriages.”
Two quotes have come to my mind as I have read through the comments for this post: the first is attributed to Albert Einstein (but I do not honestly know if he did say this) “There are two things that are infinite, the universe and man’s stupidity, though I’m not too sure about the universe” and the other is a quote from Mark Driscoll, “We know when we are living God’s way. Grace and truth are equal”.
I have one practical concern with the baby mommas. It can be difficult to tell at first whether they are really repentant, or whether they are putting on a show of repentance but treating church as a Sunday Morning Nightclub. I have now been married over 29 years, and shortly before my now wife moved to the town where I was living, I was propositioned by a divorcee I knew through church who basically told me that there was no point in risking waiting for my wife, a good Christian who was not too liberal with her physical affections, to move up to that town because she, the divorcee, was very interested in me and she could guarantee me a good time in bed. I later found that before her marriage she had had quite a reputation. But having been married for eight years and away from her home town for about five, most people were waiting to see if she had changed before saying anything or passing judgement.
I still thank God every morning I wake up alongside my wife because I was sorely tempted.
That vid makes me want to break something…as it is, Ive taken a marshmellow out of the package, and placed it on a pillow…..Im thinking of adding a 2nd pillow to this scenario…..dont push me
just be mallow, put down the package and back away — if necessary call the 911 Hotline they can talk you down . . . Kate however is beyond aid
I can attest to “God has promised that He will be a Husband to the husbandless and a Father to the fatherless.” with a very specific caveat emptor.
My father was a alcoholic who abused my mom for out of anger. She placed us in foster care and got a job and a place to live ( in the Detroit projects). She approached the Governor of Michigan to get us into better schools because we were getting bullied due to race riots ( btw, they became friends and he asked to run for State Representative ). We always attended church on the church bus, had clothes, and food. My father died within 2 years of a bad diet and drinking.
My mom moved to San Diego, worked full time, attended SDSU for her college degree, while taking care of Grandma ( dementia/ alzheimers), my brother, and me. I have never seen her date another man, drink or “go out”. She was a very Godly woman who would pass out tracts, witness, and encourage men/women to join the army of the Lord (Joel 2) and I became spirit filled when I was in high school. She surrounded us with godly men and women and a holy environment.
Because of her sacrifice and love. God did the following:
He placed 2 men that are REAL Disciples of Jesus in my life.
Men of integrity, character, discipline, truthfulness, kindness, charity, graciousness, from whom I learned how to be a man. One was a fighter pilot in the Korean war ( he flew with my uncle and they worked together at American Airlines – what are the chances of the guy moving in next door ?) And the other was a pastor that I have mentored by the last 28 years and a real deal Christian disciple who walks the talk.
Because of her sacrifice, I made it out of broken home in the projects, without crime, drugs, drinking, and abstinent till I met my wife and received my degree in business, my brother degree in ME from SDSU ( I have been involved with Biotech and medical sales and God has $$$ blessed me). I have learned about consequences and have gut level experience with the of law reaping and sowing.
To forcibly raise a child without a father is stupid, selfish, and short sighted. One reaps what they sow – NOTHING changes that – NOTHING.
I can and will attest that God is a Father to the fatherless but in only in certain conditions.
@Goodfoot:
Aim to get to know women younger than 25.
Reason?
The over 25s have had hymen reconstruction surgery.
Born-again in more ways than one.
Being responsible for the care and feeding of sluts means that there will be more of them in the future.
And you have a responsibility to yourself, your parents, and your future children not to be with a woman who has STDs, mental illnesses (can be inherited), debt (will be foisted on to you in case of a divorce), or many(any?) violent exes (let’s you and him fight to show devotion to me, is a tired attention-seeking tactic).
You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.
And, watch what women DO. NOT what they SAY.
Whoops, forgot to add this:
ALWAYS find a way to get paternity tests.
Because being unable to help your “child” if your blood groups are different, is a very crushing feeling.
And parents should be able to give blood to their own children, amirite?
Think of the children – it’s what the feminists do too 🙂
Goodfoot
Hymen reconstruction is unlikely outside a few ethnic groups, e.g. Greeks.
Have a look between her legs. If she lacks a hymen, think carefully about putting a ring on her finger.
“If she lacks a hymen, think carefully about putting a ring on her finger.”
And even if she has one, watch out for the “technical virgins”.
Better to put a clause in your marriage saying you won’t pay for “the type throat or ass cancer which can conclusively be proven to have come from HPV”. This works best if you’ve checked yourself and do not have that condition. Protecting yourself also means you need to be above suspicion (on the other hand you’ll have people tell you that you are “oppressing” women by expecting them to be honest. The kind of woman that needs to be “oppressed” before they are honest are probably not the best kind to make a family or long-term commitment with).
I bet you the researchers working on that will take a long time to get to a conclusion, because of the “sex-positive feminists”.
As Galileo said and experienced:
“Half the experiment is in the findings, the other half is having the courage to present the conclusions”.
@Michael Singer
Hey Michael, your story is inspiring, thank you; your mother and the male mentors are an inspiration.
I hope I’m virtuous and righteous enough for God to entrust me to be there for some other youth in need of a mentor.
Gods way are higher than our ways, and his thoughts higher than ours.
I see so many horrible parents and unhappy children that will grow up to perpetuate the insanity. It doesn’t really matter if it’s a one or two parent family. Sure, the chances are greater, but two horrible parents is not better than one horrible parent.
I think a majority of people decide to have kids because it’s “what you’re suppose to do”, and “it’s about time”, or the “clock is ticking”. People really ought to think carefully about why they’re having kids before they do. If there’s any hint of selfishness in the decision to have kids, PLEASE STOP thinking about your own happiness. Everyone thinks that kids will make them happy. It’s not to make YOU happy, it’s to bring happiness to a new life.
The selfishness of the world astounds me. It’s a ME world. One time I went on a date, the guy proceeded to tell me what he wanted. He wanted someone who is patient, kind, understanding, and who likes the same activities he does. It’s ALL about him and what would make him happy. I told him, so why would someone like that want to date someone like you.
I’m tired of this world. Just want to close my eyes and ears.
Kate however is beyond aid
——————————————–
And she was so incredibly, well, incredible in Underworld
How did I miss this little gem?! NAWALT!! Willow has basically gone through the whole process of shaming us, to telling us not to generalise, on to telling us that we can’t talk about it because we might not have personally been involved; to the now ever famous, not all women are like that so you guys have no clue what you’re talking about and everything is just fine crap that hamster rationalisations are made of.
Oh my, poster girl, poster girl! We have another poster girl! Wheeee! Willow, your very attempts to prove this is a non issue show exactly how much it really is an issue. You are the very problem! You fail to see what is right in front of you and when you’re hit with the truth you try and scuttle the debate by typical excuse making bullshit.
Yes, how did you since you miss nothing else in life. lol
I didn’t recognise Kate Beckinsale in that video. Pity, I thought she had more class.
Oh well, I still have Chloe Sevigny.
@George Booth:
I have a soft spot for those who use the word “Yall” so I’m going to be easy with you my friend.
It appears you consider yourself as having done due diligence in warning myself against an unknown factor?
This warning appears to be against not accepting sin.
Not accepting sin-is not a sin, it is a duty, as I said before.Try reading a bible rather than just listening to feel good sermons.
Lots of activity here to defend this sinning women,but what of the male who committed adultery to impregnate her?
In the same spirit we would have to also praise his adultery!God sure put a fire in him too!
As was said before no one has condemned her soul to hell.
We merely hate the sin and love the sinner,as the Bible requires,again, I suggest you actually read the thing!
@feministhater-regarding pussy willow (why do women name their private parts?)you missed a code red shaming.
Haven’t read the comments yet, but as I understand it, back in those times, when a man took the concubine of his childless wife, he ‘took’ her in place of the wife, who was often present at conception- the concubine was the stand-in for the wife. And then, once the child was born, it became the wife’s ‘child’, particularly once it was weaned.
What this means (as I understand it, anyhow) is that Ishmael was raised by Abraham and Sarah, as their child; in their home (which is one of the reasons Ishmael was so ticked to lose his birthright as the eldest). That means that Hagar was just the vessle and wasn’t “raising” him as a single mother. {snort}
That line of reasoning is faulty on every conceivable angle. I’m pretty sure that if God had wanted single mothers, he would have made women capable of conceiving on their own; you know, because of what’s in the bible. 🙄
Good grief, these people are really reaching, aren’t they?
As was said before no one has condemned her soul to hell.
We merely hate the sin and love the sinner,as the Bible requires,again, I suggest you actually read the thing!
—————————————————————
Its a tool for evangelical fems, when especially a man pops in to say -but what about the guy!-when we have lived 110% “what about the guy?” for decades. sheesh, what about the guy has already been asked!
It’s also a logical fallacy: When two people sin, and you talk about one of the two sinning, this does not mean you are saying the other person is innocent. We talk about Ms. Turner because she is the one out in front in the press pushing a book based on the glorification of sin. This doesn’t mean any of us are saying the baby daddy is innocent. He also fornicated.
Of course, he isn’t writing a book glorifying it while denying his own moral responsibility.
Children out of wedlock are no longer regarded to as bastards. The stigma is no longer socially acceptable to use though it is true.
In regards to the using the scripture of “God has promised that He will be a Husband to the husbandless and a Father to the fatherless.” is a intentional misquoting the scriptures – it is in the context of widows Psalm 68:5 A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling.
A quick search in the OT/NT shows that God looks out to protect widows not intentional single parenthood.
To place bastards / single parents in the same category as widows is shameful.
Michael Singer – ”He placed 2 men that are REAL Disciples of Jesus in my life.
Men of integrity, character, discipline, truthfulness, kindness, charity, graciousness, from whom I learned how to be a man.”
Micheal,
Thanks for that wonderful story.
It’s just too bad that it’s representative of a by-gone era, and is something that is not likely to happen for most father-less children today thanks to the encroachment of feminism and the churches warm embrace of that most anti-male of movements.
Today, any man who would wish to befriend a father-less boy and help to guide him to manhood faces a strange new gauntlet, with, on the one side those who are immediately suspect of any man who shows any interest in any child, and who would judge him a pervert; and on the other, the legal peril of financial obligation for that child being attached to him at the behest of the child’s mother. Take on a “fatherly” role to a child, even for the shortest of time, and the (Anti-)Family Courts have the grounds necessary to hook you up for the financial liabilities of a father as well.
And, all of that doesn’t even address the great unlikelihood of a modern women accepting her mistake in her poor choice of fathers for her children and adopting a Godly model of virtual widowhood. Now-a-days, a woman in your mother’s shoes would have the backing of Christo-bullies like Mark Driscol badgering men to “man up” for her. And, as a Churchian woman, she would even enjoy carte blanche to indulge her sexual appetites while remaining free of shame and condemnation. Such a glorious time to be a Churchian woman, indeed!
Yes, quite right. Whilst everyone around the world are shining light on the sins of men, one small corner, far away from the prying eyes of the ever growing jackboot of tyranny, a group of bloggers is quantifying and documenting the sins of women. The horrors, how dare they not be like the rest of the world and shine a light on the sins of men too!? Do you insolent men have no decency, nor shame!?
Truly thankful there is such a place for these discussions.
Anyway, I’m superunpleasantguy, so I’m generally unpleasant about these things, which really means I just don’t sugarcoat them. I really like that idea, no point in sugarcoating the truth.
To twist the scriptures and place bastards from single parents in the same category as widows is actually a fantastic idea to further remove the stigma, and condone sin in the Body of Christ.
It is a brillant strategy of the enemy to idolize sin and the delusion that there are no consequences.
Single parenthood has predictable consequences in this life and the age to come – to think otherwise is delusional and self destructive.
skillet, yes, can be a fallacy. Add that its relativism unchecked also. We live on relativism today, church, secular, political, financial, whatever, its all compare and contrast. This is predictable in light of feminism and evangelical feminism (not interchangeable terms) Entire belief sets are constructed with the cornerstone being relativism, the entire belief set that affords succor to women like Janine, publishing and preaching about her heroism, all based on relativism. Man bad woman good is the very most basic assertion resulting from relativism when juxtaposing (hand picked) male sin with (hand picked) female sin.
Pingback: Stand on a chair and drink your milk… | Feminism is Empathological
I think, on reflection, churches have sort of backed themselves into a corner on single motherhood. Since Roe, churches seem to feel that they need to put discouraging abortion at or near the top of their list of priorities. Early on, I think they found that any shaming of single mothers is twisted around and portayed as encouraging them to abort to avoid the shame. As a consequence, they started praising out of wedlock mothers for doing the “hard thing” and not getting an abortion. But, once you start rewarding and praising something, you get more of it, so now they get more out of wedlock pregnancies but probably no fewer abortions. And the more they get, the harder it is to shame them because it is the new norm.
[D: Great point.]
So, now, since the fathers have no choice in the abortion, they are left only to shame the men who “caused” this situation by not manning up and treat the women as passive actors in having sex or getting pregnant. In that regard, notice how Driscoll only screamed at the men for still having sex with their girlfriends after coming to the church for months or years, but never had a word to say about that to the women. To avoid shaming women into having abortions, they’ve effectively inverted nature and tried to make men the gatekeepers of sex. LOL
I say all this as an atheist who hasn’t regularly attended church in a long time, so I could be off. But that’s how it looks from 30,000 feet.
Crank–
That makes a lot of sense. I never really thought of it that way. I would think monogamous sex with a church-going boyfriend would be the lesser of two evils in comparison to one night stands with bad boys. If a pregnancy happens, you can influence the church-going man to take care of the child. You have no influence at all on the guys outside the church.
P.S. Shaming church-going guys won’t solve the problem. Even if every male in the church abstains, the girls will just go outside the church to get it.
Shaming church-going guys won’t solve the problem. Even if every male in the church abstains, the girls will just go outside the church to get it.
Someone needs to tell Mark Driscoll this fundamental fact.
And she was so incredibly, well, incredible in Underworld
sure, that’s her home turf :O)
Here comes another one
just like the other one
here comes another nother one
just like the other other one
Whoa hey Maestro!
said it’s espresso
Hey Maestro….
(M. Knopfler)
@David Collard
I would say it is much more that we thought we would suffer in real life if we did. Certainly there are instances where we would suffer, as Jack mentioned (work). But in general, speaking the truth or at least thinking the thoughts turns out to be either consequence free or outright beneficial. This is something important that game has taught us. Unless women have outside power at their disposal to silence us, they have no power over us. They will much against their feminist wishes find those men most desirable and likable who scoff at their attempts to silence us.
Yes, women do respect bluntness in real life. The two mistakes men make are to be put off by mild protestations or to try to sugar-coat. It comes down to moral courage in the end.
Feminist Hater says:
May 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm
“The project, aptly named, Girrrrrrrrl Power.”
Priceless.
Dalrock — But in general, speaking the truth or at least thinking the thoughts turns out to be either consequence free or outright beneficial. This is something important that game has taught us.
then as usual, Game has “taught” you exactly Rong
you put one toe in the ocean, now youre announcing that sharks dont exist! lol
speaking the truth long enough — ESPECIALLY about feminism, the western matriarchies, or the nature of human females — will GUARANTEE that a dumptruckfull of Negative Consequencs will be unloaded (happily!) on your head . . . and it will often be done with all the Legal Documents duly signed and all the Officials duly banking their paychecks
in varied personal and employment environments, i can attest that even small resistance to femnism/female supremacy/PC will be met with MANY negative consequences, all designed to intimidate and injure you for not submitting to your just collective punishment for your sin of maleness
i have lost count over the years of the malicious operations and dirty tricks people have pulled b/c i dared to speak the truth . . . or merely b/c i existed as an unapologetic male in employment/education venues that these folks considered already “conquered”
MANY vile incidents in the public sector — both employment and education environments —
years of lost wages, forced from jobs, abandoned education programs, to say nothing of the hazing, accusing, and mocking from fellow employees and university students, professors, and admin
but the most damaging stuff was the reaction from relatives, in-laws, and (former!) friends who were/are OUTRAGED that i would disagree with feminism and desire to continue The Patriarchy’s vast historical Oppression of Women (sigh)
beyond the fem-State and fem-workplaces and fem-schools, it is these personal people who will make your life a living hell . . . b/c they feel they have been personally betrayed by you (i.e., your refusal to accept lies reflects on their acceptance of those lies, thus you are a walking rebuke to them, an enemy of The Team)
Dalrock is v new at this, but know that if you speak truth in this world — ESPECIALLY during these times — you will pay a price
Christ said that those serving him and his Father would be HATED by the world for speaking truth against it
apparently Game teaches us different, and who am i to question Game . . . but i’m gonna stick with that Jesus guy, he’s not new and hot and hip, he’s just trustworthy and right
I don’t disagree Ray. There is the reason I don’t blog under my own name. I should have clarified better. There is a great deal of organized force ready to come down on public feminist thought criminals. I sense this, and I sense it much stronger when I’m criticizing the Christian feminists than the secular ones. Those are the ones much more likely to try to come after me personally for writing the truth.
My point was with individual women, on a personal basis. It also stands for our own families. Understanding the truth and teaching it to our children can only help them.
Yes, you can safely do it with women you know well. I told my wife yesterday that no, I am not running the washing machine, not now, not ever, not even now that I am retired. Woman’s work.
I am still here to tell the tale, and she seems a little, shall we say, “hot” for me today and has trotted off to the gym.
I also told her to be quiet while I was speaking at a recent meeting with a couple of education officials, and I have done the same in front of social workers.
You have to pick your battles, but you can win.
preciate the clarification, obviously i misinterpreted or misunderstood part of yr comment
tho still developing, what youre offering is the gentle (if firm) way — befits a biblical dad w/kids, befits the closing of the ‘lamb aspect’ of Christ’s ministry
what you offer seems harsh to modern ears, esp female ears, grown so soft with sonorous lies
my hope is that many will humble themselves and accept the opportunity offered by good men at places like this — to face difficult truths, recant feminism and male-hatred, re-embrace fatherhood at the center of the Godly family, and submit to valid instruction as expressed in sermons herein
this site encourages and emboldens many Christians already questioning their feminized churches/cultures . . . puts a smile on the Lord’s sweet face
ray, men have to get tough with women. I think a lot of men thought, in the early days of the feminist movement, that women could be placated. But women, especially feminists, will never be happy whatever you say or offer them. It is time to stop playing nice.
Feminists are miserable about being women. There is no cure for that.
Men have to take the rhetorical gloves off, and start being blunt. Call a slut, a slut. Call bullshit, bullshit. Remind women how much they need men for their quality of life, and how little women can invent and fix by themselves. And so on.
(Does it never strike these loudmouthed female interlocutors that using the Internet, the invention of men, to abuse men, is a little bit ironic, if not hypocritical?)
Time to stop making nice. It has failed as a strategy, and it should be abandoned. Women, even feminists, despise soft talk from men.
Right, I wonder if the same adage applies to truth as to lies, repeat it enough and people start believing it
Ray I have an online friend who, after doing battle on a Christian website forum type place with the evangelical fems there, and one of those fems ending up banned, she tracked him in real life and sent his wife a note accusing him of inappropriate behavior in speaking to another female poster at the forum.
What she didnt know is the guy knew the other women as did the guys wife know the other woman and there was not even a whiff of wrong doing and hence no issue to exploit. BUT, the feminist tried.
The same gang, I have no doubt, have queued up similar on me, as I see the footprints of their tracking online. Check the attempts to deal with Elam at AVFM, this is all very real because women, when confronted with truth they dislike, turn to rules and technicalities. That actually encapsulates the modern divorce process, the differences get irreconcilable meaning he stops obeying her, she can use the rules/law, nevermind the legitimacy of her complaints, that a rule exists to enforce her will MAKES her will righteous
@David Collard
Brilliantly put.
@David Collard – May 8, 2012 at 8:41 pm
The problem with Hobbes interpretation of human nature is it basically justifies a hierarchical socioeconomic model which restricts behavior in order to make everyone “good” and beat out their “bad” nature. But, since God doesn’t walk the Earth physically and openly in any sense today, we don’t have him to sit atop the socioeconomic pyramid.
We’re stuck with other humans of bad nature leading the hordes of bad natured humans! What Locke and Rousseau advocated lends more credence to letting each run their own affairs. A given moral authority and code is more voluntarily submitted to and lacks the centralized power structure that spans the schism between man and “goodness.” This is the more autonomous model where the economic needs (don’t forget, we live in a realm where matter and energy seem to be strictly conserved) are more easily met as each knows best his needs and how to get them.
Ultimately, what individuals strive for isn’t neccessarily good or bad, but typically self interest. How self interest is formed and interpretated by the individual and society influences if they are good or bad natured. If most individuals believed that cooperating with your neighbor and adhering to moral/social codes is more advantageous in getting said individual’s needs met more cheaply and efficiently, he will do it so long as he is of sane mind.
Christianity as a social standard is great in an individualistic society as it exhalts self control greatly. The greatest advancement of human technology in the last 10 generations (1800-today) happened in a country that did not socially micromanage its populace. There was no universal top for a bad natured human to stomp on his competitors. Only lately (last half century) has this become false, with the economic consolidation of the pillars of free society into the multinational corporations and the advent of modern psychology. Now you can make your slaves behave certain ways by drugging them with chemicals and controlling the environment they grow up in, and MANY children today are brushing with and eating fluoride, eating Monsanto GMOs and pink sludge McDonalds, and being raised by the television, which is controlled (in America) by no more than 5 multinational corporations!
Hobbes is right in that humans are bad natured, but is wrong that man needs to be ruled for there are very few living humans fit to rule. Locke isn’t 100% correct in the innate good of humanity, as humans are self interested and have to be cultured to believe the propogation of the species is a good thing, in order to demonstrate Locke’s innate goodness.
If you want an argument for a governing structure as close to anarchy as possible, here’s some quotes from Bertrand Russell that should russle your jimmies if you take in the full implications this quote has to today’s modern American:
“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .”—-Bertrand Russell,1953
“Education in a scientific society may, I think, be best conceived after the analogy of the education provided by the Jesuits. The Jesuits provided one sort of education for the boys who were to become ordinary men of the world, and another for those who were to become members of the Society of Jesus. In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.” —–Read the book online here…[part 3, XIV, Education in a Scientific Society p.251]
“Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished … The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” —–Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810
Now you can make your slaves behave certain ways by drugging them with chemicals and controlling the environment they grow up in, and MANY children today are brushing with and eating fluoride, eating Monsanto GMOs and pink sludge McDonalds, and being raised by the television, which is controlled (in America) by no more than 5 multinational corporations!
————————————————————-
Sad, build a nice case, dissect and unpack some good quotes, then write the above…..disappointing.
One would prefer life spans of 40 years, widespread famine, and death from simple bacterial disease….but good gravy everything would be organic and no corporations would own anything.
Somewhat offtopic but still relevant:
Stanton and Driscoll would be proud. This guy’s about to man up and marry a single mother.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-mcnay/thank-you-single-moms_b_1513129.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
I particularly like the idolising of their superiority. Apparently single moms are better at giving unconditional love than the average alpha chasing, myneeds-first slut.
He even looks like a woman worshipping, mangina beta.
http://mcnay.com/
Pingback: The Personal Jesus…one introduction | Feminism is Empathological
@Brendan 9:23 am
Paul Elam has once explained the gynocentric mentality thus:
“Women’s whining = pursuit of justice
Men’s pursuit of justice = whining”
This is just another manifestation of the insanity that men need to be liberated from.
@an observer
As would the 700 club. That article is really painful. He tells us that his “marriage crumbled”, but doesn’t say what actually happened. Given how self debasing he is if he had cheated or walked out I can’t imagine him not announcing this fault to the world. All signs point to his (former) wife becoming unhaaaapy keeping her lifetime promise to him and their children and hitting the eject button; Now give me my cash and prizes. Then he tells us how great it is that his daughter is an unwed mother, but somehow he feels the need to tell us that after 11 years of being one of Stanton’s heroes she is engaged.
Check out the logo on McNay’s site too: a male emperor penguin incubating an egg. In the animal kingdom, you have to go all the way to Antartica to find another species of feminist males. Antartica’s defining trait being its cold hatred of life.
@will
I’ve been hoping to find a Christian ministry worthy of my monetary support. I watched that video from Peterson and immediately went over to BOND’s website and dropped a $50 on them.
Thanks for that.
Are you people for real???????? Seriously, I stumbled across this on the internet & I now know why my heart sinks a little when someone tells me they are a Christian… What about love thy neighbour? Do unto others? & I’m sure there are plenty of other messages in your bible about being a good person (to your fellow human beings) & not judging others??????????? I am not a Christian but I am a good person & I think your God would be ashamed of you!!!!!!!!
Karen, “Love thy neighbor” does not mean, “Act like it’s a good thing when your neighbor does something wrong and doesn’t repent.” And if judging others is wrong, why did the heroes of the Bible spend so much time judging others? Why does the Bible have rules concerning how we should act around sinners? If you’re going to use the Bible in your arguments, I suggest you read it first.
The ten commandments of Christian feminists:
1. I am woman; hear me roar (especially at the worship leader).
2. Thou misogynist patriarchal ideas shalt kneel before me.
3. Thou shalt not judge any woman’s behaviour.
4. Thou shalt remember Mothers day, and keep it holy.
5. Honour thy mother, and blame your father.
6. Thou shalt not commit verbal atrocities, except in encouraging and exhorting men.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery, until dearest hubs can be proved deficient.
8. Thou shalt not steal, except by divorce, or through government approved redistribution agencies.
9. Thou shalt not tell porkies, except when needed to justify thy behaviour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours alpha, career, or social status, unless you have the chance to trade up.
Thus endeth today’s lesson. . .
@ Karen
“Son, I love you so much, if your thing is going out raping and murdering women, I won’t judge you. That would be wrong. By the way, do you need the keys for the car tonight dear?”
When I stop having to pay for other peoples wrong decisions, I will quit saying they are wrong.
Clever, Observer. I especially liked no. 4.
I left an argument that I was ashamed of making, but I see now that most couldn’t even read it for what it was. Someone up-thread suggested it was my duty to present my point.
I’ll address one who got close:
“Slut shaming doesn’t propose ungoing demoralization of the individual. It requires not celebrating the sin. That’s the point you are missing. ” – GKChesterton
I have not “missed” that point. I have been reading what is posted here and seen that what you propose is NOT what is going on. Y’all are, in fact, advocating slut shaming in a manner and for the purpose of demoralizing the individual. Y’all are so caught up in your own pride that you can’t recognize that.
If y’all lived up to that nifty idea GK describes, I’d have no problem with y’all. Y’all don’t.
I read about how terrible is the unwed mother’s character, how deep and wide a swath of destruction she is responsible for, how she should be driven out for the danger she poses to others in the congregation.
I read not one bit of compassion for her. Not once does the idea “There, but for the grace of God, go I” show up at all.
Did I say callousness as righteousness? Yeah, that’s y’all.
Can I make it simple enough? I don’t know. Maybe like this:
You’re assholes.
You hate the unwed mother.
You hate her so you can be better than her.
You step on her to elevate yourselves, because the core of your faith is about being better than other people.
You believe that you made the right choice to ask Jesus to come into your heart. So, you’re better than other people who didn’t – or might not have.
It’s that one tiny bit of pride that demands that you hate the unwed mother.
~~~
On an unrelated note, Dalrock had wanted to hear of a church that acted in support of marriage. I remember when he first asked for news of one. Last I read, he hadn’t heard of one yet. I’d been holding off on describing my experience, my measured alienation from my church, for behavior arguably counter to marriage. Now that I have, Dalrock has made no note of it. It was unintelligible to him. He said he couldn’t understand what I was saying.
I’m shocked.
George, Jack Burton had a question:
Good for you George……I agree. Now I know that I will get slammed for not agreeing with the majority of the men on this blog. God knows our hearts, he will be the judge.
Y’ALL Y’ALL Y’ALL – Quick; smack Georgie in the back of the head – he seems to be broken. We wouldn’t want to lose our resident sage, would we?
“how deep and wide a swath of destruction she is responsible for”
Yes, as a matter of fact. While Georgie and Willow whip themselves into a frenzy of pro-babymomma White Knighting, might I suggest that the sane contributors around here look up the statistical correlations between single motherhood and juvenile delinquency? Curse those “misogynist” statistics! Right, Willow?
So, yes, these women are leaving a swath of destruction. It’s not enough that they have the option of raising their bastard-crop of future rapists, crack fiends, vandals, carjackers, thieves, killers, and gang members. It’s our DUTY to praise them for what they’re doing, because not praising them isn’t “compassionate”. And it’s their God-given RIGHT to have their their poor choices subsidized by the Church or Uncle Sam.
“how she should be driven out for the danger she poses to others in the congregation”
Contributors may also wish to read Matthew 18:15-17 and I Corinthians Ch. 5 for instructions on handling unrepentant sinners, and comments about how tolerance of individual sin – including sexual sin – will affect the church as a whole.
Or don’t. Because, you know, Jesus is Happy Sky Daddy who NEVER wants us to tread on woman fornicators’ Self Esteem. And NEVER conceived of circumstances in which fornicators should be driven from the Church. That would be a Very Bad and Hurtful Thing. Back then the Apostle Paul & others didn’t have mental giants like Willow and George around to share their insights about “Niceness” and “Tolerance”, so Y’ALL please take the verses above with a grain of salt.
“I know that I will get slammed for not agreeing with the majority of the men on this blog. ”
Typical Churchianette – whingeing about Earthly social approval – which is trivial – and ignoring the greater issue (offending God the Father by instructing others to ignore His doctrine, as she did in her first post).
Chris, your comments are obviously directed at someone other than myself. Nothing in what I wrote suggests supporting destructive behavior. Naming their sin is requisite. Assuming a personally superior moral position while doing so is hubris.
I used and even over used ‘y’all’ because the proper third person singular form was unwieldy and the second singular too confrontational. I struck an awkward balance that I liked even less than you.
That last sentence was ambiguous. No worry. I meant it both ways.
@George in regarding “Assuming a superior moral position while doing so is hubris”.
I would have to disagree with you in the context of Janine Turner and what she is representing.
If you have scripture for “Assuming a superior moral position while doing so is hubris” – please present it.
How a Christian ( synonymous with disciple, elect, saints, holy ones as seen in the scriptures) is subject to judgement from the above mentioned if they do not judge themselves ? If a “Christian” is not conducting themselves in such a manner they are “de facto” and not “de jure” in a superior moral position and pointing out a grossly false teaching.
If you need scriptures – I could mash up with at least 30 or so in the NT alone to support this. In addition, there are plenty of warnings about false teachers ( Nearly every book in the NT ).
To NOT take a superior moral position while a public self professed “Christian” ( synonymous with disciple, elect, saints, holy ones ) has a child out of wedlock, promote single parenthood, multiple sexual partners/cohabitation, soft porn is to condone and promote such behavior. It is a grossly obvious “Jezebel” type.
Here is a very simple question:
What was the instructions of Christ to the woman caught in adultery ?
Was it to promote adultery, multiple sexual partners/cohabitation, live a promiscuous lifestyle and flaunt her body, get the endorsement of some temple priest, proclaim it and reproduce it so other young women can follow as a example ?
Or was it go and sin no more ?
I strongly suggest reading the scriptures since just about every book in the bible has a prophet, priest, apostle, or such passing judgement – they were “de facto” in a superior moral position and eventually wrath on those who commit such things who are Israel/ elect/ called/ chosen of God.
I love this. It makes me think that everything will be fine for my little one. Trust in God and there is nothing you can’t do.
Maddie, are you suggesting that women who divorce their husbands, or otherwise jettison the father of their kids, can just trust that God is going to protect the kids from the fallout? If that what you mean, Im sorry to say but you are simply and demonstrably wrong, but you are parroting The Personal Jesus (TM) PERFECTLY, the one who understands why you did what you did and changes his very nature to accommodate.
If Im way off base my apology. If I’m correct, well, I’m saddened to see yet another destructive manifestation of this flawed religion called churchianity
Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock
Pingback: The normalization of the trashy single mother. | Dalrock
Wow! I am totally shocked in what I am reading, I am a 42 year old mother that is going to be a first time grandmother. I was on this site looking for a good book to help my daughter know that there are women out there that is going through the same thing she is and there is an abundance of support that she doesn’t have to do this alone. With this much anguish about a book, I have to buy it now just to see what all the fuss is about. I do know one thing for certain I will not judge my daughter or anyone else’s daughter because of a decision they made that is their God given right and free will to choose just because people think it is unchristian to raise a baby out of wedlock. When I read a post someone saying sluts and harlots, my heart sank where is your compassion? God is the only one who is perfect and aloud to judge, yes by all means rant and rave but be very careful in your judging that day will come when you are reevaluated as well.
@Teresa
May I offer you congratulations on the fact that you are soon to be a Grandmother (at the age of 42). You do not say whether your daughter is married or not, so it is not clear whether any other woman is equally going to delight in Grandmotherdom. Let’s hope so. Would you also care to say exactly what it is that your daughter is going through, so we may understand better what (if such be the case) is her dilemma, for surely, being a future mother, is a cause only for joy and celebration. You say you will not judge your daughter, but do not say why she would need to be judged (an act that you assign onl to God) or what she has done that needs judgement. Can you explain? What exactly is the decision she made and exactly what right is it that you assert God has given her – so that I may confirm the same from my own copy of The Bible (King James Version)?
I am sorry if this site has shocked you, although I notice in my earlier comment on 10th May 08.07am, I remark on the fact that women new to the Man-o-sphere (now renamed the Androsphere ) are frequently shocked at first by what they read. Patience and Perseverance therein usually pays off.
To be honest I haven’t even read all of this blog , but some of, most I these responses from so called Christians blow my mind. So judgemental. Shouldn’t you be helping, teaching someone who is lacking the knowledge of Gods word!!! Instead you come on her and leave paragraphs of bashing!! You should be praying for someone instead. It seems many of you need some prayer also
Pingback: Considering A Intimate And Unashamed Gods Design
Pingback: Christian sluts | Hubweekly
Nice try, pumpkin. We have every right to judge whether a woman is wife potential or not.
Saved? Great. Sister in Christ? No problem. Drive you to church? Sure. Fix your furnace? No problem.
But to be a wife, you have to have your morals AND AND AND life situation in place. I’m not giddy about raising another man’s child because some chick could not keep her legs closed during college.
Or playing her kid’s way through college and bailing out her credit card debt. You spent your youth making stupid mistakes with college athletes, or whatever. You had your chance for a good man, now its too late.
Good luck, girls.
Umm…i am a single mother. I did not know Christ during that time. I am deeply sorrowed for the pain I have created. We are apart of a fallen world. That was my sin. What is yours?(said with compassion). With the announcement that I was carrying a child, I realized the consequences of my actions. I knew of God but I was not a Christian. I became a Christian before our child was born. The father wanted to be married but he was not interested in following Christ. I couldn’t marry him. We are no longer together but he he helps take care of his child. I have read some comments here-some I agree with some I do not.There should be a stigma for being a single mother….there is, believe me. But there should be love & independent, man hating “s***s”. I did not know Chris and that makes all the difference.
Sm, it does make some degree of difference, but is not entirely an excuse. I’m not going to be the one to rub your face in it because you need to repent for your sins, I have my own. The thing you will get barked at for is if (not that you are) you go on one of these tirades about how men should accept what you did and “just deal with it”. This does happen and that is one of the things we get pissed about. There are many men who would not marry you with a child. If one does hopefully you will appreciate him for the sacrifice this entails. As for the father of the child, quite honestly, there would be nothing wrong with marrying him, if he is willing. You were together before you were Christian. The Apostle Paul tells us in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Ch 7) that if the spouse is an unbeliever and wants to leave then let him/her leave but if they want to stay together then do so. You might be the one who brings him to the faith. I’d recommend getting the advice of a Priest on this rather than some bloke on the interwebz, but it is something you should consider.
God be with you.
However things turn out down the road, remember it was your choice to be a single mother. Even after the accidental pregnancy, you chose not to marry when you had the option.
Your child is a bastard now… and will suffer for your sins.
Congratulations, you compounded your sin and did it in the name of the Lord!
1 Corinthians 7
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Amazing, the women who come to shame Dalrock and prove him right instead.
This is not to throw stones at you, Em. I am speaking as the product of a woman that made similar choices as you. Without a biological father directly involved with me day to day, I basically grew into a wimpy, “sensitive” chump– invisible to women, really. My mother was ill-equipped to teach me how to be a man. Also… the “step dad” type guys that were involved in my life growing up… they provided some semblance of normalcy over the years. But the most father-like of them was cheating on my mom the whole time and now he and his family are completely cut off from me. These problems impact my children as there is no Granddad to contribute to their well being.
You have chosen a very tough row to hoe… and your child will pay the price.
Pingback: - Gorgons for Christ: the boy with the chameleon last name. | The Woman and the Dragon
Pingback: Single mothers and the failure of Christain men; it is time to Man Up! | Dalrock
Have any of you people who are judging unwed mothers ever thought that maybe they didn’t get saved until after having children out of wedlock? So, then should you judge them for taking they’re children to church and getting saved? Do you want to be e stumbling block to they’re salvation? I am a single mother with two children whom I had out of and I still consider my children a blessing from God. Are they not? He knew them before I did! So, now I have been saved and I think it’s time someone shed light on what the bible says about unwed mothers and how they should live. I often ponder if I am supposed to date,or if getting married is a sin for me … I think that although, this book may not be exactly what I’m looking for that it is grasping the concept and questions that so manu unwed mothers want biblical answers to. So quit judging please! I believe the Bible makes many references to casting judgement and also how God deals with and convicts people of they’re sons in different ways…
Sirena-
A woman in the situation you describe COULD end up being marriage material, as long as she fully accepts and owns what she has done.
The first thing she needs to have is the attitude of the prodigal son – she needs to be willing to enter a relationship fully repentant of what she has SQUANDERED AWAY.
God can replace what has been lost, but not when she rationalizes away her sins by calling them mistakes, or if she says that such experiences “made me who I am today – the person that you love!!!.
The true sign of repentance is that someone is more concerned with doing what is right than they are with getting what they deserve. If you act like a Biblical woman, you have the greatest chance of success.
Look at it from our point – Many of us men have a good income, no kids, no debt (except mortgages) savings, etc. We have all those things from hard work and sacrifice. While we were busy building this life for ourselves, many women were out “having fun” and ignoring good men in order to have exciting and dramatic relationships with bad men.
Now they want to move into our lives and obtain the benefits of a life they did not help build. And this is after their youth is gone, much of their looks are gone, and their sexual innocence is certainly gone.
We did our part, becoming the kind of provider they want. What do they bring? They need to work HARDER to get us than they ever did for Mr. Alpha Badboy.
Did they give him the best of their sexual energy? Better find some more of it. The man who marries a woman and has to grow old with her should get at least a good a deal as the creeps who used her.
Or are they looking for a safe harbor to sail the wreckage of their lives into for some rest?
Well, SORRY. Their rest is in the Lord, not in a man.
Will we be their friends? Yes. Will we do for them what we would do for any other person who needs the help of another? Yes. But to marry and commit? That is asking a lot. The fact that they spent their value is not my problem, it is theirs. Do they really want to be a charity case?
Do they want to show up peniless, with their innocence plundered and soul ravaged, begging for a spot in my life? I don’t think they do. And make no mistake, good men resent being presented with the wreckage of a woman’s mis-spent years and being told to man up and marry her.
We had to learn to live without you when you were out living wrong. We are used to solitude. Thanks, you’ve made it very easy to get along without you.
Let’s just be friends. I don’t think of you as “my type”.
Stings a bit don’t it? How many good men did you say that to?
To answer your question about Biblical advice, here goes:
Women in this situation should ask themselves what they can do to right the wrongs they have caused. They should NOT be asking “what do I need to do to get a husband”.
This is just the same old selfishness trying to play by the woman’s new “religious scheme” instead of the party-girl slut method. It is still selfish and self-centered.
If you want to repent, start by treating good men well, even the ones you are not attracted to and won’t marry you. You have a lot of paying back to do for the good men you have – albeit unintentionally – mistreated.
Best Wishes.
Sirena, why should I marry you? You come with liabilities and limit my ability to have children of my own. What do you offer that offsets the negatives?
I have a young relative who had 2 children out of wedlock as a teenager. She is 23 now (very striking and attractive) and is recently married to a man (34, I think) who loves her a great deal. A couple of things come to mind.
The first is that she has a very sweet, submissive spirit. Between her nature and his commanding presence, with the age difference, they have a good chance of success. The second is that he makes a very good living and the expense of her children was never something he seemed to consider when he pursued her.
Women in these situations need to understand that any man who takes on this responsibility is taking a leap of great faith and demonstrating a level of sacrificial love that many men are unwilling to do.
If a man steps up to such an awesome task, he should be respected, loved, and submitted to in equal measure. Most women are not prepared to do that and most men need to understand that before they step into it.Far too many are so focused on their kids that the relationships rarely succeed because this is not the way families were meant to be formed.
A big age gap is a major plus, I forgot about that one.
A 10+ year age gap would get my attention. 15 would be better.
@Siren
We’re guessing you magically found god at the age of 30
Everyone knows you’re a reformed slut, the church is clearly not the place for you …
You’re too much of a liability to be in a church
Try finding a vocation more suitable to the abuse you’ve put your children through, by being a single woman, unmarried harlot
Sirena’s comment is important because it illustrates again the female response to having her sin pointed out to her:
“Don’t judge! You can’t judge me!”
Sirena, if you were really saved, you’d welcome the judgment, for good or ill.
How many good men did you judge unworthy of you while you engaged in the conduct that got you your two bastard children? Would you have tolerated anyone telling you “don’t judge! You can’t judge me!”
Did you judge the men who impregnated you as worthy of extramarital sex? Why, yes, you certainly did. You judged when you decided to proceed with that conduct.
It is only now, when you want to date and marry to find a man to support your children (er, sorry) to find happiness for yourself, that you insist against judgment.
Any man who dates you should be aware that you demand not to be judged, despite the fact that you exercised plenty of judgment which resulted in their rejection and your insemination with alpha seed.
@ Sirena “questions that so manu unwed mothers want biblical answers to.”
The bible teaching is pretty clear – one reaps exactly what they sow.
I gather you are in the process of figuring this out. To have the expectation of finding a man to partner up and marry you because you “are now a Christian” is a bit far reaching and a unrealistic expectation.
A woman that has children out of wedlock is unattractive to any man whether he a is a Christian or not (really think about this). They are not his kids nor his responsibility. The outcomes that are associated with such relationships is less than favorable for everyone involved except for you.
Have you asked yourself why would a man would want to take on a woman w/2 kids out of wedlock and pay for the raising of some other guys kids when he could take a woman with no kids (baggage) ? Not a good deal for him. Honestly, you may find some older schelp who has kids of his own and have a venal relationship.
It sounds like you have some figuring out to do with finding out who G_D is and what the bible says.
If you like, I’ll save you some time and offer some scriptures.
Any man who will marry you is committing adultery (Luke 16:18) since you are still bound to the father(s) of your children (John 4).
Biblically speaking – You are still married and therefore not marriage material.
~Shalom
I was kinda worried I was being harsh – but now I see that I am hitting about par.
It is the “don’t judge me” that makes me question her commitment to her faith.
That is not what Biblical repentance looks like. Most women with screwed up pasts are basically looking for additional spiritualized hamsterbating tips.
Sirena: “So quit judging please!”
Are you judging our judging? I’m sure the irony went entirely over your head.
Pingback: The birds and the bees and accidentally finding oneself pregnant. | Sunshine Mary
@ Sirena,
“Stop judging, please”.
The age old cry of the wannabe victim.
(Sarcasm) I know…..it just ‘happened’. It wasn’t your ‘fault’, These men treated you ‘badly’. (even though these men’s track record indicated same) This times it is different.
The bible IS about judgement. Pick up the f*cking book and READ it, instead of loosely paraphrasing things you think you have heard. Start with Ephesians 5: 22-33
You are asking a man to sign up for the expense & drama of raising children that are NOT his own. On top of that, you are asking him to take the ENORMOUS financial risk of extending shields around your tattered life, having demonstrably proved your POOR judgement.
What are you willing to offer in return?
If it is anything short of total deference & reverance for such a man, then pick up your long list of ‘expectations’ for him, and list of ‘must haves’ for yourself, and go exercise some of that palpable ‘girl power’ I keep seeing in the media.
You don’t need a man (just his money).
Casey – “What are you willing to offer in return?” ,
“You don’t need a man (just his money).”
“You are asking a man to sign up for the expense & drama of raising children that are NOT his own. On top of that, you are asking him to take the ENORMOUS financial risk of extending shields around your tattered life, having demonstrably proved your POOR judgement.”
Insightful, classic and worth noting !
DONT JUDGE SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY SIN DIFFERNTLY THAN YOU DO. I’m assuming you’re all sinless? Each of you without any “planks” in your eyes? Also, you must be VERY INTELLIGENT to be able to understand something as big and vast and unending as the love of God. You should applaud yourselves , here you are , the only handful of humans able to fully understand GOD . You can even speak for him and let us know what he would deem a disgrace? Wow. Amazing . I’m always Intruiged by “Christians” who think that God is so big, vast,omnipotent , omnipresent , able to offer “peace that passes understanding” could be fully understood after reading just one book. Or , as you each have , hand picking passages from that one book. It is my most sincere hope that when you get your mansion i heaven you are sandwiched between a single mother and a gay couple . I hope the Welcome basket Jesus leaves on your door step says Something like “SUPRISE! You were way off!” You people and your judgment are the reason the church is dying. This is NOT Wwjd. Shame on you.
I feel vindicated when some dumb leftist pro-homo chick who can’t type or argue well attacks us. We have the right enemies that we should. 🙂
Hm… I’m going to take a wild stab here that Scarlet is another carousel rider who jumped off as the wall approached (probably with a bastard kid or two in tow), just to find that no one wanted her.
@Scarlett said: “I’m always Intruiged by “Christians” who think that God is so big, vast,omnipotent , omnipresent , able to offer “peace that passes understanding” could be fully understood after reading just one book.”
The Bible is what God gave us so that we could understand him. Since God seems to feel this is adequate (otherwise he would have given us more book), then Yes I do think you can understand God by reading the Bible (at least as far as God intends us to understand him).
@Scarlett said: “It is my most sincere hope that when you get your mansion i heaven you are sandwiched between a single mother and a gay couple .”
This statement speaks for itself. Scarlett may be a lot of things, but a Biblical scholar she is not.
Despite her saying it wasn’t by choice, this most likely was a planned pregnancy.
She was a high-flying career woman for over a decade (started her acting career in her teens). She had no trouble taking the needed steps to not become pregnant during that decade.
Then she hits 30; her bio-clock is ringing and there isn’t a husband in sight. Within two years she has mad a mistake and gotten pregnant. A mistake she had no trouble not making the previous decade (when she didn’t want to have a child).
The pastor is teaching moral relativism.
If the husband would become a BETTER leader, his wife would follow him. You can’t measure better; it isn’t an absolute measure, so who decides when better is good enough for the wife to start following?
The wife, and since the measure of what is “good enough” is different for every wife, it is a relative measure. It’s a modern case of “everyone doing what is right in their own eyes,” or in this instance “every wife determining what is good enough in her own eyes.”
I just read a few of your blogs and a few comments from each. While there is some truth, there is a lot of generalization and assumption I have noted in what I have read. I am a single mom of a two year old. Back in 2009, I was raped. Before that I was a virgin, eagerly waiting on God, serving and loving Him, and hoping that one day He would bring a husband to me. Being raped was the beginning of a downhill spiral in my life. I was living in a new city and had nobody, and was raped by a neighbor, and was fearful of him and for my life. I should have gotten help from authorities, but was this neighbor had me emotionally trapped and fearful…too afraid to take care of myself. In 2010, he was arrested and deported from the country for other reasons. I was broken, but I’d made a friend in a man who seemed to be my hero…my knight, someone I could count on, and the love of my life. However, I was still broken. I had not healed, and I got into a relationship with him. I slept with him, and do not believe I would have if I had taken time to heal first. It was my failure for coming from a broken place in my life. I got pregnant immediately. I was scared, but this man supported me. For a few months, it looked like we would have gotten married. But then, he got scared. When I was 20 weeks pregnant, he had not even told his own brothers I was going to have a baby! I was showing. Everyone I had known and loved knew. I had lost a few friends. I had dealt with heartbreak, guilt, and disappointment from God, myself, and others. My boyfriend was taking six credit hours in school to finish his bachelor’s degree, but wouldn’t man up and get a job to help. Not only was I growing a baby, but I was working a full time job, actively involved at church, working a part-time job, and taking 11 college credit hours to earn an extra endorsement (I had already completed college several years earlier). When my boyfriend and I had a problem and I would try and address it, he would just cry. Eventually, after professional counseling, counsel from my pastor, and counsel from my parents, I chose to end the relationship. It broke my heart. I had tried to work on the relationship. But, in the end of the day, it was the best choice for my soon to be born baby. The last day we spoke was the day I invited him to one of my ultrasounds. He didn’t show up and he didn’t contact me afterwards. I do not have child-support. I do not have government aid. I do not receive “hand-outs” from a church or any other nonprofit agency. I work hard. I have paid of my college loans, and am saving money for a down payment on a house. I have repented, and I do my best everyday to be my best for God, my son, and myself.
So, here’s my question. Where is grace? Some people on this site have called women out in terribly derogatory ways, calling them sluts and whores. I have read comments asking why a guy would want to be with a single mom, and feeling sorry for guys who are. Some statements make it sound as though no single mom has repented. But here’s the deal, in my case, for example, I have repented, and I’ve been forgiven. I have already dealt with a lot of guilt, but I don’t think I should have to live my whole life in shame. I have sinned (haven’t we all?), and have consequences for that sin. But there comes a point, where I, and every person who has sinned, needs to repent and receive the grace of God, move forward, and continue making the best choices that he/she is able to make. There have been comments saying single moms shouldn’t be allowed to marry–how is that helping the children? I want my son to have a daddy here on earth. I want to have a husband that I can love ’til death do us part no matter what trials we face and how much work we both have to put into it. I’m not innocent, but God has made me pure. Anyway, the same commenter posted that single moms shouldn’t be allowed to vote or have jobs. No jobs? That would force women like me to receive handouts from the government. I am a teacher, and always do my best for my students. Taking away my job would hurt a lot more people than just me.
The purpose of my response is to give one (of what I assume is many) story about a single mom in hopes that some posters will not generalize all single moms to be harlots, and hesitate before they cast the first stone. There is a difference between confronting someone in love about that person’s sin and casting a stone at that person.
By the way, I know at least two single moms who are virgins and adopted their children. While it is debatable whether or not that was a good decision, I don’t see how they could be called “whores.”
this post is incredibly damaging to the plethora of women, myself included who have been damaged, used, lied to, taken advantage of, manipulated, abandoned, thrown away and abused emotionally and physically by the men in their lives. you aren’t coming from a perspective of grace or love towards broken women and if your posts are simply meant to wound deeper then you are making yourself a part of the problem you would like to point and laugh at.
Women like you bring it on yourselves by choosing to be with men who hurt you. You’ll get no sympathy here.
Yet another alpha-chaser whines.
Trinity, how can all that happen to one woman? Used? What does that even mean? You agreed to have sex, you had sex, then…..what? He didnt marry you? Were you not a willing partner? In that case its rape, which Ive never heard called “used” but it does apply.
Abused? Is that just a list-grower? Pretty much all women are abused, all are broken, Ive concluded, and almost all were somehow molested as kids. All unhappy women….qualifier.
The problem is, your complaints are the same as nearly every other woman who has an unhappy life. It starts to look incredible, as in not credible, if the claims were true we’d be living Mad Max movies in real life.
Rape culture, straight from Sweden. Women are apparently just so many objects to be acted upon while men are the prime culprits of all unhappiness. If a woman is not happy, healthy and living an optimal life, well then, somewhere there is a man to blame for it. It makes me wonder if women like Sarah and trinity are aware that men suffer too? That it isn’t the sole province of women. One of the things that has caused many men to suffer is the notion that single-motherhood is socially acceptable, both as fathers and as sons.
LOL!
@Joshua Phillip Johnson
I wouldn’t say no sympathy, but that waving the red flag of victimhood won’t bait us into excusing the willful and sinful choices so many mothers are making. I have great sympathy for women who are faithful wives and have their husbands mistreat them. I even have sympathy for women who made terrible choices and are suffering the consequences of them. Who could not? But this doesn’t mean I’m willing to pretend that the choices of very large numbers of women demonstrate a preference for men with dark triad traits. Denying the fact that women tend to be attracted to the kind of men who will cheat on them or otherwise abuse them is cruel to both the women who have made the mistake of marrying such a man as well as other women who haven’t yet married. Speaking the truth is kindness. At the same time, glorifying unwed motherhood is cruelty to men, women, and children. The fundamental problem with both Sarah and Trinity’s comments are:
1) They refuse to acknowledge the harm their own choices have brought to themselves and (more importantly) their innocent children. In a temporal sense you can’t mediate what you are in denial of, and spiritually you can’t repent of a sin you refuse to acknowledge.
2) They are outraged that I would point out the profound moral problem with a Christian organization glorifying single motherhood. It isn’t just their own children they are perfectly willing to throw under the bus, but hundreds of millions of innocent children yet to be born. They are so invested in their own personal sins they want these sins celebrated, no matter how many other men, women, and children this harms.
So while I do feel sympathy for them, I’m not prepared to look the other way, and even worse glorify the sins which are causing misery to hundreds of millions of children. Doing so would not be kind to anyone.
Sarah and Trinity are outraged that I choose kindness over cruelty; I’m outraged that they refuse to do the same.
Lol, I’m still waiting for people not to judge pedo bears, murderers and rapists. How dare you people judge them!!!!!
@Feminist Hater
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/
@Dalrock, I am sorry that you misinterpreted what I said. Of course their are consequences for the sin that I committed. In fact, I alluded to some of them in my post. Probably the greatest consequence is my son not having a father, which I talked about. I’m stupefied that after reading my post you say that I refuse to acknowledge the harm of my choices to my son and myself. To say there was none, I would be a fool. The situation is far from ideal, but God still is God. He’s gracious. He loves my son and me. It breaks my heart that my son does not have a father on earth, but I trust our Father in Heaven to take care of us.
I also don’t understand why you think I haven’t acknowledged or repented from a sin I committed. Luckily, God is my judge and not you.
As far as your second “fundamental problem” with my comment, I didn’t say anything about you calling an organization out for “glorifying single motherhood.” So, it’s interesting to me that you would say I’m outraged about something I didn’t even mention. In fact, I prefaced my story with this statement, “I just read a few of your blogs and a few comments from each. While there is some truth, there is a lot of generalization and assumption I have noted in what I have read,” which (I thought) implied that my comment was directed as a general comment to the people responding on your blog (specifically those who call them names such as “sluts,” “whores,” and “harlots,”) than to your specific blog post. I also don’t know why you think I want a sin I’ve committed celebrated. Sex outside of marriage is a sin, being a single mom is not. I had sex outside of marriage, and have repented, vowing not to again. How is that celebrating that sin? I am a single mom, which while it is a consequence of a sin I committed several years ago, it is not a sin in and of itself. That’s a fact. But, I don’t know why you think I celebrate it. God willing, I won’t always have to be a single mom. And if a day comes, when a godly man loves my son and me, marries me, and adopts my son, I will celebrate my son’s adoption day for the rest of my life. In the meantime, I rely on God and trust Him to give me wisdom and grace in being the best mom I can be.
Yes! Be kind, and warn women and men alike that there are consequences for their sins. Just, do so out of love and compassion. If I had a concern about a Christian organization, I would write them a letter rather than gossiping about them on the internet. It’s possible that we share some of the same views. I don’t know you well enough to say we do or we don’t. But, we do seem to handle them differently. I’d rather sit on a park bench with a girlfriend and talk to her about God’s love for her, a sin she’s committing, and her need to repent of it. But, that’s just me. It’s a good thing that people witness differently because people respond differently to different presentations of truth. I’m not a street evangelist, but thank God there are some because it brings some people to Jesus, the Christ. There are some street evangelists that don’t build a lot of personal relationships to show God’s love to individuals. But, thank God there are people who do. It brings some people to God. My concern about what I have read on your blog is derogatory comments made by individuals about people. Being bold and calling people out can lead to repentance. But, I don’t know that calling them “sluts” and “whores” will.
Check the condemnation in the comments though, MarcusD. It’s right to be judgmental of wrong behaviour, it is a protective instinctual attitude that protects oneself and their family from being harmed. However, I just love the double standards with ‘don’t ye judge slutty sluts’ and ‘pedo bear burn in hell for all eternity!!!!!!oneeoneoneone1111111111!11!1’. They can’t have it both ways but they do so love to try.
Everyone knew that once gays had their way, everything was free game thereafter.
Sorry about the typos in my posts…
@Sarah
You know exactly what you’re doing
Piling on the shame & deflecting the blame
As I stated before to trinity, you’re slut enabling prostitution needs to end
All women like you do is enable generation after generation sluts
Also name one reason, why a man would want women like you, after years of whoring around with bad boys & loosers?
Why the hell would you wish god give a woman like you to a man, when he could have a normal woman?
You’re child will never have a normal life, & you know it, why are women like you always trying to destroy another mans life for your own decisions?
You’re life at a normal family is over
It was over the day you turned to prostitution
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your comment. I slept with a guy (with the exception of the person who raped me) three times. I don’t know how that’s years of whoring around. Most of my life (including now) I have not dated because I’m not interested in being with a bad boy, loser, or chauvinist.
I’m not trying to destroy any man’s life. I’m not chasing after a man. But, if God brings a godly, loving man to be my husband, I will be grateful. If not, I will be okay too…and so will my son. Will it be normal? No. Will God take care of both of us? He has so far, and I have no reason to believe He won’t.
I think it’s worth pointing out that this is the typical vector for women. You can’t speak against SIN because someone somewhere has been hurt by it (imagine that). You cannot suggest that sin is wrong, evil and harmful or you are a heartless unloving and unGodly person. You can’t suggest that the hurt specifically comes from sin and the fallen condition of the world and you most definitely can’t lay the blame for the condition of the world for the sins of specific individuals. In other words, you cannot preach the sin-convicting Gospel of Jesus Christ. It must be swapped for post-modernism and we can all sit side by side with the atheists and watch the women dictate “truth” from the pulpit/lectern (at this point who cares?).
“For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.”
(Rom 3:3-4)
Or in this case, let the truth be truth and every feminist a liar.
I’d rather sit on a park bench with a girlfriend and talk to her about God’s love for her, a sin she’s committing, and her need to repent of it
This is a form of a statement Ive heard many women make. My wife tells me how she struggles when a friend of hers for example told her she was going to file a divorce. My wife then did what you are saying, and it is so indirect, so mealy mouthed, that it leaves a million ways to get around it. I encouraged her to boldness. When she was bold to the women, the women went silent for awhile. They are 30 year friends. Wife was worried. In the end, the woman’s marriage was saved.
One root problem is that women do what you are suggesting, but in the details is not accountability, rather there is over flow of empathy. The sin persists
Pingback: What a Typical Christian Wife Looks Like | The Reinvention of Man
This thread provides many lessons including a demonstration on passing $hit tests. Kudos to team guy holding frame in the emotional whirlwind.
Sarah says:
September 22, 2013 at 3:59 pm
“I rely on God and trust Him to give me wisdom and grace in being the best mom I can be.”
Untrue. Had that been the case (that she listens to God), not only would she not have chosen to become pregnant outside of marriage, once that was the case, she would have either married the father or given the child up for adoption. Keeping him without marrying was a selfish act on her part, where her desires were put above the welfare of the child. I condemn her for this.
I encountered your blog because I had found Janine Turner’s book in my church library and a Google search led me here. I am pretty disgusted with the condescension and misogyny that you express in so many of your articles. I am a very, very conservative Christian, married for 20 years with 5 kids to a wonderful man, and I can’t ever imagine Our Lord looking down on human beings with the contempt that you display in your writing. You do not have the heart of Jesus–he came to save, not to condemn. If we’re to fight the culture of death and lead other people to God, it must be with prayer and humility. Humility because we recognize our own sinfulness, and that our salvation is a pure, undeserved gift.
It’s very sad to me that you can’t seem to recognize that there are many women out there who lived sinful lives, who now have sole care of a child from their past, and who have had a conversion BECAUSE of their struggles. One of God’s greatest talents is to bring good even from our sinfulness, as He did on the Cross. These single mothers are trying to work out their salvation with fear and trembling just like you and me, and all Janine Turner was doing with her book was trying to encourage women in that situation to hold fast to Jesus and not despair that God can’t do amazing things for their lives and their children because their circumstances don’t “look” wholesome and perfect. You seem to have the erroneous idea that the only people God cares about are the ones living in “righteous” circumstances as you are…perhaps you don’t realize that every person is on a journey and God can even use sin to bring souls closer to Him.
I sincerely hope that you consider that your attitude in this blog, particularly the way that you condescend to and express contempt for other people, reveals great pride and none of the love for souls that Jesus asks us to cultivate in our hearts. If those outside the faith will “know them by their love,” then I can’t imagine a single person being drawn closer to Jesus by reading what you write here.
Dawn, you clearly don’t know your Bible (or aren’t governed by it, which would make you a nonChristian).
Two quick examples:
1) Women are not to teach men about religion;
2) Jesus and the moneychangers in the temple.
You sound full of pride, and offended that women could be seen as immoral bad people. You’ll not get much “you go grrrll” here. I’m sure there’s a plethora of web fora (for liberal, or Churchianity denominations that are thus declining faster than a prom dress after midnight) you’d find philosophically more congenial. Just don’t expect much actual Christianity, utility, or truth there.
Hear, hear, Luke!
Dawn, this is a site for men. Real, Christian men, with balls – who won’t be shamed by your scolding tone.
So you might as well stifle it, for all you’ll accomplish.
We don’t care what you think. Even though you clearly care what we think.
Dawn, does your Bible include these passages?
1 Cor. 14:33, 34;
1 Tim. 2:11, 12
8oxer says:
September 22, 2013 at 11:35 am
“By the way, I know at least two single moms who are virgins and adopted their children. While it is debatable whether or not that was a good decision, I don’t see how they could be called “whores.””
As they are neither widows nor married, intentionally choosing this sad fatherless situation for innocent children, they are certain to be unfit mothers. at a minimum. Had they cared more about those children than about their own selfish desires, they’d have instead at least passed on taking children that they were (by unwed status) not in a proper position to care for. Ideally, they could have helped a suitable, interested married couple get in touch with the adopting-out source for the children.
Sarah, here is a discussion on a recent scientific discovery that indicates that a potential wife and mother of a man’s children is forever changed (and probably not in good ways) by having borne another man’s child, or even just having had ONE previous lover (with no conception):
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-cost-of-n1.html
Apparently, the DNA from that previous lover rattles around in her body the rest of her life. If she was previously banged by (and thus genetically partially became) a nonwhite, someone stupid, a drug addict, or a criminal, that REALLY would make her a questionable choice for a man (who cared about such things) to marry and make a family with.
@Luke –
I haven’t commented on Vox Day’s post because for some reason Blogspot doesn’t like my ISP (all my attempts to comment on Blogspot blogs get swallowed up and vanish), but I’ll comment here: I seriously doubt that the paper mentioned over there has any validity whatsoever. Its abstract mentions that their theory of telogony (the belief that DNA from former sex partners sticks around in a female’s body) “has been met with scepticism because of Weismann’s unfavourable comments and negative results obtained in several test experiments. In this article, alleged cases of telogony are provided.” (Emphasis mine, of course).
There have been several studies that provided no evidence for telogony, and this article provides no evidence either. Don’t believe it, even if it’s in alignment with your previous beliefs. That’s the fast way to confirmation bias, and believing something that just isn’t so.
Welcome Dawn.
You are missing the fact that the author neither acknowledges her sin in the article nor expresses repentance for it. Quite the opposite. She wrote this book because she wants unwed mothers to hold their heads high. The other point you are missing is she is selling this message of unrepentance and pride-in-sin to a Christian audience, and the CBN is helping her sell this message. As you mentioned, this book was in your church library. How many young women will be lead astray by having such an insidious book offered as “Christian” wisdom right there at your church? How many innocent children will suffer because your church decided to promote unwed motherhood as something to take pride in?
This is the problem we have today. Virtually no feminist rebellion, no matter how over the top, is recognizable. Moreover, if you challenge someone who is selling a message of sin, nice church ladies like yourself will rush in to make sure the sin is sold without challenge. They will speed in with fury to make sure no one speaks of repentance, only taking pride in sin.
You are welcome to comment here, but I should warn you that I’m not going to stop calling out those who are selling sin to Christians just because it bothers you when I do. I understand that it feels entirely foreign, but this is the point. Unwed mothers don’t need a louder cheering squad, they need to repent and warn other women of the great harm deliberately depriving their children of a father will cause.
Pingback: Selling sin. | Dalrock
Back in 2009, I was raped
Actually, you were not. Reading your long treatise, I observed that you never reported the said rape to the authorities; you made friends with the man who supposedly raped you; you missed him after he was deported from the country; you never discussed this “rape” incident with your pastor, though you claimed to be a Christian waiting on God for a husband. You went on and on jumping from bed to bed. Because you were not very experienced, you ended up being pregnant….or you mistakenly thought you could hold down a man with pregnancy, and deliberately got pregnant. Whatever be the case.
Look, I have to tell you, I have seen people who had been raped before. I have taken care of them in a hospital setting, and I can tell you, rape is a deeply devastating and emotionally crippling experience. Rape victims often get depressed for months or even years. Even where forcible rape was absent, the victims are still often extremely sad; they have nightmares and flashbacks about the incidents for a long time. These reactions tend to be more pronounced in those who were virgins before they experienced rape.
What you have described is nothing but a man seducing an inexperienced girl, who ended up having consensual sex. No, ma’am; you were not raped. Kill that idea.
Sarah wasn’t raped, she was a (first time) slut.
Umm, Luke, That wasn’t “8oxer” who said that, whoever he was.
Everyone is just making arguments from books and wasting time on egotistical comments…
What IS God’s will for single mothers? Given the situation the culture and worldwide, broken sexuality, broken covenants, broken people… what is God telling His people to do about it?
What is wise and can heal some of the hurt… to turn people back towards true love, honor, loyalty.. fruitfulness, productivity, joy, and wellness.
thoughts?
What is wise and can heal some of the hurt… to turn people back towards true love, honor, loyalty.. fruitfulness, productivity, joy, and wellness. thoughts?
What hurts are you referring to? It looks like you don’t have a basic understanding of what it takes to receive forgiveness and restoration. When a sinner repents they get forgiven. But as long as a sinner holds on to her cherished sins, even God can neither forgive nor restore such a stubborn sinner. It’s like a drowning person who is being rescued. She must cease struggling against her rescuer, and do exactly as told.
Here is a fornicator refusing to take the responsibility for her thoughtless actions, while blaming her sin partner at the same time. She does not even acknowledge her actions as sinful, but would rather lie, and make herself into a victim. How can such a one be forgiven by God and by her future spouse? It’s impossible.
Single mothers…
If they are actually instead widowed mothers, they should look for another man to submit to as a wife in marriage.
If they are actually instead divorced (very probably female-frivorced; presume this, unless otherwise proved in court) mothers, they should humbly apologize to their (legally) ex-husbands, seek forgiveness by demonstrating repentance, and beg under almost any conditions for a second chance to be obedient Christian wives to them. (Giving their new husband primacy in priority and decision-making power over her children would be essential.) If they cannot reconcile, then? Further thought here, but NO fun outcome for her is appropriate. Perhaps work 3 jobs til she’s 75 with no sex ever again?
If they are indeed single mothers, where they conceived and bore their children outside of marriage (called “bastards”), then more yet is required. If the father will not or cannot marry her (if the children are sired by >1 man, or the biodad is married to another women, or the SM is effectively unmarriageable, then no, don’t expect that), the children should be put up for adoption (if young) to a married hetero couple. Older ones should probably be exiled til their 40s, so they cannot easily be criminals or breeders of same. The SMs should be in a modern-day equivalent of a workhouse or convent, laboring hard for little money (and NO status or power, esp. over men or children), and denied sex, women’s porn, recreational chemicals, and junk food (but not the Bible), passing away her years this way. At least a SM can provide a little labor and an illustrative example to younger women why NOT to do what she did.
True if we had those type of consequences it would discourage women who willingly become single mothers. Right now we have a system that actively encourages women to be single mothers and it’ll be to our ruin.
Women are not good at long term planning and thing about consequences.
Increasing age diminishes a womans’ appeal to men (most likely she will be post-wall). Being a single mother with several kids also diminishes their appeal to men as well. Being divorced diminishes their appeal to men with half a brain who are aware of the family court system and what it could do to men (they don’t want to be next – and the statistics show that the divorce rates for subsequent marriages increases). What are these women thinking about how their life will be when they get divorced? You couldn’t pay me enough to date or marry an old, divorced, single mother – they’re radioactive to me. Relationships are hard enough as it is, being a divorced mother just adds more negative factors, and the less likely chance of a good outcome. There is also the added possibility of a man becoming on the hook for paying child support for kids that aren’t even his own if their is a marriage and another divorce.
If by unashamed this woman means unrepentant and no need for repentance, this woman is in for a rude awakening somewhere in her future. A true relationship with God requires a repentant and humble heart.
Pingback: Kickass single moms deserve father’s day gifts. | Dalrock