I pointed out in Light years closer to God that Christian men are failing women, and the primary failure is their unwillingness to confront the mass feminist rebellion. As a man calling out other men is easy. It feels brave, like you are owning up to your own failures and holding yourself accountable. Calling out women on the other hand is extremely difficult. It (on the surface) goes against our instinct to protect women, and it makes you feel like a bully. Plus, when you call out men they tend to own up to what you are calling them out on. When you call out women you are off for a day at the races.
You are sooo mean! You must hate women! It wasn’t my fault!
The vast majority of modern Christian men are guilty of acting like cowards in order to feel like heroes. Because of their cowardice and slavish devotion to their own feelings they are causing great harm to women and children.
This profound failure by Christian men is most evident when approaching the topic of now rampant single motherhood and how it has come to pass. If you listen to Christian leaders you will be told that single mothers themselves aren’t at fault. In a radio interview Glenn Stanton was moved by the heroism of single mothers and explained:
…look around within your community, your church body, and you see young boys being raised and dad gone because of his death or because of his desertion or because of a divorce or maybe he just never was on the scene…
Notice that in Stanton’s mind single motherhood is either the fault of men or it just happens. This is due to Mr. Stanton’s astonishingly unbiblical view of women:
…women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally…
The page featuring the Stanton quote immediately above appears to have been recently scrubbed from the Boundless website, but you can see an archived version of the page on the Wayback Machine and Google cache (Edit: The page was moved here in a site redesign). Even more difficult to scrub will be all of the hard copies of Mr. Stanton’s book on parenting where he made the same basic assertion. In that same book Mr. Stanton explains the recent explosion in out of wedlock births:
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies. But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well… Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.
Keep in mind that this isn’t Stanton talking out of turn on a subject he hasn’t studied. Stanton is the Director on the subject for Focus on the Family.
Mr. Stanton isn’t alone. This narrative that men are solely responsible for out of wedlock births is pervasive amongst modern Christian leaders. The Kendrick brothers expressed this view in their much celebrated movie Courageous, including in the final rousing “I Will!” speech. Pastor Driscoll makes the same argument in Relevant Magazine (emphasis mine):
…if you’re a single gal hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women. A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.”
I’ve shared all of this before, but the insanity of the modern Christian position on out of wedlock births is so great that it is tempting to forget just how incredibly foolish it is. It is difficult to process the fact that our leaders are so eager to excuse the rampant sinful and catastrophic choices women are making, choices which have lead us to a state where over forty percent of children are now born out of wedlock.
Except for the minuscule fraction of out of wedlock births due to rape, every single out of wedlock birth represents a case where a woman chose to bear a child by a man who wasn’t interested in marrying her or a man she wasn’t interested in marrying. We also know that the choice of unfit fathers isn’t random. This is exactly the kind of man women who are thinking with their genitals will choose. Yet Christian men, especially Christian leaders, can’t bring themselves to call out this pervasive sin which is harming countless millions of children. In fact, when an actress and single mother wrote a book touting the benefits of fatherless children The 700 Club not only failed to call her out for her own sin and encouragement to other women to sin, they plugged the book.
But the out of wedlock birth machine isn’t the only factory cranking out fatherless children, as the chart above makes clear. Out of wedlock births are the largest single category of fatherless children, but divorce accounts for 30% of them. What is often a prelude to divorce, separation, accounts for another 15%. We know in the case of divorce that women overwhelmingly are the initiators, and they are motivated by the opportunity to steal the most valuable asset of the marriage, the children.
Yet Christian men and Christian leaders can’t bring themselves to criticize women for the rampant and very open flaunting of biblical teaching on marriage and sexual morality by women. This cowardly silence is not only sinful but immensely harmful to men, women, and children. Men who remain silent on this are choosing the suffering of millions of children over their own discomfort. They are also gravely harming women by assisting them in avoiding repentance in their cowardly feelings-driven silence.
As a result of the silence by Christian men, Christian single mothers routinely engage in a game of make believe where their own sin and that of millions of women like them never really happened. Commenter Kaehu recently pointed out one such woman named Jennifer Maggio. Ms. Maggio runs a “ministry” on the topic of single motherhood:
Jennifer Maggio is considered a leading authority on single parents and womens issues. She is an award-winning author and speaker who draws from her own experiences through abuse, homelessness, and teen pregnancy to inspire audiences everywhere. She is founder of The Life of a Single Mom Ministries and writes for dozens of publications. She has been featured with hundreds of media outlets, including The 700 Club, Daystar Television, Moody Radio, Focus on the Family, and many more. For more information, visit thelifeofasinglemom.com.
Ms. Maggio herself had multiple children out of wedlock, as her about page describes:
At 19, Maggio found herself pregnant for the fourth time, living in government housing on food stamps and welfare.
Note that she she doesn’t discuss her own sin from a frame of repentance, but a frame of denial. It just happened; she found herself pregnant. She is even more duplicitous in how she frames this in her article Single Moms and the Church:
As her body crumbles to the floor, she can hardly believe what she is hearing. Her husband wants a divorce. No, not me. Not us. I’ve done everything right. I’ve tried. I really have. A million thoughts rush through her mind as the reality that her world will no longer be the same comes crashing against her. She lies there, crying and helpless, wondering how she will survive financially, what her friends will thing, and how her children will survive without their father in their daily lives.
This is reality for more than 15 million women who find themselves parenting alone today in the United States…
Christian men and Christian leaders: It is time to man up, put your fear and feelings aside, and confront the feminist rebellion which is devastating men, women and children. I know you are afraid, but you can’t let your fear continue to rule you!
Hamster pic from Love hamster. Checkered flag from Ewan ar Born. I combined the last two to create the hamster 500 pic. You are free to use this new picture so long as you are in compliance with the original two image licenses.
can’t bring themselves to call out this pervasive sin which is harming countless millions of children.
Is it this, or, is it that they literally cannot see the sin?
I commented on the inaccuracy of the article where it’s posted on Crosswalk, without even knowing Ms. Maggio’s story. My comment was not well received.
My comment: “The emotional illustration that leads off this article would be more accurate if it had the wife informing the unwilling husband that she was going to divorce him. The fact is that at least two-thirds and perhaps as many as four-fifths of American divorces are initiated by the wife. So, assuming the 15 million number is accurate, “this is reality” for no more than 5 million of them. The rest are in that situation by their own choice, many of them over their husband’s and their children’s father’s objection. I’m one of those objecting husbands and fathers — my wife of 29 years divorced me, without biblical grounds, blowing up our 4-child family in the pursuit of her own happiness. She was therefore 1 of those 15 million, but it was entirely of her own volition. And she was well-rewarded for it too, in alimony and child support. Even though one of the two children still at home opted to live with me exclusively and the other one split her time between the two parents, and even though my wife had a good job of her own, my payments to her supplemented her salary by about 50%. So, Kathi Vande Guchte, the statistics are actually glaring evidence that women need to step up — first, in not divorcing and second, in not enabling their friends who otherwise would.”
Ms. Vande Guchte’s response: “I’m not referring to men being fathers to their own children, but godly men stepping up and mentoring the children without father figures in their lives. If you had read my post completely you would have seen I mentioned not just men with children, but teen guys and never-married men who don’t have children of their own. You, and the rest of the men, need to step up. Women have been steppping up – sometimes out of pride and sometimes because there’s no male figure for their children. We cannot be men. Children respond to men and turn to men differently than women.
So instead of rehashing your divorce, I really encourage you to get to the point of forgiveness for your ex-wife and let God use you in the lives of children who do not have a positive male figure in their lives.”
My reply: “Your initial comment was that the statistics were “glaring evidence that men need to step up and step in” and to “model how to live the Christian life.” My comment pointed out that the real statistics actually show that the overwhelming majority of single mothers and fatherless children got that way because mom kicked dad out — the exact opposite of the emotional illustration that led off the original post. Rather than deal with a substantive comment on the merits of the “statistics” that you yourself said were the impetus for your comment, you chose to lecture me about my responsibility to forgive and my obligation to the children of single mothers who chose their singleness. That’s called an ad hominem argument — a weak, unfair, and illogical response. If some Christian men have the opportunity to mentor fatherless kids, great. But if we’re going to issue challenges to one sex or the other to “step up” to try to remedy broken families, let’s include a call to Christian women to “model how to live the Christian life” — by not divorcing their husbands and not cheering those who do.”
Excellent point. This band-aid attitude comes from a feminized society, that we already knew, but it’s not just a learned outlook on the world, it’s also cowardice when men do realize there is something wrong. Standing for what you believe is right rather than what everyone else believes is right is the true mark of courage in our society.
I’m in a religion that clearly says fornication is a sin.
“Pregnant for the fourth time”
wow! colour me impressed
I remember a line from ‘the importance of being earnest’ regarding an orphan Mr Worthing;
“To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”
so, how do we regard the fourth occurrance of something?
This is comedy at its height, to make a heroine of her is just the cherry on top of the non-wedding cake. That she becomes a target of sympathy is beyond my comprehension. Satire is dead? I don’t think so…
Earl,
Me too. I have been for only 7 years though and in those 7 years, I’ve never once heard this taught. Not once. The Church herself teaches this, but her individuals cathedrals often teach nothing of the sort.
@ Dalrock
Again, how do you have more sympathy toward women?
Dalrock,
I’m trying to think of a better name for the pie chart, instead of “Single Mothers.” I don’t want to perpetuate the illusion of “noble heroes” who frivolously detonate their families. Only one category of women can be classified as single: Women who never married:
*** A divorced woman is not single. She is divorced.
*** A widowed woman is not single. She is a widow.
*** A separated woman is NOT single, despite being alone.
What to do? Call these various women “independent?” This answer doesn’t work either, since a man is very often still paying the bills. Suggestions?
The only way to explain the outrageous misconduct on the part of our so-called “Christian leaders”, is to assume that they have internalized the most poisonous of all of feminism’s many lies: that all sex is rape, that women have no agency, that they never, never, never, seduce or throw themselves at men…. And that men in general are somehow all at fault, for the behavior of a small percentage of worthless wandering studs?
How else can they justfiy, treating INTENTIONAL single mothers — wicked fornicatrixes and harlots, the bearers of bastards — as though they exhibited the same degree of moral heroism as widows or rape victims?
Woe to those who call evil, good.
““I’m not referring to men being fathers to their own children, but godly men stepping up and mentoring the children without father figures in their lives.”
nope, not a chance.
having part of my taxes stolen to subsidise these people is bad enough. to directly finance the removal of the natural repercussions of a woman’s poor decision making is entirely unacceptable.
such women need to be making public the error of their ways to help prevent others doing the same. to bail them out is immoral, I think. better that they are used to avoid the future suffering of others, as tough as that sounds.
to indulge this generation is to encourage the production of the next, that isn’t the right thing to do in the long run. the lesson that leftards never wish to have to face, let alone learn.
I have been red pill for a short time. My wife is blue pill. The churches/Christians that my wife is attracted to are *agressively* blue pill. Any attempt by me to speak up on this is met with misdirection, shaming, stonewalling, and reframing. It’s like any comment thread here that “T” is active in. It’s frightening.
If I point out that it is sin for a Christian wife to disobey 1 Cor 7, then I am accused of being abusive and manipulative. (Manipulative? Good grief! Withholding sex is manipulative. Naming a sin and confronting someone about it is… uh… isn’t that being direct…?!)
In a Sunday school, I recently saw a woman speak up and talk about how much she hated her mother and how she wanted to kill her. The response of the room was therapeutic– there was even some circle rubs on her back! Literally, women can say *anything* and people will prop them up with emotional support. When I ask if maybe the place of the church is to call her to forgive her mother and to return good for evil… well… suddenly I’m the bad guy.
And these people have no qualms about taking my wife aside and encouraging her in fomenting strife and rebellion in my home. She loves her non-Christian friends to death… and they can do the most insane things… but “they aren’t violating their principles so it’s okay.” But when it’s her husband? Suddenly he has to be Jesus before he deserves any respect. And then… if I happen to be criticizing a particular party official… suddenly *I* am supposed to respect this guy for his *office*.
Turn, turn, turn….
Take away accountability for your actions…you take away the ability to be forgiven. It’s a hard life blaming your sins on other people. That’s a weight I wouldn’t want to carry. It is true that forgiveness releases you from a prision of your own creation.
All you can do is rebuke the sin. It’s up to them to either take accountability or pass the blame.
@Dalrock
I dig this post!
As people annoyingly tell my friends with big families, “Don’t you know what causes that?”
I think most men really do believe that single mothers are innocent victims of bad men and circumstance. Even a man who was frivorced by one is likely to think she’s just a bad apple, rather than assuming she’s typical of the breed.
You cannot “change” women or “change” men until you change the laws. For women: no welfare for single mothers, no voting “rights” and no working. That will make them more feminine and force them back into being dependent on “patriarchs.”
The reason I use the word “patriarchy” is because women are 100% on men. These days, it’s not one individual man, but the entire “patriarchal” government, which has now become the Husband of many women. Women who think they are “strong” and “independent” are anything but, not when their whole existence is dependent on what men created.
Is the mispelling of “Christian” in the title intentional?
[D: No. Thanks!]
@Earl
As I contemplate Mom betraying Dad when Dad refuses to endorse Daughter’s harlotry, I have to wonder if you’ve really thought through the fullness of the concept of rebuke.
Then why is “catholic school girl” a synonym for “slut”?
@Some Guy – do you drive to church? Then drive to the church you want. Your wife can blow up your life at any time she chooses red pill or not, so you just have to lead. It will be up to her to follow or not.
When the Sunday School discussion happens, you just have to take the hit to speak up and say something about how wonderful it is that God’s wrath was poured out on his Son so that Sister Murder can be forgiven of her vengeful rage.
Changing the dynamic of “Man Up,” inch by painful inch. Keep pushing, Dalrock. It was “protective” men who allowed women to run rampant, and it will be men who rein us in – ironically with our own consent, participation and gratitude. As more men step up and lead, more women will rediscover our place, and we women will put pressure on our peers, as only we can, as insiders.
Yes! Oh, this is one of the best posts you have ever written!
Such leaders look like they are brave and showing the love of Christ, but they are really cowardly liars. How I long for the day when Christian men will turn away from these false teachers and refuse to listen to them any longer. I eagerly anticipate a time when Christian men simply refuse to listen to the likes of Pastor Driscoll and cease to rescue unrepentant sluts and baby mamas from the consequences of their actions.
I long for the day when married Christian men tell their fat, frigid wives that their rebellious, disrespectful attitudes will no longer be tolerated, and the Church actually supports, rather than condemning, such men in taking their rightful position as leaders who ought to be treated with respect.
I long for the day when the endless, corrosive, disrespectful, humiliating comments about men that drip from virtually every pulpit will be silenced.
I cannot wait for the day when a Christian leader actually has the nerve to tell women to sit down, shut up, and learn in all silence and humility rather than behaving like loud-mouthed know-it-all attention whores.
“A million thoughts rush through her mind as the reality that her world will no longer be the same comes crashing against her. She lies there, crying and helpless, wondering how she will survive financially, what her friends will thing, and how her children will survive without their father in their daily lives.”
Notice she’s not wondering how to live without her husband, mostly concerns over loss of standing in the community and money.
The reason her children won’t have a father in their daily lives is obvious.
“man deficit” or “constitutionally weak men with excess resource capacity who will willfully make a bad deal chasing the V”
Hmmmm.
“Fatherless homes”?
Cail, “broken homes” used to work, but it’s gone WAAAAAY out of style…
It’s because they see woman as having reduced moral agency — it’s obvious. The only reason women sin is because of men — even if that male sin is failure to lead properly, it’s the only reason women sin. If men were not sinning, women would not be sinning, so their sin is “derivative” and is therefore of lesser culpability and lesser cause than men’s sin, which is seen as the ultimate cause and as reflecting more agency.
Women are kind of seen as automatons. They’re gonna have babies no matter what. And they’re gonna have ’em by the men they want to be baby-daddies, no matter what. So it isn’t their problem, it’s the problem of the men who are not good enough to marry.
That kind of “reasoning” is obviously based on the idea that women are not moral agents but rather automatons who will behave in certain ways regardless, and not be held to account for it because they do not have agency to behave otherwise.
Dalrock: “can’t bring themselves to call out this pervasive sin which is harming countless millions of children.”
Stingray: “Is it this, or, is it that they literally cannot see the sin?”
Stingray: “I have been (in a church) for only 7 years though and in those 7 years, I’ve never once heard [that fornication is a sin] taught. Not once. The Church herself teaches this, but her individuals cathedrals often teach nothing of the sort.”
This is easy, Sting. It started out that clergy and lay leaders in church understood very well that fornication was sin, and taught as such. Then as the church became more feminized, women complained about hearing sexual sin taught from the pulpit or in SUnday SChool classes to kids. Be it fornication, adultery or whatever, the objections were legion: It’s a private matter. Parents should be teaching this. Parents should control what their kids learn about sex.
The objections intensified: You can’t judge anyone for their sexual conduct. The bible says you can’t: Judge not lest ye be judged! Before we start trying to remove motes from others’ eyes, we have to remove the planks from our own eyes. We can’t exactly cast stones because we’re not without sin. Besides, we all know if there’s a sex sin involved, it’s a man’s fault. Women are all good all the time. If she had premarital sex, it’s because a man tricked her into it. If she got pregnant, it’s because she was lured into bed AND he’s not stepping up like he should. If the kids are fatherless because of divorce, it is a man’s fault. It is because he would not do what she wanted/needed from him, or he’s a drunk, or he’s an unemployed bum, or he’s an abuser.
Another reason why fornication stopped being preached against was because most of their female membership were engaged in it or had in the past, either in the form of serial monogamy or hardcore sluthood. Many faithful church volunteers had been divorced for any number of reasons. Many were divorced and remarried, or long-term divorced. Most of those divorced and not-remarried women had had extramarital sex. So hearing about extramarital sex was very uncomfortable, mostly because most of their female congregation–from high schoolers to 50 YO cougars — were fornicating all over the place, and still are.
I assume that by “married spouse absent,” they mean families where the father is in the military overseas, for instance, since there is a “separated” category. If that’s the case, that’s incredibly dishonest — and also sneaky, because it makes it hard to find a name that fits the entire group. Obviously, no one will want to use a negative name if some of the “missing” fathers are soldiers doing their duty. Is a home really “fatherless” if that’s the case?
I suppose that could also include married fathers who are in prison. That would be less problematic for shaming purposes, but still hard to squeeze into the same category with divorcees.
[D: The segment in the US Census Table I calculated the data from is titled “Living with mother only”. The title of the chart is my own.]
Yes. They wouldn’t admit that — if you asked them whether they think women have moral agency, they’d insist that they do, and they’d think that the truth. But in practice, they consider women to be the moral equivalent of a four-year-old child or the family dog. They should be able to refrain from having screaming tantrums in public or biting anyone, but anything beyond that is out of their control.
Like animals and babies, they’re innocent creatures, so anything they do wrong must be someone else’s fault. It’s just like if my dog bites you, it’s my fault because I didn’t teach her right and control her properly, or I hurt her and made her violent. Likewise, if a woman destroys her children’s lives, someone else must have made her do it.
Ms. Vande Guchte’s response: “Women have been stepping up.”
No, they haven’t. Raising your own children that you chose to have isn’t “stepping up”, that’s the absolute bare minimum people can expect from you.
And I’ll think about mentoring a single floozie’s child when women stop hurling false allegations of child abuse at men who displease them.
Off Topic Alert
Mangina Man strikes at Canadian University
Squares off against ProLife Poli in epic battle!
@ Novaseeker
I have to disagree with the last part of your comment. I really do think that many of them hold the view that women are morally and spiritually superior to men, and thus inherently good. Rather than believe women are automatons “who will behave in certain ways regardless”, they believe that a woman will always choose the right and good thing, unless of course a man leads her astray.
Of course, either view leaves women with the same capacity for moral agency, but this latter view is more dangerous to men: it clearly and unequivocally holds that men not only bring about evil, but do so at the expense of the inherent goodness of women.
“Yet Christian men and Christian leaders can’t bring themselves to criticize women for the rampant and very open flaunting of biblical teaching on marriage and sexual morality by women. This cowardly silence is not only sinful but immensely harmful to men, women, and children. Men who remain silent on this are choosing the suffering of millions of children over their own discomfort. They are also gravely harming women by assisting them in avoiding repentance in their cowardly feelings-driven silence.”
Christian men don’t criticize women for their sin mainly because they are vastly outnumbered, and they know it. There are far more women, white knights and manginas at church than there are true Christian men, and they know this too. They know they’ll be persecuted, shamed, called out, shunned, and excused from polite company. They know their wives will suffer the same fate (and some of them are married to former fornicators and sluts). They know the hoots and hollers will reach fever pitch. Meetings will be held and will last for hours on end. At these meetings, woman after woman will wail, gnash her teeth, and loudly petition for redresses of grievances. The complaints will be endless:
“The man HATES women!”
“The man is NOT a Christian, because if he were he would LOVE the single woman!!”
“We’re supposed to CARE FOR the widow and the orphan!”
“How can you be so CRUEL and HEARTLESS and MEAN-SPIRITED?!”
The women of the church will threaten to leave the church and take with them their volunteer time (and more importantly, their tithe money). The pastor will have to mediate disputes. Letter writing campaigns and complaints to the bishop will be undertaken. The women will take their case to local media outlets and do whatever they can to drum up public support against such men. The men’s employers will be notified of their “extreme” and “sexist” and “disturbing” and “troubling” positions.
To clarify, there are two possible takes on this:
Women= automatons = neutral
Men= moral agents= can make themselves and women act for good or for evil
as compared to:
Women= spiritually superior= inherently good
Men= moral agents= can act good just like women, or can act for evil and turn women away from good and towards evil.
@Earl
I have some things to say, but first a word with Jack Nicholson.
Now as for the idea of accountability, that’s the shame of predestination. I’ve been reading more and more about a lot of the bad things in our culture and they’ve come from this fatalistic stoicism, the “grin-and-bear-it” philosophy. Everything’s written and all that’s left is contingency. Our actions have no bearing and therefore we’re not required to act morally.
Calvin let loose a world of pain and suffering when he declared that all that is was written and that no true change is possible. The apathy that radiated out of the philosophy continues to crush the back of the West today. Ambivalence about the consequences of our own actions and those of others eats away at the core of our civilization.
Thanks, Dalrock. I guess, since it’s from the Census, “living with mother only,” means whatever the people who checked that box meant by it. Some might actually belong in another category and got confused, while others might fall into the categories I talked about. Since you made the chart, it makes sense to include them to emphasize the point that never-married, divorced, and separated (pre-divorced) mothers drastically outnumber the kinds that we’re supposed to think of as the sympathy-deserving norm.
[D: You are right, it is terribly subjective. I mention the same thing when referencing the data for this post.]
Dalrock:
“The vast majority of modern Christian men are guilty of acting like cowards in order to feel like heroes. Because of their cowardice and slavish devotion to their own feelings they are causing great harm to women and children.”
Well, we’re acting like cowards, but not because we want to feel like heroes. We don’t speak up because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. We don’t want to rock the boat, make waves, or create a scene. We don’t want to be viewed as hateful or bigoted. We don’t want to take a stand because that would mean we’d have to invest ourselves in it and we would not be able to back away from it.
But most of all we don’t want to engage in the direct confrontation that would result when we bring up things like “fornicators… shall not inherit the kingdom of God” and “wives, respect your husbands” and I Cor.7 and Eph. 5. We don’t want people calling us out publicly for it. We don’t want a pastor AMOGing us in front of our wives or other women. You do this, you might as well leave the church you’re in, because you’ll probably get excommunicated or asked to leave. Ask Joseph of Jackson what happens when you start making waves and teaching things that the women don’t like.
zlozozozo
hey dalrock if you ever start a schcurch chruch i will attendz and tthe too zloz
and i promise not to zlozzoozozzoozozzlzozl in the pews util after it is all oevrz
and afetr your serom is done
and the ladeisa churchian ladies
and white nights
and manginas
line up to unlod unload on yer majestic truth and beuaty
den i will go lzlzozozoozozzlzzlzlzozlzoz omg zlozozlzzozlzlzozlzlzozozlzzoz
right in der faces
zlozzoozzlozozozozozo
@Earl –
That’s ok, Churchianity is more than happy to redefine fornication for the female members of the congregation. Only men and unchurched women can commit that sin.
most of the time fornication is still taught as sin… it is just that for women, fornication is taught as being caused by some agent other than herself, usually a man. A woman fornicates because ‘she has low self esteem because of her dad,’ or because ‘men took advantage of her,’ or because, ‘she didn’t know her worth as a daughter of the king.’ The tricky thing is that all of those things might be true, but none of them are excuses for sinning against God.
What is almost NEVER taught is that a woman fornicates because she is a sinner consumed with lust. It is not fornication that has been redefined, it is lust. Lust has been defined as something that ONLY men do because men are “visual” and women are “emotional” therefore a woman chasing her hypergamous instincts on and off the carousel isn’t lust, but a man taking a glimpse at porn is.
If Christian men are going to do this, they need to have some good responses to the objections they get.
OBJECTION: “Judge not lest ye be judged! The bible says that! So you can’t judge women for their sin!”
RESPONSE: You are quoting the passage out of context. THat passage does not mean that we cannot make judgments about people; it means that however we judge people, that same measure of judgment will be used on us. So since I am applying bibilcal principles to you, feel free to apply them to me. You cannot go through life without making judgments about people. If you have a spouse or kids or friends or coworkers, you are making judgments about them. You are making judgments about me, right now, talking to me.
The bible also says that when a brother (or sister) stumbles, we’re to help them, and we’re to speak the truth in love. If you think I have not spoken truthfully, tell me so. If you think I have not done so gently and in love, tell me so. If you believe the bible is true, then you MUST believe that fornication is sin; and you must believe that sluthood/extramarital sex/premarital sex is sin. Therefore, she is in sin and that has to be dealt with. It has nothing to do with judgment and everything to do with confronting her sin.
“You obviously HATE women. We are Christians and we are supposed to be about LOVE. You know, Faith, Hope and Love, and the Greatest of these is Love” and “If I have all things but have not Love I am but a clanging cymbal”?
RESPONSE: Calling out a woman on her sin is not hateful. If anything, it is Love in action, because I am trying to help her see her sin and show her a way out of it. If you let her stay in her sin, you show her no love as a Christian. Jesus had no trouble at all calling out women for their sexual sins. He called them out exactly as they were, and He minced no words about it.
OBJECTION: “You’re not perfect. I bet YOU had premarital sex. If you are without sin, then cast the first stone, you hypocrite! Besides, Jesus could call out the women for their sexual sins. You’re certainly not Jesus.”
RESPONSE: My sin is not the issue here. You cannot excuse someone else from their sin by pointing out my sin. I am not casting stones, either. I have not threatened anyone with death. I am rebuking and correcting, not meting out punishments or penalties.
No, I’m not perfect and I’m not Christ. But we are supposed to “bear one another’s burdens” and confront each others’ sins. We’re to help each other as iron sharpens iron. And if I cause another to stumble, then I am just as guilty as the stumbler is. And if we know another is in sin, we have an obligation as Christians to confront it.
OBJECTION: “You are not about loving people here. I don’t think you fit in around here. I don’t think you should be a member here or attend anymore.”
RESPONSE: The truth is the truth, whether I state it or someone else does. The Truth is the Truth, whether or not you believe or accept it. Even if I am not here to state it, “fornication is sin” will STILL BE THE TRUTH. You and this church either accept that Word as Truth, or you don’t. Simple as that.
You can kick me out. Whether I attend this church is not important. What is important is whether or not this church and its people will try to correct those in sin; or look the other way when obvious sin is going on. What is important is whether or not this Church and its people will confront, correct and eliminate sin. What is important is whether or not this church accepts the bible as Truth.
. I really do think that many of them hold the view that women are morally and spiritually superior to men, and thus inherently good….
If Christian women are spiritually superior, why do so many of them fornicate with badboys, and refuse to date good Christian men who would marry them?
..Rather than believe women are automatons “who will behave in certain ways regardless”,…
Believing that women are automatons who will react a certain way, is the core of Game theory. Too bad it’s so damned close to the truth for a large percentage of them…
…they believe that a woman will always choose the right and good thing, unless of course a man leads her astray…
Many, many Bible passsages teach exactly the opposite — that women often lead men sexually astray. Haven’t these Christian leaders ever read the Bible?
Someone is going to call me out for saying…
A. If Christian women are spiritually superior, why do so many of them fornicate with badboys, and refuse to date good Christian men who would marry them?
and then…
B. Believing that women are automatons who will react a certain way, is the core of Game theory. Too bad it’s so damned close to the truth for a large percentage of them…
In answer to your yet unstated slam: I’m happily married thank you very much, to one of the rare exceptions. I am NOT a rejected loser, a false niceguy, who can’t get or keep a woman due to B. — I came to believe in B. because the behavior of A. disillusioned me so much.
You’ve got your causal arrow backwards.
I heard a preacher say this weekend that he considered single moms to be heroes. His mom was a single mom. Maybe if the single mom is a widow because she and her husband were on the mission field, and he were martyred for his faith, or something like that, I might consider the hero category. But if her life is messed up because of her bad choices, isn’t that like people calling a basketball player a hero for getting HIV and telling everyone about it.
I don’t know if women are the sole source of the no-fault divorces, even if 65 or 70% of these divorces may be filed by women. Many of the cases could be beta husbands who agree to the divorce, like they agree with whatever else to make their wives happy, and passively say, “You handle the paperwork.” That’s another social problem.
But I do think you are on to something on how the fault lies at the feet of men. Who were the leaders in Congress, the Senate, the courts, and the executive branch back when feminism started to gain ground? Men. Now, mostly men are in the top roles, but even when men are in power they will do things like fund ‘minority’ scholarships for girls to get degrees in ‘Women’s studies’ and other degrees that don’t help our economy or our society even when women are getting more degrees than men. Men support and fund this stuff. So men are at fault for not standing up for good common sense and basic morality.
@Deti,
Hell hath no fury like a woman/church called out for her sin.
Like there’d be any dialog in this scenario? They will shun you. In another time they would burn you or behead you. You’d be ostracized the first moment a woman accused you of hating women. Being more scriptural than them only makes their rage burn hotter.
“If Christian women are spiritually superior, why do so many of them fornicate with badboys, and refuse to date good Christian men who would marry them?”
Churchian response: Because the badboys are bad, and trick those sweet, innocent paragons of virtue into having sex with them. And those pretty young girls aren’t dating those good Christian men because, well, the girls aren’t really grown up yet, and the Christian boys are behind them a little bit, and the boys need to catch up to the girls. Besides, the girls need time to explore themselves and work a little before they settle down with a good boy who’s ready to be a husband and father.”
Yes and feminism benefits those same top men. The ones who pass the laws and agreed to the changes that feminism wrought are not the ones who pay the price of it. Those men are the alpha men of society (whether or not they are personally alpha men) and benefit substantially from feminism. After all they can get women’s votes, pay lower wages to all workers, have more sex without consequences etc.
@ anon
“Haven’t these Christian leaders ever read the Bible?”
Oh, they read it all right. And discarded everything that doesn’t mesh with their preconceived notions of the world. It is just a tool to advance their agenda, that is all.
TBC is correct. I’ve been meaning to go into detail on the idea for a while, but the basic gist is this:
Feminism is a reversion to the state of nature, where most women were able to associate (sexually mostly) with the top tier men, and the top tier men could enjoy nearly unlimited sexual access to women. Women want, as their preferred sexual strategy, serial monogamy. But if they have to choose between polygamy (top tier male sexual strategy) versus “hard” or lifetime monogamy (lower tier male sexual strategy), then they will choose polygamy. At least under that system they get what they really want: sex with alpha males.
@Some Guy:
The truth is that some of us could pull it off without much issue (there’s social stress involved, but there always is during a confrontation), while most guys couldn’t. This has come up before a few times, especially the Joseph of Jackson case. (With SSM’s blog down, we can’t really link right to the story anymore) The difference between what a socially dominant man can do, in that type of setting, compared to a non-dominant man is night and day.
The issue is we’ve either run most of them off or cowed them so thoroughly that they don’t fight anymore.
Deti —
Do you really think that’s our beloved Sunshine Mary upthread? Somehow that post doesn’t quite feel right. It’s almost too perfect — it reads as if it was written by someone who doesn’t really believe it, but trying to imitate someone who does.
Maybe it’s T pretending to be her?
“Hell hath no fury like a woman/church called out for her sin.”
Like Roissy said…the closer you get to the truth the more she screams.
And I’d agree women are mostly automatons when it comes to morality…but we live in an age where society overwhelmingly approves of them to live the most immoral life imaginable. Is it any wonder they aren’t happy and basically dead inside? That happiest girls I’ve seen recently were the ones who don’t seem to be infected with it.
I think the worst thing any feminist can do is soil a young woman’s mind with immorality and the worst thing a man can do is soil her body with it. You can see it in their eyes as they get older that they are an empty shell of themselves if they take that path. If you do come with the sword be prepared that you have to face a woman who probably has 30-40 years of a view that comes from a position of immorality. Since that’s all she knows…she won’t give it up without a fight.
To clarify, there are two possible takes on this:
Women= automatons = neutral
Men= moral agents= can make themselves and women act for good or for evil
as compared to:
Women= spiritually superior= inherently good
Men= moral agents= can act good just like women, or can act for evil and turn women away from good and towards evil.
The problem with that is that it can’t be the underlying idea of someone who says that:
…if you’re a single gal hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women. A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.”
That’s obviously NOT a moral choice. It’s true that he is saying “well, she’s forced to do that, because the men all suck and are not worth marrying”, but he clearly can’t think that this is a moral choice by the woman, and “men not being worthy of marrying” is also not a sin, so it isn’t evil leading a woman to evil. It’s more a case of women being automatons, and will have babies no matter what — if a man worth marrying shows up, they’ll do it in a marriage, and if one doesn’t, they’ll do it alone. That is more like a house pet than a morally superior paragon of virtue.
@Deti:
The Objection/Response comment is pure gold. So much distilled so well. I may just outright memorize it. It’s great to have that type of stuff just in your pocket.
@donalgraeme:
“Hard” monogamy is the best available option for everyone involved. But, like ‘equality’, almost no one “actually likes it” but they “appreciate it when they have it”. We, as humans, don’t like it when we don’t have an advantage. In a hard monogamy situation, everyone’s options are constrained, but the totality of the benefit is far better for society rather than the individual. This falls into the same issue as the Founding Fathers and a number of the decisions made, especially by George Washington. It took humans thousands of years to produce a few Men capable of putting the “needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few”. We won’t see many national leaders like that again for a while.
I’m planning to write a post that explains why I would never date single moms. I have no kids and never been married, I think that alone should explain why I wouldn’t be a good fit for divorced moms, but a lot of women (not all) still take umbrage. Why am I expected to be content not only to forgo enjoying a relationship/marriage before kids enter the picture, but also cede much of my wealth and time to be a father image to kids that are not mine? To add insult to injury, a lot of these same mothers don’t want more children, so I’d never have the chance to have kids of my own, enjoying those moments when my kid is born and watching him or her grow up, and learning how to be a father from the very beginning. Couple that with the fact that I have no rights in court, even with prenuptials, where’s the upside in dating divorced/single moms?
Are the churches really suggesting that people like me have some Christian duty to play janitor and clean up the mess unwed moms have made of their lives? Pass. The taxes I pay should more than cover that “obligation” anyway.
I’ve always said, divorced moms should date divorced dads if they’re really looking to meet someone. It only makes common sense that you seek out people whose life experiences mirror your own.
anonymous:
I just noticed the SSM comment. I hovered over the HTML link in her name; links to the old site. It looks like a new gravatar but that’s to be expected.
SSM, if that’s you, let us know. That comment seems a bit too ardent and artificial for you.
Somebody put out the SSM-signal to have her show up here. HHG, let her go for a minute…
And I’d agree women are mostly automatons when it comes to morality
Wouldn’t this be part and parcel with a submissive nature?
To be clear, woman have the potential to be moral. Moral on their own standing, because someone of strength taught her how to be so and, usually, that strength still has to be there for her to hold onto.
If it weren’t for my husband and parents, I would be lost.
To be very clear, me being lost would absolutely be my own fault.
@ Novaseeker
Very good analysis there. That does seem to fit Driscoll’s argument, doesn’t it? I suppose I could quibble by noting that not all of the churchians necessarily believe that, but that would be an error on my part. Perhaps I am making the core mistake of listening to what people say, and not observing what they do. Because in that context those like Driscoll seem to act as though women really are automatons.
So does that mean that he and those like him don’t really believe the nonsense they spew about women being spiritually superior? Or is there something else at play here?
And with a society that preaches immorality the options a man has is to lead his woman to morality and fight a huge sea of media, government, church leaders, her girlfriends, magazines, tv shows, movies, and whatever other brainwashing devices there are…or just slide down the easy path of destruction.
Now I believe that with God’s help even I could overcome all that for my lady (granted she had a strong base growing up)…but many guys just don’t have that belief and would prefer to wallow in the filth.
Looking Glass, 4:04:
Thanks.
There are maidens, matrons, and harlots.
Widows are a special case of matron with a short half-life.
It is difficult enough to deal with a childless woman, why would any sane man want to complicate his life and take on more baggage than O’Hare Airport? A simple Risk/Reward analysis would quickly dictate the situation as a NO GO!
I try to avoid single moms. But HOW? They are EVERYWHERE!!! If I go to the mall, I will see a single mom. If I go to the coffee shop I will see a single mom. If I go to work, I will overhear single moms talking to each other about being single moms, trading single mom tips. If I dine out, it will be a single mom waiting on my table. If I go to the bar to have a drink the bartender will talk to me about being a single mom. If I go to the grocery store, I see more single moms with their kids than I do a FAMILY. If I go on a dating website, I will see more single moms than women WITHOUT kids. It’s networking for moms who can’t go clubbing to pick up trash. If I look under my couch, I will probably find a single mom.
It seems to me if that comment was T and not SSM, Dalrock would have picked it up from the IP addresses and who is whitelisted, blacklisted, and in moderation.
I think that was SSM and that she was simply very excited to see this post.
It seems to me if that comment was T and not SSM, Dalrock would have picked it up from the IP addresses
Good point, Deti. Perhaps it really is SSM being even more intensely herself than ever. Which, in my book, is pretty darned cool.
Somebody put out the SSM-signal to have her show up here. HHG, let her go for a minute…
No, no. If HHG has got hold of her, that’s far more important.
@Stingray
The way I see it, both men and women have equal potential for morality and agency. However, men are more resistant to emotional trickery, and therefore have a higher resistance to immorality if they have good intentions (some women have the best of intentions, but still sin in incredibly obvious ways). The submissiveness of women to men is a way of saying: lead me, take some of that responsibility off my shoulders and onto yours, and I will follow and help you achieve it. Not because she’s less moral, but because she recognizes her man to be better equipped to avoid trickery. And a man is that much stronger if he has a woman at his side to help him. If we go back to the question of cowardice in calling out sin, imagine how much more courage a christian man would be if he knew he had the support of his wife!
Why am I expected to ..cede much of my wealth and time to be a father image to kids that are not mine? To add insult to injury, a lot of these same mothers don’t want more children, so I’d never have the chance to have kids of my own
That was exactly why I stopped dating single mothers. Past 30, when I got desperate enough to start dating women with baggage, I was willing to take on stepkids along with having my own, but every single mother that I got past 1 date with, ended up admitting that she didn’t want more kids — that I would be getting stepkids INSTEAD OF having my own.
Uh. NO.
@ Looking Glass
“Hard” monogamy is the best available option for everyone involved. But, like ‘equality’, almost no one “actually likes it” but they “appreciate it when they have it”.
Whether it is the best option or not depends on what one wants in life.
For a man who wants to have sex with as many women as possible and can have sex with as many women possible, its an awful system, as it curtails that lifestyle. Now, for a man who is lower status, and would be content to have sex with just one woman, its a great system. It guarantees him a mate, which he might not have under a polygamous system.
For the top tier women (9’s and 10’s), “hard” monogamy is great. It lets them keep all the best men to themselves. But for most of the women below them, it means that they won’t be able to have an attractive man as a mate (remember, only ~ 20% of men are attractive to women). So they won’t like the system. Sure it might link them up with a stable provider type, but as we have seen, that isn’t what women want.
“Hard” monogamy benefits society as a whole, because it provides incentives to the lower tier men in the form of guaranteed sexual access to a woman. Sure she might only be a 5 or a 4, but that is better than life as an incel. As long as a lower tier man works hard, that much is available to him. Feminism, in trashing the prior system of hard monogamy, has done its best to destroy this incentive system. PUAs and MGTOW are a natural result.
Keeping in line with the actual OP, one of the results of this new feminist system is the large number of unwed mothers out there. The system still expects those lower tier men to marry them, of course. Since the incentives to do so are mostly gone, the system has to resort to shaming tactics to get by. But I think that it is becoming increasingly obvious that such tactics are failing more and more as time goes by.
97.64% of American women are a stupid investment.
Bon Appetit.
Speaking the truth will do little good in the synagogue of Satan.
If they will admit Women have weaker moral agency, then it was better when they were treated as property protected by their Fathers first, then their Husbands. Leaving someone who easily falls into sin to be tempted is the antithesis of mercy. Yet if they can take equal responsibility, then these wayward whores ought to be treated no differently than the men in a SF gay pride parade.
If women are the poor things who can’t understand or control themselves, we need to go back to when they were protected.
This Sunday (5th of Lent) in Catholic churches, we have the reading about the Woman caught in adultery. The last words are often lost, to that woman: “Go and sin NO MORE”. At least the Pharisees, even if only to entrap Jesus (stoning was against Roman Law), didn’t say it was OK for her to be an adulteress.
I won’t excuse the men here (in the case of unmarried women), but they may not be Christians, nor does their evil excuse the woman. When it takes two to sin, both sin, not just one.
Zykos,
Thank you for your response and it makes perfect sense.
@ Deti
Well, we’re acting like cowards, but not because we want to feel like heroes. We don’t speak up because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.
I would like to add, as this is my current situation, that Biblical illiteracy is also a factor. I’ve been reading through the Bible to at least have a better grasp in it’s entirety. Rather than relying on the standard yearly passages marked on the calendar that the pastor’s sermonize from.
It’s quite easy to get redirected and reframed if there is no Biblical grounding. Quickly looking up text and posting is different than being able to stand your ground secure in the knowledge of your faith.
Very good analysis there. That does seem to fit Driscoll’s argument, doesn’t it? I suppose I could quibble by noting that not all of the churchians necessarily believe that, but that would be an error on my part. Perhaps I am making the core mistake of listening to what people say, and not observing what they do. Because in that context those like Driscoll seem to act as though women really are automatons.
So does that mean that he and those like him don’t really believe the nonsense they spew about women being spiritually superior? Or is there something else at play here?
It’s hard to know. I wouldn’t be shocked if many are inconsistent and bob back and forth between the “women are superior to men by nature” and the “women are going to do this undesirable thing unless men step up” — the difference being mainly the context of the statement, with the bottom line commonality being “you men suck, you need to man up”. I suspect that this is more the case than a true consistency being present.
“noble heroes” who frivolously detonate their families.
Make that,
“Nobel heroes” who frivolously detonate their families.
Agreed with Deti. I have been nearly excommunicated from my college church many times over the years due to various issues I have raised. I have been called everything from a woman hater to a terrorist (the terrorist comment was for making fun of how much women love Twilight). The infected don’t want to change. The pastors and youth pastors are alphas in name only. They are controlled by their wives and the women around them, regardless (or, more likely, because) of the attention they get. I have fought many times and walked away many times and held my tongue many times and lost my temper many times over the hypocrisy and corruption I have seen.
The churchian men worship women, not God. The white knights and manginas threaten with violence and excommunication and use shaming language. They passive aggressively threaten every man who dares not bow before the almighty woman. The women are in control in the church and they know it. The Mark Driscolls of the world can be receiving sexual favors from a dozen women in their congregation… but it doesn’t change the fact they are their well trained slaves, nothing more.
People act as if the church can be saved in its present state. What if it can’t? What if it’s too far gone? What if the only thing left to do is burn it to the ground and start anew?
I don’t know how a man could marry a single mother…just the thought some other dude plowing the lady and the physical evidence of that being there everyday would be more than enough for me to say no.
Marrying a divorced woman is another story…you have that image plus she’s carrying a ton of hatred for her husband which will be directed at you.
I’m going marrying a virgin who isn’t too infected with this evil society or singledom. Either way I’ll be happy.
I wouldn’t be shocked if many are inconsistent and bob back and forth between the “women are superior to men by nature” and the “women are going to do this undesirable thing unless men step up”
Innocence and purity. These men believe women are these things and therefore spiritually superior and yet cannot be held accountable for deeds that they can blame on those impure man boys.
Okay, but “intentionally” becoming a single mother can’t be blamed on men. It’s intentional by definition.
It would be nice if single moms were a little more discreet about their circumstances or at least have a plausible cover story (the dad died in the war, mine collapse, plane crash, etc). OTOH, at what age do we assume that a childless single woman has had an abortion(s)? 40? 30? 25? And would that be worse than a woman who calculated getting pregnant by someone she had no intention of marrying in order to avoid barrenness, loneliness, or boredom?
The road to true freedom comes not from seeking validity through position or power in marriage or the church. True freedom comes by obedience to Christ, which means honoring God’s Word in every area, including biblical gender roles. Scholars like those at Christians for Biblical Equality, who argue for an egalitarian view of Scripture, may be well meaning and gifted individuals who love the Lord. But they are severely misguided in their teachings. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we have a responsibility to humbly correct error in the church, “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15)
From an article at AiG, The Influence of Postmodernism, is along the same thinking as Dalrock’s posts.
Novaseeker,
Agreed, but do not dismiss the power a woman can hold over these men when she wants to.
Christianmainstream evangelical women deserve the men the christo-feminine imperative has created for them.For example, she desperately wanted a child! She just had to because she was called to it. She just knew she was meant to be a mother. But!! No man would marry her. She could not find a good biblical man to marry her. So, her only other terrible option to make this calling happen was artificial insemination. Those darn men are responsible for not marrying her and making her a mother.
I know that’s the reasoning, but it takes huge metaphysical gymnastics to pass on the sin of what is described as an intentional act onto another. It’s not as if the man tricked her — she INTENTIONALLY became a single mother — it was her intent. Again, it’s one thing to say that the context for the formation of that intent was that men were not manning up, but her decision is still intentional sin. I don’t see how you get around that other than by at least tacitly believing that women have reduced moral agency, even for their intentional sins.
“I’m going marrying a virgin who isn’t too infected with this evil society or singledom. Either way I’ll be happy.”
Seconded.
@zykos
That falls right in with the Garden of Eden – Eve was tricked into eating the forbidden fruit, while Adam knew what he was doing, did it anyway, and then tried to blame God “it was that woman you gave me!”
I don’t disagree with you, Novaseeker. But is it decreased moral agency that just is part of being a woman or is it what is being taught to them today? I tend to agree with what Zykos said above. Women are capable of moral agency, but I think we need the strength of others to back us up. Maybe the very fact that we need that strength is evidence of our decreased ability. I don’t know.
Those others, namely being men. However, elderly women are called teach as well. What they teach these days is dreck.
donal; “it provides incentives to the lower tier men in the form of guaranteed sexual access to a woman. Sure she might only be a 5 or a 4, but that is better than life as an incel. As long as a lower tier man works hard, that much is available to him. Feminism, in trashing the prior system of hard monogamy, has done its best to destroy this incentive system. “
Just to draw that out a bit more, the key is “incentives”.
A demotivated man produces no more than force of circumstance obliges. No surplus. Which means the top tier men and their harems become very, very poor as well. As poor as the disgusting betas, but usually minus their skills and work ethic. In which situation the rational alpha will discard all but the most valuable females, and retain only so many of them as his personal efforts can support. Problem?
Added to that here’s the constant danger which haunted even the most hunky of polygamous alpha cavemen. “If I monopolize the meat I drag in, or the women I attract, then there’s a good chance I’ll end up with ten beta spears up me one dark night”.
Not a worry, as long as there’s taxes, and a welfare state, as the feminists (among others) have discovered.
Christian (Churchian) mainstream evangelical women deserve the men the christo-feminine imperative has created for them.
You are damn right on that one Rollo
I’m not married and I desperately want to have sex with every attractive female I see. I’m called to do it because that’s my biological urge. It’s a sin if I do the things to facilitate it.
Men and women aren’t animals. I get women have the baby rabies…but feelings don’t give you a pass to justify sinful acts.
Everyone needs the strength of others to back them up. Other men also provide this to other men, women help men be better as well, and women help women to be better — when they are bothering to do it. This is the concept of communion. Yes, it is male led, but the men are also acting in concert with each other, supporting each other, and need the support. I think it’s a mistake to say that women need more support to be moral than men do. The kind of support may be different, but it’s needed in each case.
@ earl – Of course.
@ Novaseeker – A different kind of support is needed. That makes sense as well. So then, is it decreased moral agency, is it that women do not have much support for their moral agency in that they are being held as innocent and superior spiritually and then therefore are simply using this place for their own advancement, or is it something else?
Also, I am starting to wonder if I am misunderstanding what you mean by moral agency. Would you mind giving me a brief description?
@ Tam
“Added to that here’s the constant danger which haunted even the most hunky of polygamous alpha cavemen. “If I monopolize the meat I drag in, or the women I attract, then there’s a good chance I’ll end up with ten beta spears up me one dark night”.”
From an evolutionary standpoint, it was the lower tier men organizing against the top tier men which pushed lifetime monogamy and made it standard practice in many cultures. Typically, polygamy only survives in cultures where the male mortality rate was so high that even lower tier men could gain women, because of their rarity.
When lower tier men have no incentive to work hard, they won’t. And when they don’t, everyone else will suffer as well. While top tier men may have thought up western civilization, it was the lower tier men who built it.
“Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.”
The white birth rate per 1000 women;
1960 – 23.7
2010 – 12.5
Due to men’s tendencies to date and marry down in years there is in actual fact a back end (towards 1960) man glut compared to the front end (towards 2010) scarcity of supply of women. We are at the tail end of an inter generational over supply of marriageable men.
According to Jason Molloy (of Evo and Proud) high sex ratios create a civilizing affect (low violence, high fidelity, beta bahaviour). Due to the back end over supply of men (compared to the front end scarcity of women) we are at end of an inter generational super high sex ratio period.
That is why women up until now could have Alpha f..cks and beta bucks, as the betas were competing for a rare resource.
Once the back end over supply of men reach marriageable obsolescence (past prime age of marriage) the sex ratio will be closer to or below parity (factoring in prison, homelessness, unemployment etc.).
So up until now this is as good as it gets for women, the past 40 years has been an absolute sexual utopia for women as men have been at their best behaviour.
If single motherhood is a crisis now, they have no idea what is awaiting them around the corner.
Nevermind. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency"<I got it.
Holy cow did I mess up that HTML. Anyway, I wasn’t thinking. I looked it up myself and I got it now.
When lower tier men have no incentive to work hard, they won’t. And when they don’t, everyone else will suffer as well. While top tier men may have thought up western civilization, it was the lower tier men who built it.
What you’re calling lower tier men by today’s standards were upper tier men by yesterday’s. This was my point on another thread on this blog. The term “alpha” today tends to mean “is able to pull women”.
Personally, I think it’s healthier to go back to yesteryear. If a man is honest, loyal, inspires cool ideas and can think up neat solutions to complex problems, I don’t give a good god damn whether women like him or not, or whether the players would call him “incel omega” or any other stupid thing.
Years ago, when I had a steady girlfriend, she slighted one of my friends who came to visit in a very subtle way. I reacted rather viscerally and told her “shut your trap” (I knew she didn’t like him). I suppose this has been a thought that’s been boiling around in my subconscious since then. Women seek to deliver status markers to men based upon whether women find men approval worthy. I think we should deny women this arrogant act whenever possible.
a fine piece
correct to emphasize, emphasize, and emphasize the COWARDICE of the western — and especially american — pastors and clergy in their constant harping on male faults, and the utter failure to even mention female faults . . . to say nothing of their silence concerning the seething, anti-christian matriarchy extant in the u.s. for decades
the companion of their cowardice is greed —
“She has been featured with hundreds of media outlets, including The 700 Club, Daystar Television, Moody Radio, Focus on the Family, and many more.”
worship of our Father, and of our King Jeshua, in the u.s. is a function of two things:
1) expression by the male “church leader” of collective female will
2) monetary and “career” interests
“christianity” is a HUGE business, and the organizations listed above appeal overwhelmingly . . . almost exclusively . . . to women
i cannot even stand to hear the voices of the “pastors” from the moody “church” — the smoothness and softness in their voices is obviously vetted, conditioned, and demanded by women
like the “men” who lead the State, the Church in the west is ruled by males vetted, and controlled, by women
pointing out the duhness of this reality to “chrisitan” women returns the exact same response as when confronting the secular version of a feminist — they go immediately on the attack, seeking to destroy the individual voice that spoke truth, while gathering as many male allies as possible to silence the monster who is Making Them Feel Bad
yet these same women expect , at any moment, to be raptured into heaven with Jesus bc, you know, Jesus and the saints want God’s Kingdom to be a totalitarian gynarchy, just like mammy’s little dogpatch, here in the Sisterland of Satan
the organizations listed above, and MANY others, including almost ALL “churches” in america, use God’s scriptural Word — and indeed the very names of our Father and his Son — as covers for comfortable, secure, materially-rich careers and lives, while they prance around in their communities as Big Men…. as Spiritual Men lol
as in secular society, one can only move-up by beating-down men, and by pandering to women, both individually and collectively
speaking God’s truth to their congregations would result in loss of their entire careers, they’d never find another (ptooey) job, and their well-paid lives would quickly become rather…. well, Christ-like
cant let THAT happen!
evidence of the betrayer of God, and of their nations, will not be scrubbed-away, and their “churches” will be trampled into grit, and with pleasure
perhaps the LORD will accept these “pastors” and parishioners of Babylon’s false chuches into his Eternal Kingdom, but if he does, it wont be by my prayer
given the tremendous damage these people have done to God’s church, to their nations, to good men, and especially to innocent little bodys, who WANT THEIR FATHERS, i wouldnt count on mercy from the King on this one, he is really pissed
Why I would never marry a single mom; I don’t see it working out well for other man. What a man gets is limited opportunity to have his own genetic legacy, better chance of being divorced by her and the fiscal fallout from that. Then there is the utter lack of appreciation, and gratitude from the single mom an her spawn…. cannot see the upside to being involve with one
On October 12, 2012, Pastor Mark Driscoll tweeted:
“Single guys: don’t overlook the single moms. Jesus’ mom was a single mom & it went pretty well for Joseph.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/PastorMark/status/261252046659911680
@ Boxer
“What you’re calling lower tier men by today’s standards were upper tier men by yesterday’s. This was my point on another thread on this blog. The term “alpha” today tends to mean “is able to pull women”.”
I don’t equate PUAs as top tier men. They are not. Rather, they pretend to be. Or perhaps it is better to say that they know how to mimic some of the attitudes and behaviors of the top tier men.
“Personally, I think it’s healthier to go back to yesteryear. If a man is honest, loyal, inspires cool ideas and can think up neat solutions to complex problems, I don’t give a good god damn whether women like him or not, or whether the players would call him “incel omega” or any other stupid thing.”
You don’t seem to understand. Men were honest, and loyal, and worked hard, because it could in fact guarantee them the attention of women. It did not make them top tier. You may not care whether women like your or not, but plenty of men do. If hard work gets you no reward, why bother?
Your framing of the argument here was very well done. It managed to shame both parties in the right way. And it didn’t use any of my most hated phrases to do it.
So then, is it decreased moral agency, is it that women do not have much support for their moral agency in that they are being held as innocent and superior spiritually and then therefore are simply using this place for their own advancement, or is it something else?
Also, I am starting to wonder if I am misunderstanding what you mean by moral agency. Would you mind giving me a brief description?
It’s not decreased moral agency. It’s a society that has failed to hold women to any moral standard — which creates an environment in which female immorality, even *deliberate* immorality as Driscoll is describing above, is excused, if not downright celebrated. Christ held women to account. Driscoll does not. It doesn’t take much to see where the spirit of Christ clearly is *not*, in my view.
By “moral agency” I mean the freedom to make moral (or immoral) decisions and be held accountable for them — the full ability to choose right and wrong.
There is only one cure for this scourge: Celibacy for all—men and women—until marriage. Men of this board it starts with YOU. You can’t change the world but you can impact change by refusing to sleep with these would-be baby mammas and by training your sons to do the same.
@Ton
Excellent point that doesn’t get heard enough.
There is only one cure for this scourge: Celibacy for all—men and women—until marriage.
True, true, and Amen.
Men of this board it starts with YOU
No. It doesn’t. I waited til my wedding night…at age THIRTY EIGHT… and that choice never stopped ANY “good Christian girls” from rejecting me and fornicating with other guys.
It only takes a SMALL percentage of badboys, to service all the girls.
If 90% of the men decide to abstain til marriage, nothing in society changes — the 10% badboys will take care of everything — and disease, carouselling, illegitimate births, and the blunting of women’s affections for the good men they’ll later marry, will keep right on happening exactly as now. And there will be no incentive whatsoever for women to change their behavior.
If 90% of of the women decide to abstain til marriage, a massive postitive cultural shift occurs. And there will be a huge incentive for the men to change their behavior.
For this reason, as a matter of pure logic, women MUST be the “gatekeepers of sex”. Speaking from experience, we men can “keep their gates” til we are blue in the face (or elsewhere), and it has no social effect whatseoever.
I understand that a Signor Bergoglio from Buenos Aires, a Pastor now living in Italy, is in favour of the Baptism of Children no matter that there Mother may be an unrepentant single woman. To deprive these poor children of Baptism may be to consign their souls to Limbo, but then again granting Baptism may be pandering to female promiscuity. I was therefore wondering what the correct view on this difficult matter may be. Personally I would opt for post-birth Abortion, given the horrors of the slums of Argentina, and the Colonial aggression of that country towards sovereign island territories near Antarctica which were never part of their country; but others may think this a bit harsh.
Reblogged this on Breaking through illusions and commented:
This post brings to mind those passages:
Leviticus 10:1-3 (NIV 1984)
Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD. contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the lord and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Moses then said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke of when he said:
“‘Among those who approach me
I will show myself holy;
in the sight of all the people
I will be honored.'”
And in the passage of Numbers Moses and Aaron were commanded to speak to the rock to bring water out of it:
Numbers 20:7-12(NIV 1984)
The lord said to Moses,” Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to the rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community and their livestock can drink.” So Moses took the staff from the LORD’s presence, just as he commanded him, He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, “Listen you rebels shall we bring you water out of this rock?” Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank. But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in my enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring the community into the land I will give them.”
So because the “Christian” men did not honor god as holy by their failure to hold women accountable their ignorance of scripture or their evasion of what is inconvenient in scripture. So their Judgment is to come. Unless they repent.
So men, are you thinking about stepping up and volunteering to be a disposa-Dad? Well, before you do, think about the society in which we currently find ourselves (from reddit):
“I was accused of abusing a child when I rescued him from drowning. I was swimming on beach and I noticed a 8 or 9 year old kid come off his little surf board and he sunk straight to the bottom, about 10 feet deep. I swam down and rescued the kid and swam him back to the beach.
As soon as I got the child to the beach he was crying and coughing up water, his mother ran down screaming to leave her boy alone. She was screaming at me so loudly that people were crowding around to see what had happened. At this time the life guards turned up and I advised them what happened as I could not talk any sense to the mother. The life guards took the boy and mother to the life guard hut and I went back to my towel on the beach.
One of the life guards came back to me 10 minutes later and ask me to stay where I am because the police have been called and the mother wants to press charges. The cops turned up 20 minutes later and interviewed me and at that time another lady came up to the police and corroborated my story. The cops let me go, no apology from mother who was marching off the beach arguing with the cops after they told her what happened.
If it was not for the other lady I believe I would be sitting in a police cell for rescuing a kid.”
Aw yes, Maggio, I remember her! I did a post on her at some point. Still gets me..pregnant four times by age 19! I am starting to think slutting it up is baptism for churchians.
Dalrock,
I would love to see your analysis of the new show Preachers Daughers
http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/preachers-daughters
The one 18 year old daughter has a baby and doesn’t know who the daddy is.
The fact that ‘morals’ change over time provides that micro behaviours may be influenced by macro trends.
Macro issues like demographics and economics are enormously complicated topics that are in a constant state of flux and very difficult to pin point.
That being said, guys like Stanton have no idea that women have been operating from an abaundance frame, both sexually and economically. Sex (over supply of men) and money (economic bubble and full government coffers) have been on tap.
He has the drivers of behaviour completely arse backwards, men have been lying prostrate for women for the past 40 years and womens choices have been dictating events.
Now that we are reaching an economic and demographic crunch, guys like Stanton have a queasy feeling in their guts and the only way they know how to respond is to bash the easiest target from their ivory towers.
The problem is that cultural trends have been set and it will take a long time for the residual effects to wash out. Things are going to get a lot, lot worse before they get any better.
I understand that a Signor Bergoglio from Buenos Aires, a Pastor now living in Italy, is in favour of the Baptism of Children no matter that there Mother may be an unrepentant single woman
He called those opposed “hypocrites”. I can’t quite see how they would be so.
Novaseeker,
We are in agreement. I think I misunderstood something further upthread, but seeing your last comment nails it for me.
Taken from the Unknown History of Misandry
1936 – Dorothy Dix, journalist, “the world’s most highly paid woman writer”
One of the most monstrously unfair thing in the world is the way women treat their husbands about their children. They demand that their husbands shall slave to support their children and deny themselves ease and luxury in order that their children may go to high-priced colleges, and have expensive cars and clothes, but that ends their conception of a father’s relationship to his children. He is just a biological and financial necessity and, having served his purpose, he goes into the scrapheap like any other useless piece of junk. They don’t even think of his having any right to a part of the children, or any feeling about them.
How women ever got the idea that mothers alone love their children and that fathers have no more affection for their offspring than an alley cat has for his, no one knows, but that they do hold to this theory is amply proven by the ruthlessness with which they separate their children from their fathers when they happen to want to divorce their husbands.
1936 – Doris Blake, journalist
Once in a while one meets a mother with sufficient sense of fairness to realize that because she can’t get along with her child’s father, this constitutes no reason why there should not be devotion between the father and child. Ordinarily, however, one finds the feminine parent doing everything in her power to poison the child’s mind against the other parent. The mind poisoning goes on at a vicious rate when father and mother have come to the parting of ways.
And it goes on in ratio to the mother’s own fault in the domestic upheaval. Women have a remarkable penchant for absolving themselves from every particle of blame in the event of domestic strife. Regrettably, when the man has taken all he can stand and departs, sympathy is on the woman’s side, no matter what her status as a wife and parent.
Today’s first lenten reading is from Wisdoms 2: 1a ,12 – 22. I was thinking of this post while reading it tonight.
We are in agreement. I think I misunderstood something further upthread, but seeing your last comment nails it for me.
Good. It’s often the case that terminological misunderstandings can spawn disagreements that are illusory. I am a stickler about this somewhat because I am a lawyer, and when we draft commercial contracts, we have pages and pages of defined terms, where we define our terminology with great specificity (and negotiate these meanings) so that terminological misunderstandings are, to the extent we are good enough at covering the main problems through defining terms, mitigated.
It’s similar to a recent blog post I made where I really do think that the term “self-sufficiency” is being understood by many to mean “mastery” or “competence” rather than really what self-sufficiency implies.
Novaseeker,
I’ve made many a mistake due to misunderstanding terms since finding the ‘sphere a couple of years ago. The good thing is that I have learned a lot of new (and relearned far too many old) words, but the bad thing is hashing things out when in reality it was just me not fully getting a fairly simple word or phrase. Thanks for your time and explanations.
Pingback: The Positive Action is the Negative | The Society of Phineas
“Single guys: don’t overlook the single moms. Jesus’ mom was a single mom & it went pretty well for Joseph.”
Sure. When God miracles himself into my living room, and immediately proves his credentials with appropriate magic tricks of my devising, then I will heed His call to wife up a slut single mom. Until then, I’m on my own time.
Seriously, is this what Christianity has come to? Pastors are now comparing single moms, the characters who in a healthier age were confined to a two-dollar whorehouse on the edge of town, to the Mary character in the myth?
The Mary in the text is a de-facto part of the pantheon, conceived without sin and impregnated by divine authority. The sluts Pastor Driscoll is comparing her to are trashy whores. It’s astounding that the true believers in his congregation aren’t pointing out the obvious disrespect he has to his faith.
I wouldn’t lean my bicycle against a single mom, much less marry one.
Of course, a lot of the more modern pastors (like Driscoll) are really running cults. There probably aren’t any real true believers who will by faith do that despite the consequences. Besides, they know Pastor Driscoll is just going to add them to the huge pile of bodies behind the Mars Hill Bus. And they would rather avoid that than avoid having a lack of faith before Jesus.
(The link that didn’t go through on the last post. http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2012/06/mark-driscoll-brags-about-pile-of-bodies-behind-mars-hills-bus.html)
There’s always a remnant of those who have not bended knee to the other gods that the Lord will reserve for Himself.
you want to know why the churches are backing up single motherhood and faltering in their convictions? ignoring scripture and teachings of how families should be run?
the same reason the TV ads cater to women.
face it dude, the 700 club, churches, etc are selling a service. they arent in it for “the word”, they are in it for donations.
you think you they are going to revert back to their proper teachings? that will happen the day it becomes profitable. til then expect any successful christian establishment to work against making marriage worth our while.
if bank robbers donated a lot of money to the churches, theyd find a way to read it into scripture and defend bank robbery. they definately wouldnt trash talk it or theyd be out of business.
while your beliefs may be good and what not, hate to break it to you dude, but your religious establishment is a scam.
You must be lost, you wanted /r/atheism/.
One thing is for certain. There has never been a society in human history where men were in the long term permitted to refuse doing what women demanded them to do. Something will have to give.
Mary was not impregnated the same way every other single mother was. Plus Joseph was told how things went down in a dream from an angel….it must have been a very good dream to convince him.
Things worked out well for Joesph because Mary was the one woman in human history that displayed total submission and her kid was the Son of God. He was also with Jesus at his birth. A single mother has very little submission and her kids from other guys were probably born well before the next sucker could get in to raise them.
Driscoll needs to be outed for the fraud he is.
Men should walk away from church and spend more time in a deer-stand. Much easier to find God in the woods then it is in these supposed houses of worship.
You cannot write this stuff down often enough. These back to basics pieces are wat stands the greatest chance of slipping a red pill into some guys drink.
Another comment over at crosswalk:
Is it just me or are these statistics glaring evidence that men need to step up and step in to mentor the children in their communities? What is absent from these circumstances is a strong, positive father figure who can model how to live the Christian life and speak truth to kids about who they are in Christ. The 15 y.o. girls who are having babies may not be in that situation if their fathers had been present and communicated healthy love to them. The guys may not be in jail if their fathers had been present to model how to be a man.
So What is absent is a strong positive father figure. Therefore, men step up. Its demoralizing to read stuff like that because as one who has tried to limit my exposure to that rot from regular folks, church, work, etc. seeing a “regular folk” writing such predictable and frustrating stuff is bad
Basically, they’re saying over there,
“We women want to sleep around and have kids on our own, without following morality or having a husband we have to love and submit to. So, the rest of you men need to act like fathers to our children, except we women will owe you nothing whatsoever. You owe us duties of a husband/father, except without anything in return. That way, we get to sleep around, without committing, and not only do we not get criticized, men happily raise our children for us.”
@Andrew That way, we get to sleep around, without committing, and not only do we not get criticized, men happily raise our children for us.
I believe GBFM summarized this well enough, “Alpha fucks for Beta bucks”.
“At 19, Maggio found herself pregnant for the fourth time…”
So, she’s like the Virgin Mary? Imagine Jesus with 3 Divine Siblings…
So who won the Rationalization Hamster 500?
Like those studies… when women are ovulating, they want bad boys. Later, they want nicer guys. Yeah, sex with the alphas, then get the betas to raise the kids. Why is it that the more you know about women, it’s just like learning about any other animal that runs off instincts? Except those animals writes articles shaming betas for not wanting to help raise their alpha kiddies, for some no selfish reason, lol.
So, she’s like the Virgin Mary? Imagine Jesus with 3 Divine Siblings…
To tackle all of the Driscolls of the world, one would need that.
Much easier to find God in the woods then it is in these supposed houses of worship.
And cheaper too
“Höllenhund says:
March 16, 2013 at 4:03 am
One thing is for certain. There has never been a society in human history where men were in the long term permitted to refuse doing what women demanded them to do. Something will have to give.”
Actually, up until recently, Western Civilization was defined by men who lived by a Code of Honor, and who taugh/made women to do the same. But they deconstructed Zeus and Moses, and re-crucified Socrates and Jesus.
Lzlzzlzollzozlzlzlzoozz
Paying taxes is all her little bastard is getting from me…and that’s because I have no choice.
I’m not going to commit to her poor choices and teach her children skills. Those are only reserved for my DNA.
@Earl
I’m in a religion that clearly says fornication is a sin.
I had thought that Christianity was not a religion, but rather the acceptance of God’s offer of reconciliation to Him through the sacrifice made by His Son, that meant that, from acceptance onwards, one did all one could to bring joy to both the Father and the Son. Yet in the UK, the Methodist Church, in its Faith and Order Committee, is producing a resource on cohabitiation. Just about everyone on this site could provide the resource they need in a few words, summed up as “Don’t Do it!”
A few weeks ago we had a visit to our Bible Study Group by the minister and part of what we were looking at included a passage from the Gospel According to John. “That’s a very difficult passage,” he said. “And you must remember that John’s Gospel was the last of the Gospels to be recorded.” One older lady asked him, “Even though it is a difficult passage, it is the canon of Scripture. Are you saying we should simply ignore it?” We are still waiting for the answer.
His wife, an accredited local preacher, was the one to brag at a church group’s social event that she never wears a hat to church and “You’ll never get me to keep quiet”. Again I’m still waiting for the response to the question, “Can you give me a list of all the verses in the Bible that you ignore.
I can remember going to an assertiveness training course where the teacher said something to the effect that we need to weigh up whether the benefits of doing what we want to do, or saying what we want to say in the longer term are worth the costs of doing or saying it in the shorter term. When too many men have given up on Christianity, and are settling for churchianity, then the cost may become prohibitive, as Joseph of Jackson found out.
Farm boy:
“So, who won the Rationalization Hamster 500?”
Don’t know yet. It’s still being run. You see, “500” doesn’t really mean 500. It means whatever the hamsters want it to mean.
Go hamsters go!
For those who’d ignore the kids of these single moms, I’d urge you to consider that these kids didn’t ask to be in this situation – they’re just a much of a victim of the feminized Hamster 500 as anyone else. These kids are in a bad spot because of choices their mothers made, and what’s worse, they’re probably not going to get guidance from the people who should be taking that responsibility. As such, if you find yourself in a place where you can provide some guidance, a role model, or red pill wisdom to these kids, please consider doing so.
Alright I’ll agree with you. But here’s the point I want to make. Once again it is the man’s fault, this time because men are to cowardly to stand for what is right. … is there ever going to be a time in this country when ANYTHING will be a woman’s fault?
Almost all of these bastards were sired by alpha louts. Considering that they’ll grow up in a stagnant, violent, backward matriarchy, they hardly need any guidance and whatnot. They’ll be in their natural habitat.
True the kids are often in a bad way not of their making. However, everything you do that makes life easier/ better for single moms and their get helps to keep the hamster spinning and produces more single moms.
Women must suffer before they fix their shit. Sadly part of a woman’s suffering is the kids must suffer. Although way to often suffering of their children gets spun away by the hamster
It’s a shit choice either way.
Gosh the Lord’s been busy. All these miraculous conceptions…
Maggio finds herself pregnant at 19 for the fourth time… what an empowering story! Unless she had twins or triplets, she seems to have been pregnant for the first time at 16 or around about that time, probably earlier. What an inspiration!
For those who’d ignore the kids of these single moms, I’d urge you to consider that these kids didn’t ask to be in this situation – they’re just a much of a victim of the feminized Hamster 500 as anyone else. These kids are in a bad spot because of choices their mothers made, and what’s worse, they’re probably not going to get guidance from the people who should be taking that responsibility. As such, if you find yourself in a place where you can provide some guidance, a role model, or red pill wisdom to these kids, please consider doing so.
Amen. I am actually one of those children you mention. My mother wanted a divorce, no particular or justified reason, and after grief in the household became too much my dad finally had enough. I was 5 years old at the time and can attest there was no guidance provided to me at all while I was growing up and living with my mom.
The Catholic church I attended was less than helpful, at least from my child point of view, and was little more than Sunday childcare service.
Maggio should write a book titled: “How to keep your legs closed! Not! Lolollllzllzolllolzolzlzol!”
First things first, the “Church” needs to denounce the sins of these mothers and their enablers instead of encouraging more of this shit.
Always excellent, Dalrock; thanks for writing this.
I have a question for you, but it doesn’t really fit with any of the recent threads, and I don’t want to derail the conversation. Is there a way I can contact you? I’d really appreciate your point of view!
Go hamsters go!
Instead of outfits like Home Depot, sponsors could include Kotex, Zoloft, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Don’t forget “Focus on the Family” and “Planned Parenthood”!
For those who’d ignore the kids of these single moms, I’d urge you to consider that these kids didn’t ask to be in this situation – they’re just a much of a victim of the feminized Hamster 500 as anyone else. These kids are in a bad spot because of choices their mothers made, and what’s worse, they’re probably not going to get guidance from the people who should be taking that responsibility. As such, if you find yourself in a place where you can provide some guidance, a role model, or red pill wisdom to these kids, please consider doing so.
I think this is appropriate Christian charity; the problem is that charity to the kids is conflated with charity to the mother, and vice versa. The “man up!” call in most Churches assumes that the only way men can help these children is by marrying their sinful mother. However, being a role model or providing guidance is something anyone can do, regardless of marital association.
Ultimately, we all have to decide where we draw our lines, but I’d figure there’s a big difference to “sucking up” and taking on a liability “For the children” by marrying, versus providing some advice or help to a child when you are in a position to do so. Granted, the modern legal system has made even such help difficult, as evidenced by the testimony upthread of the man saving a drowning child being accused of abuse.
And I almost forgot to say: Deti, your “objection/response” at 3:10 is brilliant. I was having such trouble trying to explain to my parents just the other day how I felt we were called to judge other Christians in sin out of compassion, to help them to repentance, and getting hung up on the word “judge.” Now I know how to explain myself!
Uncle Sam provides all the guidence and fatherhood the children need. It is Uncle Sam that provides the women outs for divorce, single motherhood, and desires for her evil little heart.
Feeding the machine only keeps the machine alive. But I would provide my guidance to kids as long as there is no financial backing behind it, rewards for the single mother, or I wouldn’t get into some legal trouble because I’m an “evil man” around children.
What about ‘big brothers’? Do they still exist?
Although the idea of mentoring these kids is a noble one, I imagine any man stepping in to help the children of single mothers without having any particular interest in the mother would open himself up to serious false accusations or at the very least, being seen that way.
Feminist Hater says: March 16, 2013 at 11:10 am
First things first, the “Church” needs to denounce the sins of these mothers and their enablers instead of encouraging more of this shit.
This is just as bad as women telling men the men have to be “perfect” before any conversation can be had about the woman’s failings.
I gotta say, the Male Hamsterization over what to do about kids that are reaping the harvest sown by their moms is rather astounding.
I had hoped “red pill” proponents were better than that.
@ CL says: March 16, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Although the idea of mentoring these kids is a noble one, I imagine any man stepping in to help the children of single mothers without having any particular interest in the mother would open himself up to serious false accusations or at the very least, being seen that way.
No doubt a guy has to be careful what he does. All I’m saying is, if you find yourself in regular contact with kids like this, and you have a chance to help them find their way in the world, then I’d urge you to take it. It doesn’t have to be much – even a conversation about something they’re concerned about can work wonders and leave a huge impression.
Taking myself for instance, knowing that “being nice” was a one-way ticket to being permanently “Friend Zoned” would’ve made a HUGE impact in my life back when I was a teen. Instead I had to learn it the hard way over decades of time.
Wow, shaming, nice touch!
Everyone can talk until they are blue in the face, ain’t go to help much at all when the real problem isn’t tackled head on. Therefore, first denounce the sin, correct it and stop it furthering its march, then you can clean up the mess caused by promiscuous slutty women, their enablers, single ‘hero’ moms and the Driscolls of the world. Till then, your efforts are like a fart in the wind.
@A Northern Observer
This is just as bad as women telling men the men have to be “perfect” before any conversation can be had about the woman’s failings.
I see nothing wrong with what Feminist Hater mentioned. It does need to be addressed in the Church and not only addressed but acted upon. Talking and implementing being two distinct actions.
@FH March 16, 2013 at 12:14 pm
I agree that churches in general need to “church up” and actually stand for what they claim Scriptures teach.
I disagree that they churches have to “churched up” before anyone can do anything about the mess that’s resulting from the church’s sin of omission. Sure, there’ll still be more “mess” resulting from their lack of a a stand, and any efforts one makes may not make a “big” difference to a lot of people in the overall scheme of things, but so what? Making a big difference for the kids such efforts reach is still important, and it’s better than doing nothing until conditions are “perfect” and the source of the mess has been cleaned up.
“found herself pregnant” is a pretty comical choice of words. As if she played no role in the matter at all.
Farm Boy says: “Go hamsters go!
Instead of outfits like Home Depot, sponsors could include Kotex, Zoloft, and the Department of Health and Human Services.”
Don’t forget Unicor (aka, Federal Prison Industries) and its smaller state run clones. Given that the majority of incarcerated males are from single mother households, Unicor and its ilk owe their entire business model to the slave labor mills that are the single mother’s uterus. Aren’t women creating a great world?
I find it fascinating that women over at that Crosswalk thread once again demand that men come in and fix it.
The problem here is that women are demanding men fix the problem, with scant little acknowledgment of what the problem is.
Let’s face it: Most single moms at church are there because they’ve reached the end of their rope everywhere else; and church is the only place they have any kind of refuge or respite. A lot of single moms are there because they want to be part of a place where they will have some validation and affirmation (judgment-free, of course). Most of the time, when you drill down deep enough, you find out the single mom is in a situation of at least partly her own creation. Her ex or her baby daddy might very well be a dirtbag. Well, she made a decision not only to have sex with the dirtbag but also to have a kid(s) by the dirtbag. Maybe we should do a few things to help mom stop associating with and having sex with dirtbags. And maybe we should start by pointing out to her that her problem is at least in part because SHE CHOOSES TO HAVE SEX WITH DIRTBAGS.
And sometimes the problem is money or lack of education. maybe we should do a few things to help mom see that. And we should start by pointing out to her that her problem is at least in part because HER PRIORITIES ARE SCREWED UP and she cares more about her appearance and her “fun” and her “friends” than about learning how to earn, spend, save and manage money, and take care of the kids she chose to make by the dirtbag(s).
But you cannot say those things. People at church who say such things are denigrated as moralistic, pinch-faced jerk assholes, uncaring, insensitive, judgmental, cruel, heartless, and mean-spirited. “Don’t you know the children will suffer!? You have to do it for the children! YOU HATE CHILDREN! If you don’t help this mom, you’re STEALING FOOD FROM THESE CHILDREN!”
So what’s really being said here is not that men need to mentor children or “step up” and “get involved” in the lives of fatherless children. What’s really being said here is that the single moms screwed it up and responsible (unattractive beta) men (who we will use but don’t want to date or have sex with) come in here and fix this, and clean up the mess we created. These women are demanding a new class of beta orbiter. Instead of wanting help with algebra homework, they now expect child care, male role models, and child restraint. IOW, men, you need to invest in and commit to us; but we will give you nothing in return. You give to us; but we will not even so much as acknowledge that we had any hand or responsibility in creating the situation you are now being called on to address.
The hubris and nerve of these people is simply astonishing.
Helping a kid learn the red pill is one thing. If that’s what you’re talking about, that’s not really an issue.
The issue arises from the notion, in some of the crosstalk posts quoted above, that men are obligated to become surrogate fathers to the kids of single moms. That’s a bad walk, because it effectively supports the choices of the single moms and subsidizes them by minimizing the negative impact. Yes, the children are not responsible. But remember that virtually the entirety of family law, with all of its attendant injustices, is built on the same premise of mitigating the impact on the children. This is well meaning, but there is really no way to do it without propping up bad choices by the mothers — it subsidizes the choices by mitigating the impact.
So, sure, teach the red pill. But give Sally SIngleMom a free surrogate Daddy for her kids so that she can mitigate the impact of her frivorce and you become as much of a problem as the family court system or the welfare system.
“A Northern Observer says: “For those who’d ignore the kids of these single moms, I’d urge you to consider that these kids didn’t ask to be in this situation – they’re just a much of a victim of the feminized Hamster 500 as anyone else. These kids are in a bad spot because of choices their mothers made, and what’s worse, they’re probably not going to get guidance from the people who should be taking that responsibility. As such, if you find yourself in a place where you can provide some guidance, a role model, or red pill wisdom to these kids, please consider doing so.”
Uh, no. The same as it isn’t my duty to shingle your roof, pay the insurance on your car or mow your lawn for you. These children have a mother AND a father. Let those who brought them forth carry the responsibility of their guardianship. I was NOT put on this planet to be the butler to a pack of losers that just wanted to enjoy freedom without consequence by shifting the responsibility for those consequences to society in general and males in particular. Sorry for the children but everyone can’t be saved and some will simply be born to suffer. Blame the parents for that, NOT the men who have taken responsibility for their own. Also, in this society, getting involved with an unrelated child is EXTREMELY risky and carries very dire consequences. Only a moron would take on that liability.
NOrthern Observer:
I think your devotion to the cause of helping fatherless children is admirable. As you say, they didn’t ask for this; they didn’t ask to be put in the situation; and it is not their fault. The problem is how the matter is being presented, the solutions, and a complete lack of acknowledgment of WHY THIS PROBLEM EXISTS. Helping kids, while admirable, is a band-aid on multiple gunshot wounds.
I resent being told that because I’m a Christian man, I somehow have some sort of moral obligation to mentor a baby momma’s thugspawn. Sorry. I don’t have any obligation to take care of F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer’s bastards.
I resent the absolute brazen chutzpah of women such as David J had his exchange with. Here’s a guy who points out that most single moms are there because of their own choices. Yet David J’s responder essentially shames him, telling him to “forgive” his ex wife, and demanding that he personally “step up” and take care of children who aren’t even his. So David and I and other men like me have to take care not only of our own kids; but also thugspawn created through the sheer stupidity and irresponsibility of an alpha chaser or an “unhaaaaappy” woman? Women like Vande Guchte have some nerve saying crap like that.
to make matters worse, the root cause is glossed over and totally ignored. She “found herself pregnant”. Bullshit. You did not “find yourself pregnant”, like tripping over a crack in the sidewalk. You got pregnant because you had sex, voluntarily. you got pregnant because you decided to undertake the actions that led to it. “Fatherless” children? Chance are those children are fatherless because YOU, single mom, didn’t do a very good job of selecting their father.
At the very least, can we have a tone of contrition and humility? No. Instead we get shrill demands, shaming language, guilt trips, pity ploys, finger pointing, class warfare, and a complete refusal by any woman to acknowledge their part in their situations.
That is the objection here, NOrthern.
deti “Most of the time, when you drill down deep enough, you find out the single mom is in a situation of at least partly her own creation. Her ex or her baby daddy might very well be a dirtbag. ”
Her body, her choice and therefore, her responsibility. Women cannot have it both ways. They can’t demand that at one point in the process men have no choices WRT to reproduction and then sometime down the road blame men for the outcome over which they had no choice.That’s pure hamsterization. This is the situation women have created. Their body, their choice, their responsibility. Had a brat by an alpha thug that turned tail and ran? Then SHE should have made a better choice.
@Novaseeker – we agree completely.
In no way am I advocating for men to mitigate the impact of bad choices made by these intentional single mothers – those women made their bed, and they can darn well sleep in it.
I am advocating to at least remember the kids who in part have bear the consequences of those bad decisions, and help them (the kids) when you can in some appropriate and safe manner.
A Northern Observer says: “In no way am I advocating for men to mitigate the impact of bad choices made by these intentional single mothers…
I am advocating to at least remember the kids who in part have bear the consequences of those bad decisions, and help them (the kids) when you can in some appropriate and safe manner.”
Actually, that is EXACTLY what you are doing. The result is just the same as the way everyone knows CS is simply backdoor alimony. Women bank on exactly your sort of thinking to benefit themselves by using their children.
Northern:
If you help the kids, you are subsidizing the mother’s poor choices.
If you help the kids, you are mitigating the negative impact ON THE MOTHER of the mother’s poor choices. You’re taking some of the burden from her; when the burden should fall squarely on her.
” This is well meaning, but there is really no way to do it without propping up bad choices by the mothers — it subsidizes the choices by mitigating the impact.”
Say hello to the Feminine Imperative.
@Deti
I have not qualms with the “objection” as you’ve written it, and I can certainly see where it’s coming from. I, too, as a Christman man, would find it repugnant being told I “had” to marry someone I didn’t love in order to mitigate her bad decisions and do the “dad” thing for her kids.
Umm…no. Not gonna happen. My life, My choice. You made your choices, and you can live with them. If I choose to accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices, that is my choice, not yours.
I also understand that the actions of the “other side” has been repugnant, avoiding responsibility, attempting to shift blame, generally obnoxious, and not constructive in any sense of the word.
My response is to acknowledge this behavior for what it is, and for us red-pillers to take a higher road, and not get sucked down to their level of conduct.
I know people are hurting and pissed about where we are – I get that.
I would hope those of us on this side of the fence see the dangers of letting that pain dictate our behavior, to show compassion where it’s merited, while holding those responsible for this mess accountable to the fullest extent possible.
My original post was “don’t ignore the kids because of the actions of their mothers”, and that’s still all I’m asking for.
A Northern Observer “I am advocating to at least remember the kids who in part have bear the consequences of those bad decisions, and help them (the kids) when you can in some appropriate and safe manner.”
Then you advocate the perpetuation of this situation. I don’t know how you can say you understand and agree with men who don’t by the save-a-ho line of thought while simultaneously saying save the ho by saving her children. No wonder this society is in the state it’s in.
@deti March 16, 2013 at 1:15 pm
If you help the kids, you are mitigating the negative impact ON THE MOTHER of the mother’s poor choices. You’re taking some of the burden from her; when the burden should fall squarely on her.
Deti et al – What makes you think such women even care one way or another?
True story – I’m friends with a family which got detonated at the 20 year mark, wife has gone BSC (“I love him, but I’m not in love with him.”) etc. etc.
They have two kids that I’ve known most of their lives, and I see the pain they’re carrying, and it’s hard knowing the difficulties their future holds.
What you and the rest here are saying is that, in order to not mitigate the impact on the mother, I shouldn’t do anything to help these kids get through something no child should have to endure.
Please correct me if I’m reading you wrong.
I don’t know how you can say you understand and agree with men who don’t by the save-a-ho line of thought while simultaneously saying save the ho by saving her children. No wonder this society is in the state it’s in.
This goes back again to the conflation of helping the mother with helping the children. While they are often in many ways tied together, are they really the exact same? It would seem Northern Observer does not think so. For my own part, I would think it would depend on the nature and quantity of the help.
Northern Observer, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you aren’t suggesting men go out of their way to offer “fatherless” kids rides to practice or some kind of day care opportunity (which would certainly benefit the mother). It seems to me you are simply advocating that, if men are already in a position that they can dispense advice for a few minutes here, pass on a kernal of wisdom there, then they should not hold back because the mother is trash, but offer it to the kids anyhow. Nothing drastic, and probably not something that will make a difference to the mother (no daycare?!) but maybe invaluable to the kid. You seem to be advocating “not withholding” rather than “manning up.”
What strikes me is that such opportunities where a man can do such a thing without risking the mother getting involved or an accusation of something horrible is probably quite rare. So the advice still comes across as a call to action, because how many men have really had an opportunity where they could realistically interact without such a child and NOT take into account the potential legal consequences if mom cries “child abuse!” later?
NOrthern:
“don’t ignore the kids because of the actions of their mothers”, and that’s still all I’m asking for.”
We aren’t ignoring the kids because of the actions of their mothers.
Our tax dollars are confiscated to make sure they aren’t ignored.
The money from my taxes pays for those children’s school lunches.
The money from my taxes is put on their mothers’ EBT cards to buy milk, bread, and other groceries to fill their tummies.
The money from my taxes pays those children’s medical bills. So when Tommy Thugspawn breaks his arm, I pay for the doctor, the radiology bills, the removable cast, and the follow up visit to make sure he’s healed up. When Dolly Daughter gets the sniffles, I pay for the doctor bill and the ampicillin Rx.
Not to mention the fact that I pay for MY OWN children’s school lunches, MY OWN children’s groceries, and MY OWN children’s medical care.
@ GT66 says: March 16, 2013 at 1:28 pm
A Northern Observer “I am advocating to at least remember the kids who in part have bear the consequences of those bad decisions, and help them (the kids) when you can in some appropriate and safe manner.”
Then you advocate the perpetuation of this situation. I don’t know how you can say you understand and agree with men who don’t by the save-a-ho line of thought while simultaneously saying save the ho by saving her children. No wonder this society is in the state it’s in.
GT – we’re not talking about the same thing.
I am not advocating “saving the ho” by “saving the kids.”
I’m saying do little things when you can. Being a safe person they can talk to, show them how a man is supposed to behave by the way you live your own life, show an interest in how they’re doing in school, give them bits of advice when it’s appropriate, etc.
@peoplegrowing
YES YES YES!
Someone “gets” what I’m writing! 🙂
A bit more awareness of kids in this spot, a bit more patience when they act out because of their situation, a bit more time explaining things their parents didn’t explain to them, a bit of attention, the kind of stuff kids need and won’t be getting from a home life that results when mom “blew up” the family.
Looking for and taking advantage of small opportunities as they arise.
Stuff like that.
“if men are already in a position that they can dispense advice for a few minutes here, pass on a kernal of wisdom there, then they should not hold back because the mother is trash, but offer it to the kids anyhow”
I am a deti Downer today.
Good Lord, I can see it now. Some Sally Singlemom raising hell because some red pill man shared a bit of truth with a kid. “Who the hell do you think you are, telling my son not to “be nice” to girls all the time and that he would have better luck if he doesn’t spend money on them? You’re not his dad, and you are some kind of sexist PIG! I’m going to sue!! I’m calling the cops!! You probably molested him!!”
Randy Redpill sits with Tommy Thugspawn pouring his heart out about how shitty it is at home. Randy puts his arm around Tommy to give him a friendly sidehug. Sally Singlemom hears about it. “OMIGOD!!! You TOUCHED my son!! Randy Redpill is a PEDOPHILE!!”
“Give them bits of advice”
“a bit more time explaining things their parents didn’t explain to them”
In rides Sally Singlemom.
“Don’t you DARE give advice to my kids!! You are NOT their father. You have NO RIGHT to tell my children about ANYTHING. You should NOT be telling them anything about life, how to live life, sex, relationships, school or anything like that. I am their MOTHER and I will decide what they learn about such things. NOT YOU.”
@deti –
If that’s your attitude towards life and interacting with people in general, I’d suggest staying indoors until you die.
It’s simple economics really. No one has ever gone broke by telling women what they want to hear.
If a pastor stops telling the women what they want to hear, they’ll go find another pastor at a different church who will tell them what they want to hear. And they’ll take their tithes and offerings with them.
Follow the money. Always follow the money.
“I’m saying do little things when you can. Being a safe person they can talk to, show them how a man is supposed to behave by the way you live your own life, show an interest in how they’re doing in school, give them bits of advice when it’s appropriate, etc.” And by doing this I fill the void created by the mother and expose myself to a big risk and liability. No thanks. If the mother was so concerned about a father for the kids, then she wouldn’t have pushed a perfectly good one (as evidenced by twenty years of marriage) out the door. I am not the pinch hitter based on nothing more than someone else’s CHOICE as a matter of convenience or her personal fulfillment. I’m sorry these kids are having a tough time, perhaps mommy dearest should send them to therapy. After all, she is the cause of their anguish. Why is it incumbent upon me to step in and smooth over her mess?
Deti: Heh, well, yes, that is what I meant by my last paragraph. I think Northern Observer means well, and I think there’s some distinction between helping kids and helping mom, but unfortunately its just not an opportunity many (most?) men realistically have. Anything they MIGHT do could be labeled abuse or misguidance or who knows what they’ll come up with next.
Apparently Northern Observer has this opportunity to help a family friend whose family was blown apart, and by all means let him do what he thinks is right. But this opportunity is not something all men have.
NOrthern:
No. That’s not my attitude about life and interacting with people.
It’s my experience and the expereince of others in interacting with entitled single mothers who will not own up to and fess up to their choices and who try to find ways to game the system and take advantage of the good natures of good, kind, well meaning men.
Dear Deti:
I can definitely appreciate those concerns. They’re legitimate. I don’t think Randy Redpill really has to go that far, though.
My cousin lives in the next town over to where I’m living now. She’s a typical skank ho single mom with two boys. She’s driven their dad out of their lives and they hardly remember him. I hang out with the kids fairly regularly. Single moms are always crap parents, so she is generally pretty glad to get free babysitting.
Good Lord, I can see it now. Some Sally Singlemom raising hell because some red pill man shared a bit of truth with a kid. “Who the hell do you think you are
It’s really not necessary for Randy Redpill to bash the kids’ mother. I suppose I could tell the boys I chill with that “your mom sucks” or that “women are awful and you shouldn’t trust them” — but would I be saying something they don’t know already?
All a man really needs to do is set an example of decency and manhood. The older boy has sometimes shared personal troubles with his mom and other stuff (I sorta miss my dad, etc.). It’s best to listen in these cases and not be too judgmental. You can do a lot of fun stuff with younger brothers (and sisters too, I suppose, if there’s a fatherless girl kid in your extended family). I usually take them with me to the gym, we’ve gone to the community theatre and goofed off in the park. No deep red pill sermonizing or scholarly lectures. It’s just an example of how much fun it is to be a man who is single, and how great life can be. I think younger boys and men need something to look forward to, and the example of a life that is relatively free and independent can give them this.
Best, Boxer
Don’t forget “Focus on the Family” and “Planned Parenthood”!
And the cars could be adorned with pink ribbons.
deti says: March 16, 2013 at 1:57 pm
NOrthern:
No. That’s not my attitude about life and interacting with people.
Good.
It’s my experience and the expereince of others in interacting with entitled single mothers who will not own up to and fess up to their choices and who try to find ways to game the system and take advantage of the good natures of good, kind, well meaning men.
Except you risk running into crap like that with any new person you meet. So, unless you plan on becoming a hermit (and I don’t think you do), so you proceed the same way – assume innocence, and if the mom makes it too risky or impossible to do anything nice for the kids, then acknowledge it for what it is and move on.
No big deal.
Boxer: #1 You are a relation which changes the dynamic and #2, you serve solely at her majesty’s pleasure. The minute she doesn’t need the free service you are out of those boys’ lives. Who wants to set themselves up to be discarded like that?
My niece adopted two boys that were taken from their mother. I do much to help in their upbringing. As for the biological mother, she is in a world of hurt, as she should be.
I imagine any man stepping in to help the children of single mothers without having any particular interest in the mother would open himself up to serious false accusations or at the very least, being seen that way.
If the kids are related to you, then these risks are mitigated. If the skank ho in your family falsely accuses you of something, you have dozens of character references who know you both personally and have since you were born. Grandma and Grandpa know you’re a decent guy, as well as they know she’s a skank ho single mom who lies out her ass and causes trouble wherever she goes.
There’s also something redemptive about helping to clean up your own gene pool, and it’s particularly beneficial for single MGTOW and PUA types (I suppose I loosely fall into that spectrum) helping the next generation. Of course they’re not your bio kids, but they do share some of your genes, or in the case of adoption, your family’s name and reputation, so the next generation is primarily the parents responsibility and secondarily the extended family’s. That means you are on the hook, at least in a minimal way, to the community for the behaviour of such kids.
These days it’s pretty common for people to have a sister, cousin or other family member on the skank-ho cock carousel, and I agree with those who point out that the kids are not morally responsible for their mother’s low quality behaviour. If you can save one younger brother or sister from making the lousy choices his/her mom makes, without too much effort or expense, then I say go for it.
@GT66 says: March 16, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Why is it incumbent upon me to step in and smooth over her mess?
Never said it was.
What I’m saying is, in essence, if you have a chance to give a kid “a glass of water”, and it’s safe for you to do so, then take it.
You, deti, et al are turning that “glass of water” into a “supply their water needs for the rest of their lives.”
Ummm…NO.
Hi GT66:
Boxer: #1 You are a relation which changes the dynamic and #2, you serve solely at her majesty’s pleasure.
#1 is directly related to #2, in that if grandma and grandpa hear a bad report from me, skank ho will not get the hefty Christmas and birthday cheques she’s used to. In a family where connections are strong, it’s more difficult to discard.
I also really don’t spend hardly anything doing this, and I enjoy it. It’s the equivalent of having two extra friends in my inner circle. If I have free time and I’m bored, I go pick them up and we play football.
I suppose this is the natural progression to the matriarchal culture where men take care of their sister’s kids and etc. Such is the way things go.
And the drivers can wear vagina costumes.
@ A northern observer
I think that deti, while somewhat over the top in his examples, is ultimately correct. Unless you are actually family to these kids, then you place yourself at a lot of risk by interacting with them. A simple risk/reward or cost/benefit analysis would demonstrate that it is not worth it on an individual level.
Realistically, there are no good choices here. Supporting single mothers only encourages the problem, and ensures that it continues into the future. Not supporting them hurts the children, who are blameless.
If the goal is to minimize the total suffering, then the first option is better in the long run.
Of course, what really should happen is that these single moms put their kids up for adoption (no lack of willing parents right now) and enter a convent for 20+ years, and only return to the world after they have hopefully repaired their broken minds and souls.
@ GT66 says: March 16, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Boxer: #1 You are a relation which changes the dynamic and #2, you serve solely at her majesty’s pleasure. The minute she doesn’t need the free service you are out of those boys’ lives. Who wants to set themselves up to be discarded like that?
If this happens, and you’ve got the patience to wait things out, it may be temporary. Kids grow up and move out on their own, and they remember people who’ve shown them attention and kindness when they were younger and nobody gave a damn.
A Northern Observer, it’s not that I disagree with you when it comes to helping children. The disagreement comes over those children that can be helped and how the mothers, who put their children in such circumstance, need to be treated . As in, can I trust the parent(s) to allow me to teach or mentor without fear and are they addressing the sin that they caused and need to repent for? Can I trust the Church to help me rather than sucker me into it? No one wants a bunch of fatherless children running around rampant, it’s evil, cruel and heartless. However, that is the world we live in and we have to adjust and put our efforts where they are best served. So, if you know children who you can help, that does not put you in danger or them in danger, help them the best you can.
Also, helping these children shouldn’t be taking food and care from your own children or ability to have your own children, as that is cruel to you and your children or future progeny.
My two cents for what it’s worth.
Of course, what really should happen is that these single moms put their kids up for adoption (no lack of willing parents right now) and enter a convent for 20+ years, and only return to the world after they have hopefully repaired their broken minds and souls.
I definitely agree with this. Single moms would never be tolerated in a healthy society. They aren’t good parents, and they’re a total drain on resources.
In the USA and UK, up until the 1950s, single moms were forcibly separated from their kids and the kids were adopted out or placed with normal people in the extended family. In the USSR up until 1980, repeat single moms usually got sentenced to jail for a few months and the kids were put into orphanages. In China today, if a single mom gives birth multiple times, she can be forced to have her tubes tied. These models might seem cruel, but they’re better than what we have now.
“A Northern Observer says: “You, deti, et al are turning that “glass of water” into a “supply their water needs for the rest of their lives.”
And isn’t that exactly why this article was written in the first place? Women are changing the dynamic that has been in place for eons and are now DEMANDING that ALL males in involuntarily society “supply their water needs for the rest of their lives.” This is women and children first. This is “won’t someone think of the children?!” This is “universal” healthcare. This is CS attached to non-biological males who unwittingly “acted” like fathers a few seconds too long. This is ever expanding duration of maternity leave. This is more and more taxation of “social” purposes which are primarily for women and children. This is women receiving custody by overwhelming majority despite women being the majority of child abusers.
Oh sure, it’ll be one man and one glass of water at a time BUT, the process will be repeated until in effect, a lifetime supply has been given and the well has been pumped dry.
“in society involuntarily supply”
@ Feminist Hater says: March 16, 2013 at 2:33 pm
We’re largely on the same page – I fully expect a man to use the brain God gave him to manage the risk of what they’re doing, and chart a safe course for himself and his family.
Ton wrote:
Men should walk away from church and spend more time in a deer-stand. Much easier to find God in the woods then it is in these supposed houses of worship.
+1
A Northern Observer says: “We’re largely on the same page – I fully expect a man to use the brain God gave him to manage the risk of what they’re doing, and chart a safe course for himself and his family.”
You say things that seem logical but which have no way of working in the real world. Please explain how a man would realistically put your advice into practice. Once he involves himself in another family’s broken lives, he has opened up an exposure and subjected himself and his family to risk. End of story. There is simply no other way to predict what can happen and once ANY sort of allegation has been leveled, that man and his family is destroyed regardless of the outcome. That is society today.
I understand completely what we *should* do ideally but practically, the risk is too great. Any man that gets himself involved is dancing on the rim of an active volcano. He has made NO choice or strategy that can insulate him from the volcano’s actions. He is simply choosing to take a gamble and using his freedom, reputation and family as the collateral and for what? That he can pat himself on the back that he did right by a society that would have gleefully pushed him into the caldera at the merest allegation by the people he tried to help?
I think you are providing dangerous advice to naive males who might want to do what they instinctively feel is right but who have no idea how tenuously the sword of this society’s male hate hangs over their heads.
I understand the obligation Christian men have to speak out when the issue is this critical. However, I’ve stood my ground several times with different women in discussions about these very same issues. Let me tell you, if they do not agree with you, and will not consider your opinions, they will end the relationship rather than back off their point of view. I think standing up for traditional Christian values with most women is virtually pointless. They don’t believe they hold opinions, they believe they know facts taken from pop-culture and popular media.
Like my father told me when I was younger….
“Never pay for her mistakes. You’ll make enough on your own.”
GT66 –
This article started out with women fooling around with Alphas and having kids, the Alpha’s no-where to be found, and women demanding that Betas provide support for these spawn of Alphas.
Comments on the thread proceeded to talk about doing ignoring and doing nothing for the kids that resulted from these Alpha dalliances.
That’s when I jumped in with my comment about not ignoring the kids because of the bad choices their mom made, because in all these discussions, I haven’t seen much discussion “what about the kids”.
Some have posited that leaving them stew in their mother’s mess will help solve the problem. While there’s a certain logic to that, given that kids (a) tend to imitate their parents, (b) the adults around them, (c) nobody is offering them a different, better way, and (d) the legal system (currently) supports their parents behavior, I don’t think that’s a workable strategy.
I think that, if we’re going to affect change, we’re going to have to get both the current and next generation to change their path, and to do that we need to give them a good reason to do so.
We’re not going to do that if all we have to offer them is our backs because they had a carousel riding mother and an “alpha” father.
“I think that, if we’re going to affect change, we’re going to have to get both the current and next generation to change their path, and to do that we need to give them a good reason to do so.”
The only way things are going to change is if the current system burns down. What he have now is too big for any one man or group of men to overcome. Have no fear…I think we are very close to the end when we will descend into chaos and then women may finally have that bubble of theirs popped.
Empires don’t last forever for a reason.
“We’re not going to do that if all we have to offer them is our backs because they had a carousel riding mother and an “alpha” father.”
So you DO advocate save-a-ho.
Your entire premise assumes that ALL the other benefits and support paid to single mothers these last several decades never happened. This society is a mess because there has been FAR TOO MUCH support. These women have been spoiled rotten. Even the church is in on the act calling these women “heroes.” What heroism? The horism of kicking the father out of his children’s lives and then running to big Daddy government for the pay off?
Look at the date of the quote below. Over sixty years old. How much more coddling and genuflecting to the mighty matriarchy are you prepared to do?
“1951 – Mrs. Walter Ferguson, journalist (source)
After World War I, which opened up new business horizons to multitudes of women, these laws became a legal device for picking husbands’ pockets. Something must be worked out from the present hodge-podge of laws to protect children, and at the same time prevent the hard-boiled sisterhood from using marriage as a high-jacking scheme. … Men and women must be equally responsible for the support of their children – as they have always been. Any effort on the part of either to shun that duty should be punished severely. But certainly, society can no longer tolerate the parasitic woman.”
The Scorpion and the Frog
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion
says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”
Replies the scorpion: “Its my nature…”
God luck A.N.O. you are one frog who’s going to need it. This frog OTOH, takes no riders.
Concern Troll is Concerned
@ GT66 says: March 16, 2013 at 3:01 pm
You say things that seem logical but which have no way of working in the real world. Please explain how a man would realistically put your advice into practice. Once he involves himself in another family’s broken lives, he has opened up an exposure and subjected himself and his family to risk. End of story.
You’re over-stating the amount of involvement I’m advocating. Getting involved in another family’s broken life is a far cry from asking a kid how they’re doing whenever you see them, or asking about how things are progressing with something they told you about during a previous chat.
As an example, you get talking to a kid, he’s working on building a ship in a bottle, he’s stuck on something, and asks you for advice.
Safe: I know this cool website about building ships in a bottle, and they talk about that very issue – I’ll write the address down for you.
Risky: How about if I come over and we’ll work on it together?
So, you’d set strict boundaries on what you consider safe, and stick to them. If you don’t know, then a good starting point is to see how organizations that deal with kids on a regular basis (schools, gyms, etc.) handle the question.
(Google: policy for interacting with children)
There is simply no other way to predict what can happen and once ANY sort of allegation has been leveled, that man and his family is destroyed regardless of the outcome. That is society today.
Eliminating the risks you’re describing would eliminate all kid-based activity – having friends over, sleep-overs, or kids going on field trips, etc.
And yet those activities still take place…..
I understand completely what we *should* do ideally but practically, the risk is too great. Any man that gets himself involved is dancing on the rim of an active volcano. He has made NO choice or strategy that can insulate him from the volcano’s actions. He is simply choosing to take a gamble and using his freedom, reputation and family as the collateral and for what? That he can pat himself on the back that he did right by a society that would have gleefully pushed him into the caldera at the merest allegation by the people he tried to help?
If all a guy does this is for a sense of “doing right by society”, then he’s doing it for the wrong reasons and should forget the whole thing.
Women talk.
Women talk to each other.
You help her children in any way she is aware of, she will probably one day have a conversation with another woman, a woman just like her when she was younger. A woman who is on the fence about detonating her family for cash and prizes.
Bridget Onthefence: “I love him, but I’m just not IN love with him anymore.”
Sally Singlemom: “Girl, you need to dump his ass, he’s abusing you without you even realizing it! Go! Eat! Pray! Love!”
Bridget Onthefence: “You’re right, he’s committed the ultimate male sin of being BORING. I can’t put up with that. But…”
Sally Singlemom: “But…?”
Bridget Onthefence: “I can’t let my kids suffer for this. As much as it’d make ME feel better, I know that kids almost always do better in a two parent home. I’d be ending their futures. I’ll have to endure this hell on earth of free food, shelter and prosperity with no outlook of alpha cock.”
Sally Singlemom: “Nonsense! That’s the beautiful thing about men! They’re interchangeable! Why, not a month after I kicked my boring beta loser husband out, I had men BEGGING to help my kids out any way they could. I picked one and he became de-facto Dad to our kids. I even almost ALMOST got child support out of him for acting like a Dad. But I never had sex with him and I must have gotten a woman-hating judge to preside over our “marriage”. Still, the chances were high I could have, I know three others who got it to work.
Bridget Onthefence: “You mean all of the child-helping things of a father… but… but I get to get sexxed by all the alpha I want?! That’s… That’s so sweet of… what was his name?”
Sally Singlemom: “I think his name was “North”? I don’t remember. But that was sweet of him, why can’t more men be like him…”
Bridget Onthefence: “It’s settled! I’m divorcing my unforgivably beta husband. If I can get a father’s upbringing elsewhere, then this really helps me AND the kids. The kids get their right upbringing, I get to be promiscuous like the book of Oprah says I was created by God to be, and boring beta husband… well, he had his chance, but he shouldn’t have abused me by being boring. In fact, all that sex with him was RAPE. I’m sure he’ll burn in hell for being an abuser AND a rapist.”
Sally Singlemom: “You GO, grrrrrrrrl”
Together: “hahahahhahaahhaahhaha!”
By helping these kids (in a way the “mother” is aware), you bandage one damaged family that will never… never… NEVER be fully healed ever again. But then you have a chance at detonating yet another family by lowering the costs to the mother. It ends up being that you’re sweeping up some dust and your broom makes a hole in the roof to sprinkle even more in. Also, you live in a country where sweeping up dust could be super-illegal, it depends on the feelings of the officer who catches you doing it. Enough analogies. Most mothers still care for their kids, though some are still sucky enough parents to burn them in the long-run. But if you can even give the illusion to one that you’ll clean up her mistakes. She’ll talk.
Women talk.
Women talk to each other.
Arg! Missed an HTML tag…sorry about that.
AmStrat says:
“Why, not a month after I kicked my boring beta loser husband out, I had men BEGGING to help my kids out any way they could. ”
…
Sally Singlemom: “I think his name was “North”? I don’t remember. But that was sweet of him, why can’t more men be like him…”
This is a complete and BLATANT mis-representation of what I’ve written here.
““I’m not referring to men being fathers to their own children, but godly men stepping up and mentoring the children without father figures in their lives. If you had read my post completely you would have seen I mentioned not just men with children, but teen guys and never-married men who don’t have children of their own. You, and the rest of the men, need to step up. Women have been steppping up – sometimes out of pride and sometimes because there’s no male figure for their children. We cannot be men. Children respond to men and turn to men differently than women.”
Never do this as a man. I did and lived to regret it. A child’s OWN father needs to step up. It’s not OTHER MEN’S responsibility. This is the true path to disaster.
I didn’t mean for it to look that way. I just mean that what you advocate could not be construed as “replacing the father” by any sane person.
But, we’re not dealing with sane people. We’re dealing with hamsters with an agenda to blow up the family for cash, prizes, social status and a whatever% chance with an alpha.
What you advocate doesn’t undo the damage to the family(and you never said it would), but to a hamster bent on frivorce or getting others to frivorce to make her own decision look better/wiser, it’s good enough to instigate such thoughts.
On second thought I should probably have removed that line about the name, but I wanted to tie the conversation into the fact that someone did some minor thing for her children, and she construed it to mean that he could replace the father. However, if she KNEW it was a minor thing, then the conversation and rationalization does not make sense so I had to make reference to someone doing that minor thing. A better name would have been “James Didasmallthingforthekids” but that just makes it hard to read. You’re not saving hos, but they could interpret it that you are. Image is everything.
For the obtuse:
Deti – “good kind well meaning men” – yeah right – I haven’t read any of your ‘cast of characters’ that would define “good kind well meaning men” except maybe Red Pill Randy. No, instead you offer characters such as Alpha McGorgeous, Harley McBadboy, Frank Fratboy and Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer to name a few – all of which is just more shaming language and male bashing… apparently these negative stereotypes serve you to compare yourself against. You seem to bring out your bad boy voodoo dolls and stick pins in them whenever your knee jerk neurosis kicks in and you feel compelled to condemn.
From what I have read lately you have a 4 to 1 ratio of ‘bad boy’ characters to ‘good kind men’ and I have a feeling the ratio is higher than that, with more bad boy characters you haven’t brought to light. A few more FuckBuddy voodoo dolls on the shelf that we haven’t heard of yet? Or can we now expect to see more of the “good kind well meaning men” dolls like the Red Pill Randy with a long red cape, wavy blonde hair, big golden belt buckle and boots to match, with a big red pill on his chest… hands on hips, standing proudly against Harley McBadBoy and his entire biker gang who are all having sex with Sally Singlemom and Bridget Onthefence.
GT66, AmStrat, Arrows: I wonder if you men consider yourself Christians ~
What heroism? The horism of kicking the father out of his children’s lives
Freudian slip?
Women talk to each other
Well, that explains a good bit.
A Northern Observer says: “As an example, you get talking to a kid, ”
Then the scorpion is already on your back. The nature of the conversation is irrelevant because that a conversation happened at all is all the framework that is needed upon which a whole new “truth” will be constructed. Plenty of innocent men sit in prison serving time for a false allegation that started with the core truth that he was indeed at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Sally Singlemom: “You GO, grrrrrrrrl”
Together: “hahahahhahaahhaahhaha!”
You mean “lozlozlozlozlozlozzzzz”
Highwasp says: “GT66, AmStrat, Arrows: I wonder if you men consider yourself Christians ~”
Speaking for myself and within the context of this discussion, I assume you are using “Christian” as a euphemism for “white knighting sucker” to which I would have to respond, “No. I most certainly do not consider myself a Christian.”
AmStrat brings up a very excellent point (among all his other excellent points).
In many states and provinces, “taking on the role of the father” is grounds for a child support judgment, even if you aren’t related to the kids. In some jurisdictions (California is one I know for sure) there is a law specifically allowing women to receive child support from more than one “father figure” for the same child. The law was passed through as a part of “gay rights” legislation, so the bull dyking bitch who has a kid can screw over both the bio dad and her dyke girlfriend who “acted as a parent figure”. The law has been applied to men as well.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/02/154636/california-bill-would-let-child.html
Letting a single mom move in with you and bring her family of sprogs is akin to flirting with financial ruin. Even babysitting a kid who is not related to you regularly might open up this door. Think twice before “doing something nice” for these viperous harridans.
@amstrat –
I didn’t mean for it to look that way. I just mean that what you advocate could not be construed as “replacing the father” by any sane person.
But, we’re not dealing with sane people. We’re dealing with hamsters with an agenda to blow up the family for cash, prizes, social status and a whatever% chance with an alpha.
AH! Ok, that’s a huge difference. (Phew!)
What you advocate doesn’t undo the damage to the family(and you never said it would), but to a hamster bent on frivorce or getting others to frivorce to make her own decision look better/wiser, it’s good enough to instigate such thoughts.
…
I wanted to tie the conversation into the fact that someone did some minor thing for her children, and she construed it to mean that he could replace the father.
Understood.
I’d respond that, for such people, if they don’t have one excuse, they’ll find (or make up) another to use, so in the end it wouldn’t matter.
@HighHorse
Time to come down.
“Eliminating the risks you’re describing would eliminate all kid-based activity – having friends over, sleep-overs, or kids going on field trips, etc. ”
Destruction by accusation is a weapon of choice with precision targeting ability backed up by the full power of the government at behest of an increasingly anti-male society. If you see your service as a worthwhile risk, so be it. I however, do not.
GT66 – If you are scared of even talking to a kid, then you must live in a world of constant paranoia….
you must live in a world of constant paranoia….
Not paranoia, but knowledge of the laws.
Getting back to the original story…..I looked at the website, and saw a link to “non-traditional families”, and found this article:
From http://thelifeofasinglemom.com/?p=774
As Non-Traditional Families, we have to get a handle on being a single mother and how it can affect our children, if GOD is missing in our homes. It is easy to believe the statistics, if we focus only on the circumstances that brought us to this place. We cannot allow our choices (or lack thereof), to dictate our children’s future. Let’s not create a pitfall with a broken ladder. Let’s create futures with a solid foundation built on the word of God.
I’m guessing she missed the part in the Word of God about divorce…
The page also a list of scary stats of kids in “non-traditional” families (from the same page):
* 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
* 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
* 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
* 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
@Farm Boy – I’m aware of the laws too, I just make sure to stay safe in my interactions with other and not let fear completely dictate my actions.
Through their laws, women are really f’ing themselves, and everyone else.
i don’t deal with kids that are not mine… not in the US anyway. Did it once… regretted it painfully…NEVER AGAIN… don’t care how hard up or bad off they are… NOPE… not unless it literally involves saving someone’s life.
@Northern Observer
I feel for the kids too, but it is not safe to help anybody but relatives, which I do in abundance.
“A Northern Observer says: “GT66 – If you are scared of even talking to a kid, then you must live in a world of constant paranoia….”
Not just me… Again, here is a snippet from a case in which a toddler who wandered away from a nursey drowned in a pond.
“During the three-day hearing at Stratford-upon-Avon Town Hall, the court heard how a bricklayer had passed a toddler, believed to be Abigail, walking alone near the nursery.
But he did not stop to help in case he was suspected of abducting her. “”
Do you really not see what is happening in this society? And like the Driscolls and Bennetts of the world, you advocate that men ignore the potential for their own ruin and just double down on the white knighting rather than, just as Dalrock points out in this article, responding to the REAL problem.
Another case:
““I was accused of abusing a child when I rescued him from drowning. I was swimming on beach and I noticed a 8 or 9 year old kid come off his little surf board and he sunk straight to the bottom, about 10 feet deep. I swam down and rescued the kid and swam him back to the beach.
As soon as I got the child to the beach he was crying and coughing up water, his mother ran down screaming to leave her boy alone. She was screaming at me so loudly that people were crowding around to see what had happened. At this time the life guards turned up and I advised them what happened as I could not talk any sense to the mother. The life guards took the boy and mother to the life guard hut and I went back to my towel on the beach.
One of the life guards came back to me 10 minutes later and ask me to stay where I am because the police have been called and the mother wants to press charges. The cops turned up 20 minutes later and interviewed me and at that time another lady came up to the police and corroborated my story. The cops let me go, no apology from mother who was marching off the beach arguing with the cops after they told her what happened.
If it was not for the other lady I believe I would be sitting in a police cell for rescuing a kid.””
@GT66 – The bricklayer passing a kid happened in 2006 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/4837614.stm)
If you want reason to be paranoid, read this thread from Reddit, which includes your “rescue” story:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/sstzi/a_woman_just_called_me_a_pedophile_after_i/
I suppose this’ll mean you won’t take your sister out to a restaurant, go jogging near a school, discipline your kid when he’s having a tantrum in a store, or do any of the other things listed in that web page.
Do you really not see what is happening in this society? And like the Driscolls and Bennetts of the world, you advocate that men ignore the potential for their own ruin and just double down on the white knighting rather than, just as Dalrock points out in this article, responding to the REAL problem.
I see it, and if I were to live with your level of fear, I wouldn’t want to interact with anyone.
And nothing I’ve written here has been about “whiteknighting”.
(I’m starting to wonder, do we need to talk about what basic civility looks like?)
A Northern Observer says: “@GT66 – The bricklayer passing a kid happened in 2006”
So? What does that have to do with anything?
“I see it, and if I were to live with your level of fear, I wouldn’t want to interact with anyone.”
You sound like a woman who accuses a man of hating women just because he disagrees with her. It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with situational awareness. And yes, I adjust my life to the reality that a man sitting on a bleacher by himself watching a little league game is going to get a visit from police called down on him by the very people that then say, “where have all the good men gone? Why are the men “manning up?””
“EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP — What police are calling a “suspicious” man was seen sitting in his vehicle watching children play at about 4:30 Monday afternoon in the South Enola Area along Adams Street and Dennis Drive.
The man is described as having short, dirty blond hair and wearing a green tie-die shirt, and was in a silver mid-sized four-door sedan. The man did not approach the children. ”
“University of Michigan police issued a warning to parents on Monday, saying they received a report of a man acting suspiciously near children.
According to a crime alert, the man was closely watching a group of children as they played Sunday morning on the lawn of a home in the 1500 block of McIntyre on North Campus in Ann Arbor.
The resident who made the police report said spoke to the man, who then left.”
“A Scottsdale man is claiming that a Barnes & Noble bookstore discriminated against him when an employee forced him out of the store because he was a male shopper alone in the children’s area.
Omar Amin, 73, said store worker Todd Voris told him that a female shopper had complained about him being in the children’s area May 4 in the store at Shea Boulevard and Loop 101 in Scottsdale.
Amin, who was alone at the time, said he was in Barnes & Noble to buy books for his two grandchildren who live in Wisconsin.”
“Father-of-three branded a ‘pervert’ – for photographing his own children in public park
When Gary Crutchley started taking pictures of his children playing on an inflatable slide he thought they would be happy reminders of a family day out.
But the innocent snaps of seven-year-old Cory, and Miles, five, led to him being called a ‘pervert’.
The woman running the slide at Wolverhampton Show asked him what he was doing and other families waiting in the queue demanded that he stop.”
“Suspicious Man Photographing Kids’ Just Guy Taking Pics of Grandson
Watch out, residents of Pocatello, Idaho! A “suspicious man” driving a “tan/brown van” was seen at the local park, “taking pictures of children.” Is he a pedophile? A murderer? A Satanist sex perv? He “ran off” when confronted by parents!
“If anyone has information about this man,” Local News 8 reported on Tuesday, “police would like them to call police dispatch.” Well! Someone did have information: The man himself, who “was at the park taking pictures of his grandson.” Also, the whole “ran off when confronted” thing?
The man also said that he did not run away, but simply walked away from a woman who had gotten very close to him and was yelling at him. Manning said police are no longer worried about the man and he is not suspicious.”
“A father was stopped from taking a photo of his son on a children’s train ride after an over-zealous security guard accused him of being a paedophile.
Kevin Geraghty-Shewan, 48, was approached by the guard after he took the picture of his four-year-old son Ben on the toy engine outside a shop.
He was then threatened with arrest after refusing to hand his mobile phone containing the picture after a row with a policeman.”
It reads, correctly, that we have our own levels of engagement that each man must decide to pass along information. I am an advocate of Game as a Leadership tool and willingly supply that information as the opportunity arises. A husband having trouble in his marriage, a teen, or child I will disseminate that information.
As a man who had to deal with all sorts of false allegations from his ex-wife; you never fully regain your good name. Even after taking a polygraph. I have no idea how common these kind of things are but it doesn’t seem like an unreasonable concern. Particularly for city folk.
There is a world of difference between helping out friends and family vs random people. K
This reminds me of something that happened at my parish a few weeks ago. When it came time for the homily, the priest sat down while a lay woman spoke from the pulpit about her divorce and the parish’s new “divorce support ministry.” Because divorce just happens, you know?
@Thornstruck –
Amen!
@Ton,
Men should walk away from church and spend more time in a deer-stand. Much easier to find God in the woods then it is in these supposed houses of worship.
This accomplishes nothing and is in direct violation of St. Paul’s commandment in Hebrews. It is by abandoning the church to a bunch of weak willed women that we got in this place.
“As soon as I got the child to the beach he was crying and coughing up water, his mother ran down screaming to leave her boy alone. She was screaming at me so loudly that people were crowding around to see what had happened. ”
Sad to think…but maybe she wanted the kid to die.
And if that sounds preposterous…just think how many abortions happened today.
A.N.O., are these the families men should be risking their necks to help out with good fatherly advice?
“”I need a police officer to come out and scare the (expletive) out of my kids,” Townsend said on the 911 call. “They’re not listening to me and they need to learn respect. They need to learn that lesson.”
The dispatcher told the upset mother that police would not do what she asked.
“We don’t come out and scare kids,” the dispatcher said.
Police responded to Townsend’s Indian Harbour Beach home and found the mother drunk, officials said. Police said when they tried to arrest Townsend she kicked an officer in the groin multiple times.
Townsend was booked into the Brevard County Jail on several charges, including child neglect and battery on a law enforcement officer. Her children are staying with relatives, police said.”
No one and group of people change until they experience enough pain to motivate changing. The fastest way to ensure that level of pain is to let the church/ society suffer the consequences of its hostility to masculinity. There are ways for men who believe to spend time with other masculine believers that do not entail propping up these non houses of God.
GT – what does your “situational awareness” sensor say?
From what I’m reading – no. Too much danger, no discernable upside, mother is unstable and out of control, and it looks like it’s just a bad situation all around. I will note that the kids are staying with relatives, who are helping out.
As for the Mom – if she’d married (and stayed with) a strong stable man, she probably wouldn’t have a “respect” problem with her boys.
the idea of men going to these churches that are not in line with God’s word is ridiculous. Men should not go to these churches because these churches are not Godly, and men will not find Him there. What men will get is a heart, head and belly full of false teaching.
A.N.O. What, you’re gonna leave those people to flounder? But those kids need your wisdom and the mother is obviously pleading for a powerful man to scare the shit out of her kids. Seems like exactly the sort of people most in need of your service. If not people just like these then who?
GT – now you’re being silly. I’ll bet this is your idea of humor, no?
A Northern Observer says: “GT – now you’re being silly. I’ll bet this is your idea of humor, no?”
Not at all. You’ve referred to me as paranoid and fearful. I’ve cited some examples of why my concerns are warranted and you mocked me. So, this got me thinking. I’m just wondering what sort of people who are motivated by your beliefs to stick your neck out for.
Typo: I’m just wondering what sort of people *YOU* are motivated by your beliefs to stick your neck out for.
@GT66
Am I understanding you correctly, you are disagreeing with Dalrock’s post? Christian men should remain silent for risk of ridicule or imprisonment?
Yet Christian men and Christian leaders can’t bring themselves to criticize women for the rampant and very open flaunting of biblical teaching on marriage and sexual morality by women. This cowardly silence is not only sinful but immensely harmful to men, women, and children. Men who remain silent on this are choosing the suffering of millions of children over their own discomfort. They are also gravely harming women by assisting them in avoiding repentance in their cowardly feelings-driven silence.
GT – I understand there are reasons for concern. My issue with your position as you’ve stated it is that you appear to be saying guys shouldn’t do anything as a result, which looks to me like paranoia and being controlled by fear.
If that’s not the case, then I’ll gladly change my estimation of your position.
No, I agree with Dalrock. I disagree with the A.N.O. and Driscoll types who say, “Don’t worry about the anti-male fervor and rampant divorce promulgated by women, just keep white knighting and saving those women from their choices!”
GT – I’ve never said such things. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
A Northern Observer says: “GT – I understand there are reasons for concern. My issue with your position as you’ve stated it is that you appear to be saying guys shouldn’t do anything as a result, which looks to me like paranoia and being controlled by fear.
If that’s not the case, then I’ll gladly change my estimation of your position.”
Reasons for concern. Amusing. At any rate, you’ve got my position clearly. Men should not lift one finger for this society. Let it crumble. Go ghost.
It’s amazing the amount of leeway women will give to cads, the crosswalk post basically exhonerates the cads while shaming betas for not taking care of their spawn.
It’s as if the whole government structure exists to facilitate alpha f..cks and beta bucks.
A Northern Observer says: “If you are scared of even talking to a kid, then you must live in a world of constant paranoia….”
Paranoid and fearful
A Northern Observer says: “I see it, and if I were to live with your level of fear, I wouldn’t want to interact with anyone.”
Fearful
A Northern Observer says: “GT – what does your “situational awareness” sensor say?
“mocking”
Now what was that about me putting words in your mouth?
Guys, you have some valid arguments, but do you reserve your “humanity” for only man? To you considerate “gentleman” who want to marry only a virgin, are you offering her the same kind benefit? If not, why do you deserve virginity and not her? Some guys want to play around and then marry a virgin. Nice if you can get it, but who are these girls that are supposed to be there when you are single and want to play, and then, instead of appreciating those gals for being there in your time of selfish need, you have such nice names for those same women when it is time for you to quit your playing and wife somebody up. Such hypocrisy.
@Everyone
Guys I think you are missing the God factor. What about the power and sovereignty of God. Is he powerless and helpless while sin goes on?
What is impossible for man is possible for God. Sure risks make it almost impossible:
Matthew 17:20
He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
Luke 18:1-8
1And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. 2He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man. 3And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ 4For a while he refused, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, 5yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’” 6And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. 7And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? 8I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
I do not discourage avoiding risk. But the absolute hopelessness seem to ignore God’s sovereignty to work all things for good:
Romans 8:28
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Feminists and governments create the problems then offer the “solution”. Many of these pastors on judgement day are going to be surprised when Jesus says “Get away from me you workers of lawlessness, I never knew you.”.
The root of the problem is turning away from the true gospel and teaching lies. Starting with the gospel the target audience believes in the Lord Jesus. They are baptized by the holy spirit. Imbuing them with a thirst for righteousness leading to an internal war between the flesh and the spirit. Then they can be guided into proper holy ways of living for e.g. Patriarchy.
Without tackling the root of evil this matriarchy and feminism is not going away.
KL
Apex fallacy, your talking on the wrong board, most betas couldn’t get a root if their lives depended on it, sullying virgins is the least of their problems. Check out the Parento principle.
KL:
Most men want a virgin to marry because they intend to have kids. Virginity in women tends to suggest no stds and thus increased chance of fertility (among lots of other beneficial things).
Most women seem to want men to have jobs and be able to support kids after marriage, and won’t marry a layabout who is content to collect welfare and drink all day. This is a double standard too, since these same women will usually want to work part-time or not at all, and devote themselves to the kids.
Tradeoffs are the way the world works. Deal with it.
8oxer, I pretty much know how the world works. But if being a virgin is safer disease wise for women and therefore better for any potential children, that applies to male virginity, also. These days, any woman I know works full time and also does the lions share of home chores, cooking, laundry, etc. The world does not work like it did 50 or even 25 years ago. Deal with that.
RE: “Most men want to marry a virgin.”
100% correct.
Chances of that happening in this day and age? Pitiful.
Add to that the guarantee of lifelong marriage…
I’d say that these men have a better chance at winning the lottery.
8oxer, I pretty much know how the world works.
No you don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t be here complaining about the obvious.
The answer to your underlying question is: You can’t pull a traditional man because you’re not worth it. You’re not attractive enough, and you’re not a virgin, and you don’t have decent enough values to pass muster.
The world does not work like it did 50 or even 25 years ago. Deal with that.
You ain’t kidding. For example, last week, when I banged you and didn’t call the next day? 50 years ago, you would have been happily married, busy with social functions and raising your kids in a normal home, and sexing up your husband (who probably would have been a virgin on his wedding night too). Had I attempted to game you for that quickie in those old days, your husband, father, and all their male friends would have beat the shit out of me the next day, and I’d have probably lost my job and apartment the day after.
Feminism liberated men, not women. I enjoy it. Don’t you? 🙂
Regards, Boxer
kl says: “These days, any woman I know works full time and also does the lions share of home chores, cooking, laundry, etc. ” No she doesn’t. Don’t lie.
kl–I’m a male virgin and intend to stay that way until my wedding night, but I hold with the majority here (and the market) that virginity is more valuable in a woman than man.
Excellent post, infowarrior. ❤
And, a thought. A Northern Observer's concern is clearly "for the children," though we may disagree (as a community) on whether or not he is misguided. But, there has already been strong evidence (summed up in other posts here) that young men are already "getting it" and seeking out help on their own. While parents obviously are very influential, that doesn't mean kids turn into carbon copies – and in many current cases, the kids are growing away from the obviously destructive example set by their parent(s?). We've seen this before – look at the difference between Baby Boomers, and their kids, the Gen Xers.
So, while guidance may help individual cases, I tend to agree with the opinion espoused elsewhere that the problem will naturally self-correct in time, and any attempts to mitigate the repercussions for the unfortunate kids will just end up slowing the corrective process. Unfortunately, sometimes it gets worse before it gets better. Perhaps the best way to help mitigate the fallout from the corrective process is just to disperse the red pill – and probably the safest way to do that (and an effective way to do that) will be the URLs @ urinals campaign – not getting involved in someone else's kids and risking all the entanglements that come of that.
“If not, why do you deserve virginity and not her?”
Because men shoot their DNA into her….and she bonds to them. It doesn’t work the other way.
And if she wants to deserve my commitment then I deserve her virginity. Stats show the divorce rate is lowest when you marry a virgin.
@ Stingray
For example, she desperately wanted a child! She just had to because she was called to it. She just knew she was meant to be a mother. But!! No man would marry her. She could not find a good biblical man to marry her. So, her only other terrible option to make this calling happen was artificial insemination. Those darn men are responsible for not marrying her and making her a mother.
I found out a week ago that an aquaintence of mine just did this. Early 30’s, school teacher, a parade of men through her life in the several years I’ve known her. The hamster is strong in her: she actually stated that she was being responsible in not having an “oopsie” pregnancy like those other women.
The 40’s – 50’s women in the social circle are absolutely cooing over her.
Good God, we are fucked.
Kl
Relax there is always the dock carousel for these ladies you speak of. After all why should a woman be a virgin when the men aren’t living up to their end of the standard. BTW women these days are living off past women’s reputation. Women today can’t cook clean or raise children worth a damn.
KL, you slutty broad you. I will marry a young virgin or not marry at all.
And of course today our entire cricket team is out wearing pink playing against Pakistan. Disgusting! I wonder when the wimmenz teams will be wearing blue in support of prostate cancer….
That should say ‘prostate cancer awareness’. I’m sure they would be wearing blue all year round if it meant support OF prostate cancer…
@Kl
It is (always) a buyers market and I am afraid it is the woman who is on offer, not the man. When I enter a shop I will be shown the demonstration model, but if I agree to purchase, it will not be the demonstration model that I take home.
“Feminism liberated men, not women. I enjoy it. Don’t you?”
Actually it imprisoned both men an women. It’s just that men have the outside prison cell to deal with and women have the internal prison.
But that’s okay…a man whose heart is free can live happily in a prison cell…a woman whose heart is imprisoned will never be happy and free no matter how many benefits she gets.
“But if being a virgin is safer disease wise for women and therefore better for any potential children, that applies to male virginity, also.”
Sure but sex affects a woman much more mentally and physically than a man. A female virgin has a shot of actually acting like a female…a cock rider has her personality quickly turn into something resembling a man. Why would I want to marry essentially a failed man with ridiculously high expectations combined with very little bonding physically or emotionally to me?
What her actual N is comes out through her personality. I can tell what it is very quickly so much so that I don’t even need to ask (she’ll lie anyway)…I just know. The virgins have a happier feminine disposition and actually like masculine traits…the sluts don’t. All I need to know about a woman is her heart.
Never mind, FH, the answer to whether the women’s cricket team will wear blue is …
… nobody cares.
Feminists target male teams for attention because people only care what women’s teams do when …
… they take their clothes off.
Come to think of it, I do not think I have ever met a virgin – but equally I do not think I have ever met a truly marriagable woman. Perhaps these two facts are not entirely unrelated. I have, however, met any number of women keen to play down their partner count, which suggests that women know that chastity is a selling point for them. The same does not apply to men: The woman demanding Virginity from a prospective lover, is surely projecting and merely providing a Fitness Test (which you pass by lieing – and thus evading her frame). I have also come across a couple of women who have been open about their high partner counts, yet they seem oblivious to the fact that this merely signs to a guy that they are easy and thus to be avoided for long-term prospects after suitable usage (a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush – at least until one tires of her). Very strange.
There is an old saying that ‘you learn your cooking on old pans’.
So what does the winner of the Hamster 500 get?
A spouse-less existence and a house full of cats. 🙂
Why do I deserve virginity and not her? Because I am special…. sorry folks. Never been funny with the written word.
Personally I focuses on what I am looking for and don’t much care what chicks are looking for. By that I don’t mean I dress poorly or what have you but I live my life, in the way God designed me to be and on His terms. The best I can, that is. I tried being what a woman wants in my marriage. It failed and was utterly miserable for me.
PS, someone mentioned how woman cannot cook. I took a French cooking class right in December. There was one woman under the age of 50 in the class. A couple of 30 something men, myself at 42, a slew of 50+ divorced broads and 1 girl who was petite, pretty enough and 25. I had drinks with her 3 times before she mentioned her husband. Poor bastard
“Personally I focuses on what I am looking for and don’t much care what chicks are looking for.”
Most chicks don’t even know what they are looking for anyway.
marriage is a bum deal for modern men. i’m a practicing Catholic and i REFUSE to get married. sorry, but i’m not lining up to lose half my shit, live in a studio apartment after the divorce, and rarely get to see my kids.
my brother in law is a pilot for southwest airlines, i watched his divorce play out and the money he had to fork over and the bullshit he had to go through for custody.
FUCK,THAT.
the brother in law makes GREAT money, i make OK money. it’s just not worth it. and you know what……he completely approves of my decision. and YES….he’s VERY active in the church (as is his wife, my baby sis).
i started a POF site just to prove how BS online dating is for men, and one woman i “quick messaged” BLOCKED ME. lol. all i said was hello and that i’d be interested in learning more about her. she’s a cute 37 yo, never married woman living at home.
you be the judge.
all i said was hello and that i’d be interested in learning more about her. she’s a cute 37 yo, never married woman living at home.
Somehow, I think you were not made to fish together. It is amazing how high they value themselves.
Most chicks don’t even know what they are looking for anyway.
The tingles know.
http://www.health24.com/Medical/HIV-AIDS/News/Almost-a-third-of-schoolgirls-are-HIV-20130314
Just for laughs. lolllzlzlolzlzlolzozlzozl! Blame the Sugar Daddiesssss! hahahahahahahahah! Eish! Not that this is really a Boer problem but it sure is damn funny!
It’s just that men have the outside prison cell to deal with and women have the internal prison.
We have dogs and they have cats. Who has a more loyal companion?
FB, you know my views on dogs vs cats…
“all i said was hello and that i’d be interested in learning more about her. she’s a cute 37 yo, never married woman living at home.”
And by her blocking…you learned everything you needed to know about her. I can just see her with her girlfriends lamenting about how there aren’t any good guys around.
“The tingles know.”
Yup…which is why I don’t bother to listen to what she says she is looking for. The brain isn’t where the tingles reside.
Blame the Sugar Daddiesssss
They hazz been Bernakefied. Lozlozlozlozlozlozzzzz
one woman i “quick messaged” BLOCKED ME
Obviously you are a creepy stalker; if you titillated her tingles, then you would not be.
A world ruled by tingles, where do I get off?
“Obviously you are a creepy stalker; if you titillated her tingles, then you would not be.”
All he needed to do was be a confident, handsome movie star with a 7 figure income and always has the right thing to say. After all she is a specail snowflake and and deserves nothing less than a prince…when she was 21.
It is also interesting that absolutely NOONE mentioned the fathers of the children in this piece- where are they at and why are they not contributing? Maybe single motherhood is not a good choice, and certainly not easy. But that does not absolve the biological father from contributing his time, money, and guidance. Any man having unprotected sex knows the possible consquences. And there is no excuse once a child has been brought into the world and you know that it is yours, that you should not do your part, whether or not you love or care for the mother. Single mothers are being slammed in general, while the fathers are not mentioned at all. Does the hypocrisy never end?
kl, please show me the page where Dalrock wrote, “Dads, you don’t need to take care of your kids.”
Single mothers are being slammed in general
They are the gatekeeper of sex. Did they not choose who to sleep with? As such, is it not their responsibility to determine the “father potential” of the guy?
“Any man having unprotected sex knows the possible consquences.”
And we are to assume a woman doesn’t know those consequences too…or is she too naiive about that one too?
Is there any man out there who doesn’t know that one of the side effects of unprotected sex is possible pregnancy?
*women
Mind the reframes, gentlemen.
GT66, I’m late to the party but you can add me to that list.
Towards the end of the last century I was waiting at a busy city-center intersection one lunchtime waiting for the crosswalk light. I had collected my 3 or 4 y.o. kid from the kindergarten I’d taken him to that morning, same as every weekday. We crossed to pick up lunch and dinner makings from the nation’s finest vegetable shop (an ordinary muslim grocery).
On exiting, him holding one handle of the bag, and me the other with leeks and all sorts waving about over the top of it, for fun (his idea of fun that is), I was collared by the cops a couple of dozen yards down the road on the corner of our street, fifty yards from the front door.
” ‘Scuse me Sir(/sarcasm) is this your child?”
“You what?”
Ten minutes of back to the wall grilling, kid becoming more and more upset as Daddy must have done something Bad and is going to get taken away, =no lunch!
Luckily he wasn’t so upset as not to call me Daddy in front of them. Phew.
“Oh all right then” (dis-missed).
They claimed that some bastard had phoned in a report from a car (presumably illegally, on their cell) as they waited at the lights, or passing through while we were stood there. A nasty-looking man in a knit docker’s hat and donkey-jacket, abducting a child.
OK the first charge, fair enough. The second, I can only think it was because the cold meant the kid was wearing little woolly gloves, didn’t want him to get chilblains by taking it off, neither did I want him to end up in the mad surging traffic, knocked under by a frantic office worker or sidewalk cyclist.
So I was carefully gripping his raised arm below the glove, which experience had taught me would slip off in an instant, leaving me holding air.
I would lay money that that mystery vigilante was a commuting career woman, probably in a (silver, it appeared to be compulsory back then) Mercedes. Busy, busy, busy! Late, late late!
A concerned man would have pulled over and watched me, as the cops always get there too late, and everyone knows this. And he could be a Hero! (it wasn’t long after the Jamie Bulger case).
How can I be so sure on the gender? Again, decades of experience.
Here in CCTVland no sane male past puberty dare even look in the direction of a small child, particularly if accompanied by an invariably unprepossessing and aggressive female who doesn’t feel “safe” in the Great Outdoors, a.k.a. anywhere that’s not her own bathroom.
No, to be fair, Dalrock never mentioned that. But there is a whole lot of one sided finger pointing. Once a man becomes a father, barring illness, he needs to step up, also. My goddaughter got married for the 2nd time at 31, the husband 33. Less than a year later he was in the hospital with a triple bypass, 90 % blockage. In the ensuing 5 years, she has held down a well paying full time job, shuttled their 7 year old son to soccer, etc., while he has onlly been able to work sporadically. She really trapped him didn’t she? My co worker is helping her fiancee raise his 7 year old daughter and has been doing it since the little girl was 2. She works all day, pioks her up from school, goes home to cook most nights, laundry,etc. Not saying that there are not men who do that as well. But there seems to be a lot of teeth clenching hate towards women here. Might I suggest that in spite of any anger, frustration, and dissapointment you feel towards women, try to get to know some on a one to one basis? I have been let down also, but still try not to drag out cliches, stereotypes, and random “media” declarations and statistics to crucify 50 % of the population. There are good and bad in both genders, and they both need to step up and make better choices.
“But there seems to be a lot of teeth clenching hate towards women here.”
Pointing out truths about women is not hate…unless you want to equate women pointing out truths about men as male hatred.
I happen to love women…but I don’t care for the ones that try to act like a man.
Earlier, kl assures us that she pretty much knew the way the world worked, yet in her latest attempt at male-shaming she asserts that the biological fathers of illegitimate children are under a duty to spend their time, money and guidance (guidance to whom; the mother or the child?) I know of no such duties.
The position is, and clearly she needs to know (as one suspects she either has or is about to acquire sire bastard off-spring), that an illegitimate child is entirely the responsibility of the Mother and the putative Father has no rights as to either the termination of the pregnancy nor the bringing to term of the baby; has no rights thereafter to act in the upbringing of the said child (either in terms of time or guidance) and has no rights to see the child in any event.
I have always acted on the assumption that a woman having sex with me was on the pill or other form of (male-invented) contraceptive. Happily, so far, I have not been mistaken, but were I to be misled I would regard that as a form of deceit negating any later form of responsibility on my part, just as I would with any other fraud upon me – although of course the law might take a different view when faced with an impecunious mother. Women do not get pregnant unless they wish to.
kl’s latest epistle is thus a thinly disguised attempt to blame men for female irresponsibility and promiscuity and to justify Child maintenance fraud.
Love the reframing from KL.
“My goddaughter got married for the 2nd time”
That’s one of the problems right there. I would probably be right in assuming she divorced her first husband.
“Less than a year later he was in the hospital with a triple bypass, 90 % blockage.”
So you’re shaming a guy for getting sick… Understandable, given that woman want a man to provide, but that’s really hilarious to apply it to every case where the woman chooses to have sex with a man who walks out on her without securing commitment.
I mostly feel sorry for most single mothers. They are in a situation of their own making the majority of the time. They either leave their husband, or they choose to have sex outside of marriage with guys who aren’t willing to commit.
Then they are told by the media, churches, etc that they are HEROES for making those bad choices especially if they are working overtime to raise a kid like that. It’s honestly very sad, but hilarious in its own way, heh.
The answer there, kl, is that Good Men take care of their own. As has been repeatedly noted, your ‘sistas’ are mating with Bad Boys. They are selecting males that have neither resources or inclination to assist with childrearing. Why should Good Men pay for other folks’ fun and bad choices?
I work in a prison. The psychopaths incarcerated here have an average of six children, and multiple women clamoring for their attention. Violent narcissistic conscienceless thugs with no possible means of support, and women are falling over themselves to catch them. Hypocrisy?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Nope, I am not blaming. I am not a single parent and took steps to insure that I would not become a single parent. I, however, grew up in a single parent household, in which my dad abandoned my mom and sent a total of 1 child support check in the years after they divorced. She had no choice but to at times, yes, act like a man, fix household items, make all the household income, etc. She would have greatly preferred to be a stay at home mom and be “feminine”. But she stepped up because she had to. Yes sometimes women do file for frivolous divorces and some do have irresponsible sex and try to slam men in court. But there are also some single mothers who tried to do things the right way in the beginning but get the total responsibility dumped on them. Still I personally know a lot of good women, and men, who are trying to do right by their children. I do not hate men at all. There are a lot of good men out there. I commend the good ones. And the ones who keep the children’s needs first and foremost. While we are busy slamming each other here, these children today will be running our world in about, oh, 15 or 20 years.
There is absolutely no criticism leveled at single mothers in the mainstream media (just the opposite actually), but these posts from Dalrock are the problem? Please.
Meh … women arent the gatekeepers of anything … especially when they cant keep theyre gate shut in the first place …
Keeping your gate open perpetually on the carousel makes you a lousy gate
Along with the half assed, rape them in court marriage contract, basically a divorce contract every man signs on their wedding day …
Women cant even keep the uborn infants in their own womb alive, aborting 1.5 million of them every year in the U.S alone, most of these abortions are for mere convenience …
A large portion of these abortions are 16 year old child females, killing their children instead of using condoms or the pill
Paid for by their feminist mothers & cheered on by their decrepit grandmothers …
Gatekeeper … gatekeeper of being sociopathic sluts with the license to commit infanticide in the millions?
Give men the vote, & you get the Magna Carte, the Bill of Rights
Give women the vote, & they turn into sluts & whores …
And Deep Strength, her first husband got involved with and hooked on dangerous drugs and dangerous people, so she had no choice after years of trying to help and no change. I am not shaming her current husband for getting sick, such is life. He is an excellent husband and superior father even while sick and I admire him 110% for efforts. They are BOTH good people and I am glad that they found each other.
I should have added (though it is obvious) that the qualities kl seeks from a man, namely money, time and guidance, are the very characteristics of and advantages that traditionally derive from matrimony, where there is (in getting married) a tangible benefit to the man in that he expends his energy in bringing up his own children as part of a family. kl seems to want all those benefits yet without any reciprocal responsibility from the woman. When women cease to act in unmarriagable ways, men will be only too keen to take on board the repsonsibilities of matrimony; in the present, where feckless female behaviour is the norm, is it any surprise that men are avoiding matrimony in droves, and would find preferrable, chewing barbed-wire?
women arent the gatekeepers of anything
The law says that they are, but then again, it only applies to “creepy guys”, not the bad boys that they want.
@KL: we don’t “crucify” women here.
To crucify someone is to mount them on a wooden post and actually murder their physical bodies in a horribly painful fashion.
You using that term is melodramatic and harms your credibility.
What we do here is discuss actual reality without the bullshit spin. Yeah, there’s a few guys here with some animosity towards females, but for the most part I think the spirit here is one that wishes to help women that would be helped, and help men gain understanding of what’s what after their media/feminist brainwashing. We also strive to crush lies and shoot straight, to prevent suffering from those whom the lies would harm.
You would only perceive that as “crucifying” women because of your knee-jerk reaction to our ideas being a programmed one: you guys are misogynists!
Wow, never heard that before. Try using some critical thinking to understand that sometimes love involves rebuke, and that not everyone who seems mean to you is actually cruel or trying to harm. Could be, they are trying to help you. Wrap your head around that.
The wise accept rebuke. The fools scoff at it.
KL:
“And Deep Strength, her first husband got involved with and hooked on dangerous drugs and dangerous people, so she had no choice after years of trying to help and no change. I am not shaming her current husband for getting sick, such is life. He is an excellent husband and superior father even while sick and I admire him 110% for efforts. They are BOTH good people and I am glad that they found each other.”
Ah, so she was attracted to and married a Bad Boy (aka Alpha). Basically, she chose a mate poorly.
After she turned 30+ she tried to settle down and marry a “better” (aka beta) man, except she gave her best years to the bad boy AND had a child with him.
Haven’t seen that story before…….
Damn near the whole interwebs, and all other media outlets slam men, and this gash wants to bitch about a hand full of webpages and a hand full of men who call women out
“her first husband got involved with and hooked on dangerous drugs and dangerous people, so she had no choice after years of trying to help and no change.”
Did he get involved before or after she married him?
I’d bet my life savings she was following her badboy tingles….got married, then realized that while she got tingles…the drugs and people were a terrible side effect of his bad boy ways.
And yet men are guilt tripped by Driscoll and other Churchianity pastors into making commitment with bad women. At least some men get marrying a bad women isn’t in their best interest.
No, he appeared to be a good man at first, but got lead astray for his own reasons, I guess. And Soloman, I struggled with the word crucify, and agree that I should have used another word. You deserve your name. I agree rational reasonable discussions need to take place. I am a clear eyed realist, no hamster here. I am fortunate enough to have a good man in my life and many in my family, and know many more. Men avoiding marriage in droves is not concerning, because women seem to be avoiding it in droves, also. If they can get the money from the government for child maintenance, and sometimes the government check is way more reliable than it would be coming from SOME biological fathers, and they can also do what they want, with no cooking or extra laundry or household responsibilitites that can sometimes come with marriage, you can hardly blame them for not wanting a husband. Not saying that it is right. I agree, something has gone greatly wrong with relations between men and women these days. I am not sure what the answer is, not even sure I can define the problem, but hate, blaming, shaming, etc., the other sex is getting nowhere. I hope we can come up with some new ideas for the future. And any of you men out there that has been unappreciated, overlooked, taken advantage of, I do know that happens and I wish that it had not. I do appreciate all of you men that are trying to be good people, good fathers, good husbands, and good people in general. God bless.
@kl
Grats on your mother getting dumped by husband … her feminist merit badge of sainthood’s in the mail …
Women dont get anything dumped on them …
Women are SUPPOSED to get the totality of the responsibility dumped on them … its called being an adult …
Women are SUPPOSED to PLAN & SAVE ahead if they want children
Since when did men magically grow money on tree’s?
You’re SUPPOSED to work if you have children, theres nothing heroic about a single woman with kids working, you’re SUPPOSED to work
Men have been SINGLE-HANDEDLY raising 3 kids & a stayathome wife, as they leech off his blood sweat & tears FOR CENTURIES
IN FACT, it takes MORE EFFORT TO RAISE A REAL GODDAMN family, as he pays not only for the children, but also for the wife to stay on her ass, then it does for a single woman with kids
Wanting to stayathome in the 21st century, in a technologically advanced state, where housework is literally automated
Ask yourself WHY you consider women who work & raise kids, as heroic
Remember … this is in a 1st world country, technologically advanced to the point housework literally takes a couple of hours a day …
Single women raising kids WITHOUT LEECHING OFF A MAN … lemme know when that happens …
In Summary, WOMEN ARE SUPPOSED to provide for their children … in reality they dont … abortion beats working right? … ask any feminist
Seriosuly What idiot, wants to stayathome & demand somebody else pay for the mortgage, bank, supermarket, shoes & handbags …
Oh yes … stayathome parasite mothers …
If women really want equality…then they should accept the consequences of their actions. You want to follow your tingles…you better be prepared for the good and bad that comes from it.
Men have to do that everyday. No matter how bad a man can treat a woman in this day and age…the threat of jail is always there. Even treating women with rebuke to help her grow and become a better person can lead to jail time if she deems it as “abuse”.
My mother was not a feminist, leave her out of this. That was a low blow. All she wanted was a partner to help raise the kids that belonged to both of them. She did not abandon us. She did not leech off of anyone at all. She stood on her own two feet. He moved from town to town to avoid responsibility, and belonged to country clubs while we did without basic necessities. I am quite aware that men raise children by themselves, also. ANYONE of either gender that starts out in the right way, marry first, stay faithful, then bring kids into the world, and winds up with all of the responsibillity is a hero in my eyes.
Damn near the whole interwebs, and all other media outlets slam men, and this gash wants to bitch about a hand full of webpages and a hand full of men who call women out
It’s actually doing a great service (can’t in good conscience call it a “she”) in illustrating the amazing acrobatics of the hamster.
It’s always the fault of men: Men who won’t send the cheques on time. Men who won’t “man up” and marry a banged out whore who spent the first part of her life in the gutter by her own bad choices, Men who never do enough for those poor, helpless wimminz.
All this shaming language really makes me want to invite one of these creeps into my house, put a ring on it, and spend the rest of my life busting my tail to pay its bills. lol
If one says something against single parenting, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, feminism and divorce, he will be sued and brought down to his knees by government-supported activists.
There is no cowardice – that is female crookedness and women’s lack of responsability. Let us stop blaming men for women’s failures. Aren’t they “free, independent and empowered”? So what is the matter if they are able to live by themselves without any guidance and support? Let them taste their own poison…
“All she wanted was a partner to help raise the kids that belonged to both of them.”
So she never nagged the guy, she never questioned his authority, she was submissive, she satisfied his sexual needs, she supported him in his times of weakness, she never insulted his manhood.
If he bolted on her then he is a jerk of epic proportions. However if she acted this way I doubt he would have bolted. Most guys don’t bolt if they have a woman that acts feminine.
Notice also the framing of the situation, DS. The first husband got addicted to dangerous drugs and people? As if his addictive personality weren’t at all visible to the woman who CHOSE to marry him and have a child with him? All of the bad consequences can be laid upon the feet of the men in her life (including bypass surgery) while the woman is the helpless victim. If the circumstances of her choosing don’t work out for the best, the woman is conferred victim status, no matter how bad her choices were nor how obvious the negative consequences for said choices.
Women want to be protected from everything (including themselves) while maintaining “Grlll Power”, they expect men to be the bubble wrap.
The last thing she is, is a victim. She pulled up her boots and dealt with all of it. I am sure that he would have done the same for her. She honored the vows she took, in sickness and in health. Are some of you guys even sure you know what you want? A woman that has a career, decides to be a single mom, is a despicable feminist, and yet a woman that wants to be a stay at home mom and good mother, is a parasitic leech. Geez.
She may not be a victim kl, the problem is that as far as this discussion is concerned you framed both this younger woman and your mother as victims. You stripped them of their agency and emphasized how men let them down. Did they have any power over their own circumstances? Do they have any responsibility to make good decisions? At all?
In choosing his bait today for the lake excursion, Dalrock nailed the choice…..to a “T”, but somehow snagged a kl amidst the structure of the old abandoned dock just near the interstate bridge.
Throw it baaaaaaaaaack……
“Are some of you guys even sure you know what you want?”
Suggesting monolithic unity between “mackPUA” and a person such as myself is silly?
I’d be more than happy with a good submissive stay at home wife and wouldn’t be at all bothered by that type of “parasitic” arrangement. A wife that depends on me and appreciates me, isn’t that what any good man wants?
The fly in the ointment is the feminist who insists that this arrangement is oppressive to women and that women should be entitled parasites. What man wants one of those?
KL, not everyone here, not even half, are conflicted about SAHM vs working. Id wager most dont really care that much one way of the other on that issue because there are much bigger hills to die on. Do not let that be the takeaway.
Yeah empath,
Too many lampreys on that fish.
Never forget TFH’s 72 hour rule. I’d say kl’s hamster is soon to spin off the wheel (if you all continue to bait her with such evil Patriarchal scams, as reason and logic and reality, driving her to ever greater fury).
Catch and release, the bait is obviously too strong…
Wow, what a catch chaps. Since we don’t all agree on exactly what we want in a woman, our arguments all fall flat on their faces. Geeez, what a crock of shit, bat shit crazy comes to mind. It’s a wonder, isn’t it, men not being on the exact same page. As if traditional men and PUAs, and men’s rights activists should all have the same code of conduct…
kl says: “I, however, grew up in a single parent household, in which my dad abandoned my mom and sent a total of 1 child support check in the years after they divorced. ”
Interesting, so did your father buy your mother or just catch her in a bear trap? Or more likely, did your mother CHOOSE to hitch her wagon to that particular horse? Maybe your mother shouldn’t have been so quick to open her legs to a lout. But of course, the fact that he was a lout was probably what got her motor running in the fist place.
Watch, watch, here comes the Apex fallacy.
I love how anecdotes only matter if they belong to the troll.
“Oh, I know there are women out there who do bad things to men sometimes, BUT LOOK, I KNOW THESE TWO CASES WHERE MENFAILED AND WOMEN STEPPED UP! CLEARLY NAWALT!1!!”
Guess what; I bet everyone here can cite there own sob story. So lets focus on the actual statistics that show the general trend line, huh?
KL, if you really want to learn, and you’re not a troll, then trying reading for a while before posting. Read enough and many questions will be answered for you. I waited for months, just reading, before posting, because I knew at the beginning I was resistant, and I didn’t want to get into it until I had the time to see if there was anything to all this “manosphere” bullshit. Turns out, after a I read for a while, all those comments that I thought were so hostile? Made a lot of sense suddenly.
Not a troll, and trying to keep an open mind. My mother was not a victim, she did choose to marry my dad, and after he left she made the good choice of not depending on him to do his half, and got a good job and continued on with her life. She took responsibility for her choices and her children. I will continue to read here from time to time, because some of the comments are thought provoking instead of just vitriolic and full of anger and hatred, but this is my last comment. I have not insulted 1 individual man on here, or said 1 bad thing about men in general, and cited specific real life cases. I have given all due credit to good men, good husbands, and good fathers. In return, I am not going to be the recipient of all the anger and dissapointment leveled against the female gender. Name calling and insults are always the result of illogical and irrational thinking, and then you call us hamsters. God bless us all.
Clearly “good” is defined by their utility to women. (This can be observed tangentially in feminists attempts at reframing.) Even ANO is sucked into this definition of “good”. Any man who is useless to women is not “good”. Talk about anger and disappointment being leveled at a gender.
A good man (by my definition) is a man who clearly sees what is wrong as he is guided by the Holy Spirit of God and is not afraid to confront error or sin when and where God instructs him to do so. His chief aim is to please God and be conformed to His image and not men or women. Self-service is just another form of serving the created instead of the Creator.
Usually when a woman comes here with the intention of turning this blog into her own personal soap-box, we eventually (after many posts) learn what is really bugging her – they let it out in dribs and drabs, but re-reading kl’s comments, all I can deduce is that she is married but has ensured that she will not be having children – how strange! (I hope I have got that right), – perhaps it has something to do with her mother’s unfortunate circumstances, yet I would like to hear her Father’s side of the story, for although men do abandon their families, that is unusual. Something however must have struck a nerve, for even to find this blog suggests a person searching for some kind of answer – and the best we get is a sort of ‘you-men-should-man-up-and-marry-those-sluts’ and NAWALT. I guess we will never learn what it was – on this occasion.
Well, one last comment. You are right, except that I am unable to have children, but until I found that out, I still protected against unwed motherhood. I was molested after my father left, by a family member and a family friend, while under the age of six. So I should in theory hate men, but I don’t. A good man is an honest and moral person, whether or not he is pleasing women. I have a lot of respect for most men and do realize the current system can be skewed. I also think men are wise to leave “sluts” alone and certainly should not marry them. But considering some of the hatred, sterotyping, and anger here, deep down some of you know that feeling that way is not healthy. Again, God bless,
Yes she drove her Government Motors Camaro 140 mph, broke through the guardrail, crashed into the gorge below, was impaled on the steering wheel and died in excruciating agony. Clearly it was the failure of her Man-Up Bubble Wrap (TM) and that is why she died. Men have to start Manning-up and doing it BETTER! There is no other solution!
“I am not going to be the recipient of all the anger and disappointment leveled against the female gender.”
But isn’t this exactly what women have been doing to the male gender? But yeah. Let’s hear about all the anger and disappointment *you’ve* been exposed to.
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” — Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto (SCUM stands for Society for Cutting Up Men)
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.)
If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.” –Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.
“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.” Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.
“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” Catherine MacKinnon
“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” Germaine Greer.
“The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations…obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign.” Marilyn French
“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, ‘even if she does not feel forced.’ Judith Levine
“All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck”.
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator,
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” Andrea Dworkin; from her book Ice and Fire .
“(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”. Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will p.6.
“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women…he can sexually molest his daughters… THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.”
Marilyn French (her emphasis)
From ‘A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:
MALE:…represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants…the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.
MAN:…an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched…a contradictory baby-man…
Letter to editor: “Women’s Turn to Dominate”. “……Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don’t like it, bad luck–and if you get in my way I’ll run you down.”
Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 Feb., 1996.
Pingback: Random Comments and Stuff #2 | The Society of Phineas
KL, simple solution to the disappearing dad/deadbeat epidemic: Stop marrying and having sex with douchebags. Problem solved. When you reward bad behavior you will continue to reap the consequences of bad behavior.
If women would just learn to keep their legs closed till the right man came along, a lot more kids today would be living in a 2 parent home, instead of being yet another statistical victim of their mother’s whoredom.
Dlarock is right on the edge of the cultural conversation (as always) form the WSJ:
“Meanwhile, many whose jobs do not give them membership in the professional class turn to a traditional source of young adult identity—parenthood—for meaning and satisfaction. Although nearly all unmarried young adults say it’s important to them to avoid pregnancy at the present moment, a third also say they would be at least a little happy if they did find themselves pregnant. And so young women often drift “unintentionally” into parenthood with men whom they believe are not good enough to marry or not ready for it.”
Upon reflection something else occurred to me: If I met two women, one who has three kids by three different men (husbands or not), and the other was a virgin who was willing to wait for the right person (even though she’s now in her thirties), as a celibate myself, who do you think I would choose?
If I was willing to wait despite the bouts of loneliness I’ve experienced over the years, don’t I deserve someone who also made the same sacrifice?
@I Art Laughing says: March 17, 2013 at 2:53 pm
Clearly “good” is defined by their utility to women. (This can be observed tangentially in feminists attempts at reframing.) Even ANO is sucked into this definition of “good”.
If there’s something wrong with giving someone a “glass of water when it’s safe to do so”, then I’m guilty. Send me into exile now!
A good man (by my definition) is a man who clearly sees what is wrong as he is guided by the Holy Spirit of God and is not afraid to confront error or sin when and where God instructs him to do so. His chief aim is to please God and be conformed to His image and not men or women.
A good, Christian man also sees what is clearly right and is “not afraid” to do Christian good where God has given him opportunity and means to do so.
As an example, Christ treatment of the self-righteous religious “authorities” was a lot different compared to how he treated the repentant “tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners” of the time.
I seem to recall F Roger Devlin saying that the least a woman owes a man is chastity before marriage and faithfulness thereafter. If you cannot do the former, what expectation can one reasonably have that you will do the latter. Women do not apparently have quite the same sex drive that men have and thus promiscuity in women is usually linked – so far as I observe – to a desire for attention or instant love and gratification, and is sometimes if not frequently indulged in by women whose sexual experiences began at too young an age with incest. That is hardly the sort of quality a man (and most men usually have prolonged bouts of celibacy) would seek in a woman. Such women are surely not of the marriagable kind, whatever their yearnings.
Marriage, as The Book of Common Prayer reminds us, is an institution not to be undertaken lightly but soberly.
One thing that struck me about Jennifer Maggio’s ministry FAQ was how she says that establishing a single mothers ministry is no more harmful to a church or its teachings than having AA, or drug rehab, or pornography rehab ministries. However, the tone of the Single Mothers Ministry is not the same as AA, Drugs or Pron ministries.
ANO, KL, others seems to be hung on this whole “glass of water”, but fail to see the need for true body ravishing thirst before any water is given. AA and Drug rehab don’t really start until the circumstances are so bad the person is willing to endure the absolute pain of detox. These people do not show up in AA and drug ministries and it gets easier…it gets harder, for a while…at least in the successful ones.
Sure, life circumstances may drive a single mom to seek out the church for help, but the help she needs is not the support of “good minded people” who ease her burdens…no, the help she needs is people with the will, and the true love of Christ, to support her through the detox of culture, her poor choices and her disobedience.
Here in CCTVland no sane male past puberty dare even look in the direction of a small child, particularly if accompanied by an invariably unprepossessing and aggressive female who doesn’t feel “safe” in the Great Outdoors, a.k.a. anywhere that’s not her own bathroom.”
Voted for best quote ever.
“But considering some of the hatred, sterotyping, and anger here, deep down some of you know that feeling that way is not healthy.”
So tolerating bad choices that lead to her self-destruction and possibly mine should I get attached is considered a healthy attitude?
I don’t think most men hate sluts or hate single mothers. They hate that these women feel entitled that men should clean up their messes…either through marriage or getting money from the government.
You give me a former slut who takes accountability for her actions, doesn’t blame men, and repents…and I’d give her major props. I’d encourage her to spread her attitude to her sisters. But that woman is even more rare than a virgin or a unicorn.
“I don’t think most men hate sluts or hate single mothers. They hate that these women feel entitled that men should clean up their messes…either through marriage or getting money from the government.”
^^ This right here.
@kl
As pointed out, you portrayed your mother as a victim of your father …
Changing your story DOESNT change what you stated … either HONESTLY address the fact you see your mother as a victim & the points being raised, or your quite rightly trolling …
Changing your story to her now being a strong independant woman, DOESNT change your original statement of your mother being a victim …
This is what we’re addressing, changing your story doesnt address the points being raised about you calling your mother a victim
Changing your story is evading the issue …
Evading the issue is what most women resort to when faced with a clear hard truth
But that isnt how arguements are addressed
If you want to debate with men, address the points raised, without changing the story & evading the points being raised …
If you feel your mother has it tough, great, BUT you will be told you’re mother isnt entitled to a man …
In the same way a man isnt entitled to have a woman help him at his place of work, as he slaves away for a family
Changing your story, just to win an arguement … is also referred to as lying
Remember this is how men help each other, by stating the harsh naked truth
A real truth heals, a watered down truth becomes a worthless untruth
ANO, the key word being repentant. The “elite” of this day are in part the matriarchy.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”.—Voltaire
“As an example, Christ treatment of the self-righteous religious “authorities” was a lot different compared to how he treated the repentant “tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners” of the time.”
Repentance shows humility…entitlement or passing the blame doesn’t.
Every story of a prostitute or sinful woman that Jesus was in contact with…you never hear her saying she was the victim and her sins were the result of a man.
The tax collector Zacchaeus said he would give half his possessions to the poor and would pay back 4 times the amount if he cheated anybody. No entitlement or passing the blame there.
Remember, there are some missing verses from the Sermon on the Mount, to wit:
“Blessed are the single mothers, for they shall be considered heroes beyond even the most heroic of men — and you “men” — and yes, I’m looking at YOU, Peter, Andrew, James and my faithful followers — are damned for not manning up and marrying Mary Magdelene and the Woman at the Well –“
That’s the Driscoll edit of the Sermon on the Mount.
In fact I would encourage every woman to read the stories about when Jesus met an adulterer, prostitute, or a woman who wasn’t entitled to his services. Read how they acted.
John 4
John 8
Luke 7: 36
Matthew 15: 21
So Dalrock wrote this:
Yet Christian men and Christian leaders can’t bring themselves to criticize women for the rampant and very open flaunting of biblical teaching on marriage and sexual morality by women. This cowardly silence is not only sinful but immensely harmful to men, women, and children. Men who remain silent on this are choosing the suffering of millions of children over their own discomfort. They are also gravely harming women by assisting them in avoiding repentance in their cowardly feelings-driven silence.
That is Christian. Harsh but totally Christian. Yet there are a whole bunch of posters here falling into the “just walk and laugh” camp. That _isn’t_ Christian and is the source of the problem in the first place.
You are saying his critique is Christian, not that the behavior he is describing is Christian.
My priest made a valid point this weekend about how Jesus operated in the case of the adulterous woman the Pharisees brought to him.
“Jesus wasn’t too much concerned about condemning the woman to death because of her sin (hence why he was writing in the sand when first pressed about the matter)…he was more concerned about setting her free from the prison the sin created.”
So it is vitally important for pastors to not cover up the sins of anybody…or tell you that it isn’t your fault that it happened. That keeps you trapped in them. It is more important to have accountability for your actions and seek forgiveness.
My mother EVOLVED by necessity into a strong woman. I have told no lies. I have not accused anyone of anything on here, just tried to be honest and tell my truth, and have been called names, words put into my mouth, etc. You don’t want to hear other viewpoints, just support of your own. I have not heard anyone say one kind thing about any woman. You don’t have a mother, neighbor, aunt, or any woman in your life that you think highly of? Sad. Just keep painting us all with the same brush. That is not solving or helping anything.
I have told no lies.
This morning you claimed you weren’t going to post any more looney replies here. That’s one lie, among many.
Of course, I believe you’re sincere when you claim to be an honest person. Women have quite the, well, “special” relationship with the truth, as most of the men here have learned through painful experience.
Regards, Boxer
You are special too, 8oxer and thanks. I am outnumbered and ganged up on here and still had the courage to stand up and tell my truth, I don;t need your permission to post here as often as I would like to, and you have a good evening, sir.
@I Art Laughing
My point about women being stayathome parasites, women should be responsible for their own finances, leeching off a man is inherently blatantly wrong
Women HAVE to save if they want children, in a technologically advanced society, women have no right to demand men slave away in factories & coal mines & cubicles
As a PUA, this has to be biologically correct
The correct way for a woman to work, as Dalrock & others’ve pointed out …
Is to marry early & have kids early & THEN go find work
Basically women should marry & have kids in their 20’s
& THEN go find work in their 30’s & 40’s
Biologically this is correct
Biologically & nature designed women to behave this way for centuries
Which is why Dowries & arranged marriages are a great idea
Basically if you stayathome AFTER you’re kids have left the house
Then you’re quite rightly a stayathome parasite
A man paying a mortgage while a woman stays at home without kids, is inherently wrong
Im not suggesting women become corporate whores, because a corporate whore, a corporate career requires a woman avoid giving birth in the first place
Im talking about taking a part time job, as a Part Time Nurse, Part Time Teacher, something to keep her feminine, but ALSO ABLE TO HELP PAY THE MORTGAGE
A man has the RIGHT to enjoy the fruits of his labour
IF a man works for OVER 20 YEARS to support your kids, OUT OF GRATEFULNESS & EMPATHY for your husband, a wife should help pay the mortgage
So the man can take some time off work, & ENJOY the fruits of his labour WHILE HE STILL CAN
The fact traditionalists, demand a man work his fingers to the bone, EVEN AFTER THE KIDS LEAVE, for an aging sagging ass who does NO CHORES, except to cook the odd meal IF she’s in the mood …
Forget sex, you’ll be lucky if she even cooks you a meal, once the kids leave home …
PROVES what bunch of worthless stayathome parasite’s the average traditionalist really is …
IF TRADITIONALIST women gave a crap about their husbands, they would have TRADITIONS OF GOING BACK TO WORK after theyre kids leave the home, so they can help their husband pay the mortgage & ease his burden of working so hard
The fact they expect men to work their fingers to the bone well into their 50’s & 60’s
Proof Positive Traditionalists are a bunch of enslaving parasitic stayathome bitches, with ZERO EMPATHY for their husbands rights
Seriously the sagging tits, & sagging blowjobs arent worth the GRUELLING 9 to 5
Women should be ASHAMED of themselves for FORCING A MAN TO work into his 40’s & 50’s
These so-called parasitic traditionliast women could EASILY find a part time job, to help ease the burden of a GRUELLING CORPORATE CAREER
Traditional women wothless parasites, every single one
Find a part-time job & ease the burden on your husband, you worthless parasite
Note I said part-time job, we’re not asking you to contribute anything of use, just ease the burden of one man, who spent the last 20 years paying for your kids …
” You don’t have a mother, neighbor, aunt, or any woman in your life that you think highly of?”
The Virgin Mary.
It takes courage to post online….?
@kl
I really dont know why you’re now portraying yourself the victim …
I didnt say you lied … I said you changed your story, from your mother being a victim, to a strong independent woman … which is essentially lying
Nobodies doubting anything, just pointing out the facts …
& I stated if you think you’re mothers strong & independent, thats great
Did I attack your mother being strong & indepenent? No …
Unfortunately I dont speak Deti’s hamster translation, I hope the above words written in basic 4th grade english, make sense …
You don’t have a mother, neighbor, aunt, or any woman in your life that you think highly of?
kl
With red pill eye’s No and there never was.. I can think highly of a woman’s behavior but not women. You need to understand that and what it means. There is no blanket respect for women because you are a woman from red pill men.You are seeing the world and this conversation with blue pill eyes. Another way of putting it is trying to fit the conversation ito the feminine imperative. Red pill men will always be abusive and bad when seen with blue pill eyes. Crtisism of a man that sees the truth is a badge of honor.
BTW hang in there and learn something.
You make sense to me MackPUA
BTW I’m showing courage here fellas I’m typing this with my shirt off.
mackPUA says: March 17, 2013 at 7:35 pm
I didnt say you lied … I said you changed your story, from your mother being a victim, to a strong independent woman
Not so fast – this is what she wrote:
kl says:
March 17, 2013 at 1:16 pm
The last thing she is, is a victim. She pulled up her boots and dealt with all of it.
Others may’ve framed KL’s Mom as a victim – she has not.
Thanks, I actually have learned something. Since we are all being so honest, the bottom line is, men and women need each other. It is the way most of us are made. There are a few hardy souls who don’t seem to need anyone, but most of the rest of us need each other. Plain and simple. I am trying to keep an open mind and see things from other’s viewpoints, that is why I am here. If I can look past the snark and insults and learn something, so be it. I do not hate men and actually think highly of many. I know men have a different reality and set of rules to live by that I will never understand, and I respect that. But we do need each other, most of us humans, and we are made that way, so we are just going to have to figure out a better way. Peace and understanding to us all.
“Since we are all being so honest, the bottom line is, men and women need each other.”
The best way to fulfill that need…is if men play by masculine rules and women play by feminine rules.
But in this day and age men are shamed for being masculine…and women are “liberated” from being feminine. What women don’t get is that liberation is actually a disguise for saying it is shameful to be feminine.
ANO:
She framed her goddaughter as a victim, and then she provided more information later saying it was her 2nd marriage, and that “her first husband got involved with and hooked on dangerous drugs and dangerous people” while the goddaughter was a “good woman.”
Likewise, why bring up an example of where her goddaughter’s 2nd husband had a heart attack and she had to step up? That’s straight up NAWALT.
Not that I disagree that some woman are good and can be in bad situations…. but they almost never take responsibility for their actions and the same thing is playing out here.
God calls us to repent and sin no more. You can’t repent if you deny responsibility and are trying to victimize yourself. When you make your bed you have to lie in it in this physical world. Many women are paying for that now.
Fortunately, God does not condemn us if we repent and turn from our sinful ways.
Given the number of “‘ man up and marry that slut” and “where have all the good men” articles out there I’d say women need men a lot more then men need women. Course most men have had to learn to get by without the various things women traditionally brought to the table. Especially married men
There is that verse from the Bible about being cursed unto the 3rd generation. This is a practical problem. I think there was a post a few months ago about “how do I validate batshit crazy?”. It requires a very sharp scalpel to NOT validate the mother’s errors yet help the kids (when they are still in custody). It is better they recognize they have misfortune to have a bad – evil – mother, then they can go forward and not repeat the sins. That is happening with the millenials and divorce (though not in a good way – they just don’t want to marry).
There is mercy for the contrite and repentant, yet there will be a persistent scarlet letter. Her single motherhood didn’t come out of nowhere.
Remember (and Good Friday is coming up) that the price of our sin required the passion and crucifixion of God, as perfect and innocent man. It is too easy to say “well, the bill is paid, so I can move on”. No, even he was ressurected with the scars – the holes from the nails remained.
Let the single mothers spend a few years doing penance, for their children.
Deep Strength says: March 17, 2013 at 8:02 pm
ANO: She framed her goddaughter as a victim, and then she provided more information later saying it was her 2nd marriage, and that “her first husband got involved with and hooked on dangerous drugs and dangerous people” while the goddaughter was a “good woman.”
I’m not sure if she framed her goddaughter as a victim, or if it’s the community that’s imposing the frame. My impression was her story was a counter to the overall AWALT frame, and an example of at least one adult woman owning a bad situation and making the best of it.
Likewise, why bring up an example of where her goddaughter’s 2nd husband had a heart attack and she had to step up? That’s straight up NAWALT.
And your point? Certainly it’s a counter to “AWALT”, which is why I surmise she included the sarcastic “She really trapped him didn’t she?”
With respect to “NAWALT”, if you’re talking about how women in society in general behave, or want to formulate social policy, it’s certainly reasonable to reject NAWALT because policy can’t be based on exceptions, it has to be based on the overall behavior of the population you’re formulating policy for. In essence, “Enough Women Are Like That” (EWALT).
This means that NAWALT can still be acknowledged, but it doesn’t matter since EWALT still holds.
Not that I disagree that some woman are good and can be in bad situations…. but they almost never take responsibility for their actions and the same thing is playing out here.
Excellent! “almost never” means that “some do.” And shouldn’t we be encouraging the women who are owning their “stuff”, being responsible at the same time as we’re holding the bad operators accountable for their actions? Or is the strategy to impose the AWALT frame, go for the “scorched earth” tactic, and so condemn the women who agree with “us” and do what the manosphere’s saying they should do in the first place?
God calls us to repent and sin no more. You can’t repent if you deny responsibility and are trying to victimize yourself.
However, if the “victim” frame being imposed on you by others, then do you have to repent of anything?
When you make your bed you have to lie in it in this physical world. Many women are paying for that now.
Agreed! Sadly, many women are also paying for the bed other women have made.
Fortunately, God does not condemn us if we repent and turn from our sinful ways.
Amen!
Northern Observer, : > !
ANO, when someone comes in and explains about a woman done wrong, a woman who had to raise her family without the help of the father she chose and frames him as the sole problem then yes that is framing that woman as a victim. The frame is one of victimization, the automatic reframe is blue pill to the core. While the blue pill sees this woman as “strong”, it shows her to be the hapless victim of circumstance overcoming a situation that she was not the author of. By stripping her of the responsibility for her situation she is also stripped of her own agency and becomes a helpless childlike figure who must deal with a situation which God never equipped her to deal with.
When we step back to assess a scenario such as this we should ask ourselves who is being justified? Is God being justified? Is God a just God? If he is why would He allow a situation so “horrendous” to befall such helpless and child-like innocents such as these women?
Ultimately, they aren’t accusing the alpha’s OR the beta’s, ultimately the feminist is accusing God, the ultimate patriarch. That is really the point. God should protect them from their own free-will, while paradoxically allowing them to have it. (see C.S. Lewis “The Problem of Pain” for further illustration of this).
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ”
(2Ti 3:1-7)
ANO:
I haven’t been imposing any scorched earth tactics here. That’s mainly the others.
I’m generally a skeptical person, so I’ll believe it when the words/actions show it from women posting here. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt; however, I suppose we’ll see if that’s misplaced or not.
Major props to earl and Deep Strength. Both of them did a great job dismantling kl’s earlier comments about the drug-addicted first husband. Shame how these poor ladies always seem to “find themselves” hooking up with sociopaths.
“There are good and bad in both genders, and they both need to step up and make better choices.”
Does one gender, in particular, find its bad elements’ choices subsidized by the government, NGO’s, the mass media, etc? If so, should Dalrock’s blog let kl & friends exercise veto power over its contents? And pretend that this massive power imbalance, backed by men with guns, is nonexistent for the sake of being “even handed”, and sparing one gender’s feelings? Why or why not?
“shaming, etc., the other sex is getting nowhere. ”
Promiscuous women were shamed for thousands of years and, given that it tended to shut up whore-apologists like kl (and produce durable societies with an abundance of social capital), I’d say it worked quite well. 🙂
“I was molested after my father left”
A question to the other posters. Do you guys (like me) find yourself feeling – well – INDIFFERENT when women on the ‘net claim to have been molested? Sunshine Mary had an excellent post (wish I could link to it) about this common internet phenomenon. Scratch the surface of a typical “rape” or “pedophilia” claim and you’ll often find one of the following motives – all of which are quite reprehensible:
#1-Sympathy whoring (attention from gullible strangers makes me feel good. Think Munchenhausen Syndrome: the internet version).
#2-Minimizing a high partner count (I was forced, so my high “Number” can’t be held against me).
#3-On the flip side, emphasizing one’s partner count, albeit in a subtle way (men can’t control themselves around me. Thus my SMV (Sexual Market Value) is high).
#4-Bomb throwing (everyone, pay attention to my shocking story and ignore my rhetorical ineptitude).
#5-Sexual fantasizing (speaks for itself. Look at the popularity of 50 Shades with women. Or any romance novel cover).
To all you female “victims” out there, if you are motivated by any one of the above, you’re sick. On the off chance that you’re not lying, tell the rest of Team Vagina to be a little more careful with spewing out the sordid details, mkay? The more you do it the less impact it has.
Thanx!
Chris, what I saw was a doubling down on victim-hood. Her father left her (and mom) and mom didn’t have the wherewithal (based on all the other things she had to deal with) to protect her from the other men. The original blame for the consequences was laid at the fathers feet so this must also be primarily his fault (and the fault of those other men). Strangely, the mothers agency is again absent.
That is very clinical. On the other hand we have someone here who claims to have been molested, which is tragic. I’m not at all sure how it was pertinent to the subject other than as a cue for the white knights to jump in and start wagging their fingers at all of us evil hateful men. The stated reason for the point was that she has been done wrong by men and doesn’t hate them as a class why should men get so upset at women as a class?
To answer this I would say: I’m sympathetic to your abuse, I’m glad you don’t hold it against every man (which is practically an industry in some circles), they should have been punished because what they did was wrong and they should not have been allowed to get away with bad behavior with impunity, neither should women. How do we hold bad behavior to account? By ignoring it?
@ I Art Laughing and others
You may want to check out Revelation 2:18-29
Describes Feminism (spirit of Jezebel) and Obesity (food sacrificed to idols) to a “T”, if you catch my drift on that one too. 😛
Notice how they “suffer intensely” because of their disobedience… and her children are “struck dead” which ironically reminds us of the broken homes and broken children. And everyone is “repaid according to their deeds.”
The end times are coming gentlemen.
But not before (1) Israel declares blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, and (2) all nations/peoples/tribes hear the gospel. With the Internet and the way the middle east is looking I’d estimate within the next 50 years most likely…. whenever the “technological singularity” is a good a bet as any.
Sunday reading in Catholic Churches: last line was “go and sin no more”. How many women would ever actually remember that part? How about too few compared to the number of women who remember Jesus saying “then neither do I condemn you” just before that?
Regarding the discussion above about whether to help kids: I very strongly suggest only doing that within your extended family or your best friend’s circle. Otherwise stay away. Too much risk not mitigated by family or best friend referrals. Among strangers, the only realistic somewhat less risk opportunities would be in strongly structured activities such as youth sports, boy scouts, etc., but these are best done by men who are fathers who may have their own kids in the program(s). I once did some volunteer work in Big Brothers many years ago in my blue pill days, but I wouldn’t touch it anymore as it represents a program taking some heat off the single moms as criticized above.
KL, thank you for the classic NAWALT talk. Now look up the statistics on female-initiated divorce, look at how too many women consistently pick outright bad boys and just maybe you just might understand where we’re coming from. You mean well, but your understanding is that of a lowly padawan. Start with Dalrock’s posts on the topic, there are many.
“The end times are coming gentlemen.”
With all the evidence out there I don’t know how anybody can refute this claim. My guess is the anti-Christ will be such an alpha personality all the women will tingle and respect him and most of the men will be so emasculated by then they will too.
” Do you guys (like me) find yourself feeling – well – INDIFFERENT when women on the ‘net claim to have been molested?”
I wouldn’t say indifferent…but it is an example of the side effect strong and independent women bring upon their children. I certainly have sympathy because no matter the circumstances…a child should not be sullied like that. Hang a millstone around those people’s neck that sully children and throw them deep into the ocean.
kl never answered my question about her mother’s personality to her father. Was she a good feminine submissive wife…or a “you go grrrl” feminist? I’m not going to say whether the father is a terrible person and since he bolted that left her unprotected from child molesters…until I know why he left. All we ever get with these stories is the last action involved by the man…we never get the story that led up to it.
Remember actions have consequences….reactions are still actions and they have consequences as well.
I almost spilt my coffee – not because, contrary to her promise, kl, and far from ending her contributions, has continued them – but because having entered the evil world of the MRM she then complains that she is outnumbered by men, (which one supposes is why she came in the first place) for that is a bit like my going to my local brothel and then complaining that I am outnumbered by sinful women. LOL 🙂
I don’t think we are yet much closer to learning what is really bugging kl.
@Chris_Williams:
On the topic of childhood sexual abuse, the short answer is that, in internet discussions, it’s a matter of “extraordinary proof”. It simply comes down to this being the Internet and its always used to shut down a discussion, which means it’s being deployed as a weapon. That’s not an argument: it’s just shouting really loud.
The real truth is that someone that actually was sexually abused as a child won’t deny it if asked but also won’t mention it. Yes, it was a pretty important point in their life, but like any major event, you either deal with it & move on or you let it define you & continually entrap you. This generally leads to either no one knowing or everyone knowing. When it’s pulled out as a trump card, it puts the onus for proof on the person deploying it. [It’s even worse when dealing with the topic of Rape, as about 80% of actual rape cases still include a half dozen “how can you be that freaking stupid?” decisions in the lead up to the crime. This is a lot of the reason that the feminists pushed the “you can never question a rape victim!1!!!!!!” stuff. Questioning it normally leads to places the victim nor society doesn’t want to admit to.]
You mean well, but your understanding is that of a lowly padawan
A female with Jedi mind tricks? That would be bad.
@KL – I think highly of the girl I am with. Top notch individual. She deserves every bit of praise I give her, and probably more.
a little genuine sweetness and deference can make a woman more beautiful than they could ever realize.
It inspires me to look after her and her well-being diligently.
My time here in the manosphere, in the end, is rooted in my desire to help people understand this very thing, so they have a chance to prosper and have something great, as well as avoiding the endless suffering that people (and their kids) endure because they refuse the very truth they desperately need.
I graduated from a highly regarded national university in Houston in 1977. While I was there I never dated any of the girls. I was focussed on getting an engineering degree. I wasn’t going to let anything get in the way. I did have a couple of girls who I knew tell me they were looking for a husband. I thought that was a ridiculous thing to say to me. I had been there and known them for 4 years and they never had time for me. So I let those opportunities pass. Upon graduation, I took a job in Fort Worth, and began attending a Lutheran church there. I was really impressed by how many single young ladies, my age, were there. There didn’t seem to be any guys around at the time. So I had all of their attention. But to my dismay, I found none of them had the kind of smarts, or the papers to prove it, that my former young lady friends at college had. These girls had one thing on their agenda – finding a husband. Unfortunately I had this opinion of the lot of them:
“Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.”
I just couldn’t see that they would bring any value at all to the marriage, other than cooking, cleaning, spending money, and having babies….none of which I needed. Occasionally I tell myself I should have pursued those girls who told me they were looking for a husband in college. But then my better judgement gets ahold of me. I have never been able to get over those girls who had “Find a husband” on their agenda. It sort of seems like they were skipping a bunch of steps. What I always wanted was a girl/woman who was interested in ME, not as a simple commodity, but as a life partner. Many of those girls eventually found a guy to mate with. But several of them ended up divorced. One multiple times. Even after 35 years, my head still spins thinking about that experience.
Off-topic, but Catholics (or interested Protestants) should check out this piece by 60 Minutes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57574762/american-nuns-struggle-with-vatican-for-change/
I recommend the video for full effect. The tone of the reporter, representing mainstream consensus anti-traditionalism, and his framing may be as telling as anything actually said in the piece. My favorite part was the lawyer-nun who spoke at the DNC. Well, it might tie with “We have never wanted the men to tell us what to do.”
@MPK
I also graduated from the same university that you attended. I graduated in 1981 🙂
Usually when I hear or read about women complaining about the pool of available men it is because they are looking for that small number of alpha males irrespective of their spiritual or intellectual qualifications. Therefore smart nice men are completely invisible to them. This usually is a direct result of their sexual promiscuity whereby their brains get imprinted with one type of man and that is what they end up looking for. The sad thing is that they bring in a lie into the church and the church buys into it. They try to spiritualize what really is a base carnal desire of hooking up with only the bad boys. Instead of churches calling them up on it, they demean the nice men.
What we men really need to do is to truly be men. Tell the truth and don’t buy into this lie. Make it very plain that we will NOT date nor marry women who have been promiscous or rebellious. Don’t let the churches shame us for taking a stand. It is our lives that we are protecting. And we are standing for the Word of God.
@ MPK,
“I did have a couple of girls who I knew tell me they were looking for a husband.”
Oh, what missed opportunities!!
If I may, I would like to point out something.
In 1977, I imagine that the ‘boldest’ thing a woman could do when interested in a man would be to hint at ‘looking for a husband’. Any bolder than that, and they might have felt it would be too ‘forward’ perhaps. In most cases, they might even get a friend to tell you that on their behalf, and not do it directly, i.e. to your face.
And then they would leave it up to you to pick up on this signal.
Again ditto about not seeming ‘interested’ in you before. In 1977, as mentioned above, it might have seemed ‘inappropriate’?
“I just couldn’t see that they would bring any value at all to the marriage, other than cooking, cleaning, spending money, and having babies….none of which I needed. ”
Again, what a shame! (in my humble opinion).
I would have thought cooking, cleaning, having babies are *exactly* what a man needs in a wife? I am a bit confused…
Some men even like the idea of a woman spending their money (as long as she does it within reason and is faithful and loyal to him of course, lol).
“What I always wanted was a girl/woman who was interested in ME”
But… a desire to cook, clean FOR YOU and a desire to have YOUR babies is how a woman might show interest in you, no? These were young women in their prime, Church women to boot, who were doing what they were supposed to be doing (husband-hunting) and they picked you (albeit in perhaps a very indirect/subtle way…and yet, somehow you were turned off by them for some reason.
This intrigues me somewhat…
Anyhow, that was 1977.
Nowadays, the rules are different of course.
Many men now do not have the luxury you had in 1977!
I hope you did get further chances after 1977.
Unless I completely misread your comment, I think you were actually a lucky man back then.
AJ Miller,
“Therefore smart nice men are completely invisible to them.”
Yes, this is the case nowadays, for sure. I have no problem agreeing here.
But MPK had women wanting HIM (who was presumably one of these smart nice men) back in 1977.
And he turned them down! All of them!
And now I wonder if I missed an important piece of this jigsaw puzzle…that you can see and I can’t fathom.
What was happening in 1977 that I don’t know about?
Perhaps you or MPK could explain further?
“What I always wanted was a girl/woman who was interested in ME”
this is the problem when the girls go husband-hunting. The solipsism involved these days is such that it scarcely matters who the guy IS, it only matters what he can do for HER. All of her considerations, down to his very character, are considered not in the light of what is most pleasing to God, or how much honor can be found, but rather- how easy will he be to manipulate, how stable he will be in order to finance her consistently, how he will function professionally and socially- how will it make her look???
This is the mercenary nature of most women. I don’t fault one for wanting a husband, or seeking one, but the criteria should actually involve his life’s vision because she will have a responsibility to help him achieve it. It should involve the man’s hopes and faith. She should actually enjoy his company and hold him in high regard as an individual human, not as a damned meal ticket or pack mule.
Women who have their hearts set on God and eternity tend to do much better with this than women who are of the world, and value only themselves and their immediate appetites.
there seems to be a lot of teeth clenching hate towards women here
They’ve earned it. Not all.. but many.
To you considerate “gentleman” who want to marry only a virgin, are you offering her the same kind benefit? If not, why do you deserve virginity and not her?
I stayed a virgin til my wedding night… in my late 30s (not by choice, I wanted to marry around 19-20). During my long, miserable years of involuntary singleness, certain “Christian” women MOCKED me for still being a virgin, and a couple of them broke up with me due to my refusal to “service” them. So don’t go lecturing men about a “double standard”, when it’s the WOMEN uphold it.
If you had read my post completely you would have seen I mentioned not just men with children, but teen guys and never-married men who don’t have children of their own.
Sure fire way to get accused of being a molester. No thanks.
Hey, as a father of 3 sons myself now, I do NOT want unmarried adult men hanging around my boys. Whether in church, or in the Scouts, or in any other context, the very first question I have for any man who wants to get involved, is, “Are your OWN kids in the program?”… and if he doesn’t have kids, the next question is, “Why the f*** are you here?”
You, and the rest of the men, need to step up. Women have been steppping up – sometimes out of pride and sometimes because there’s no male figure for their children.
No, women need to step up and *marry nice guys* instead of getting pregnant out of wedlock by jerks. Having babies by the jerk, and then having the unmitigated gall to demand that the childless nice guys take care of jerkspawn instead of having kids of their own (which is the deal I was offerered, the few times I dated single mom), is the satanic depth of hideous unfairness.
If you want niceguys to care for your children, try letting the niceguys SIRE your children.
These days, any woman I know works full time and also does the lions share of home chores, cooking, laundry, etc. The world does not work like it did 50 or even 25 years ago. Deal with that.
No thanks, my wife and I refuse to deal with that. We decided we’d make whatever sacrifices necessary, to do things the old fashioned way.
But even for the 2 career couples…. the men generally work longer hours at harder jobs, so it’s still fair that the wives do more housework.
Solomon says: “What I always wanted was a girl/woman who was interested in ME”
“this is the problem when the girls go husband-hunting. The solipsism involved these days is such that it scarcely matters who the guy IS, it only matters what he can do for HER. All of her considerations, down to his very character, are considered not in the light of what is most pleasing to God, or how much honor can be found, but rather- how easy will he be to manipulate, how stable he will be in order to finance her consistently, how he will function professionally and socially- how will it make her look???
This is the mercenary nature of most women. I don’t fault one for wanting a husband, or seeking one, but the criteria should actually involve his life’s vision because she will have a responsibility to help him achieve it. It should involve the man’s hopes and faith. She should actually enjoy his company and hold him in high regard as an individual human, not as a damned meal ticket or pack mule.
Women who have their hearts set on God and eternity tend to do much better with this than women who are of the world, and value only themselves and their immediate appetites.”
QFT. I have never been anything to the women in my life beyond what I did for them. Not a single one ever gave a rat’s ass who I was. That goes even for female relatives.
I get as a man we are like tools used to build civilizations, families, technology…so when a woman looks at a man due to his functionality, I don’t bash her for that.
But it would be nice to be treated with a little common human decency. We do have feelings, thoughts, emotions. As a man I’ve made a point to acknowledge thanks to other men when they do something good, help me out, or give me something…and try to repay it in some way. If men don’t do this with other men…how the heck will women ever learn?
Bernard Chapin: You hear from a great many men, what are their chief complaints? Also, what do you see as being their biggest problem?
Dr. Helen Smith: Most of the complaints and emails I get from men have to do with their personal relationships with women. They are on the fence about getting married, getting too involved with women and are very concerned about the misandry that is rampant in our culture. They are afraid they will lose their livelihoods, their kids and their relationship if their marriage does not work out and the courts and society will be against them.
I think men’s biggest problem is not being willing to fight back against a female for any reason. It is in-bred through evolution and culture that men take whatever is dished out by a female and remain silent or give in. Just watch any show or take a look at the marriages around you to see that men acquiesce in relationships time and time again and are trained in our society to do so.
What did you all expect from women. That mercenary behavior is normal. Civilized checks on that was considered “the patriarchy” and oppression. By 1977 women were fully liberated and young ones were damn sure going to be empowered and happy. A woman will always put herself first like that it is normal. A sane society living under rule of law means women will selfishly behave with empathyand kindness. Same woman same solipsism different behavior that is the best we are ever and have ever gotten from women.
What dalrock and his blog seems to be trying to do is in a society that is in feminine chaos try to finesse a way to bring something to women that doesn’t exist and never has. It is a good conversation for a cultural basis but without real consequence it is just conversation. The church knows it and has gone churchian. This feral mess is in the law and that means death to those(men) that don’t comply with the feminie imperative. The sword of Damocles that is ever present. Even the women that are know they are speaking from a position that is aware of the sword of Damocles over everyone but them.
“I have never been anything to the women in my life beyond what I did for them. Not a single one ever gave a rat’s ass who I was.”
I had sex for the first time on my wedding night. Before we were married, I think it came up that my wife had been “raped”. I didn’t think it would matter. I thought she loved me. But I think marriage was just another item on the checklist for her. Looking back, the sex we did have (when we still did it) was merely for procreation. For years now she pushes me away if I try to touch her. She tried to give me kissing lessons once… and said many times how her previous boyfriends were so much better. And if that made me angry, it was just proof that I didn’t like her for her. Good Lord, according to her, if sex was pleasurable for me and I desired that aspect of it, it was suddenly somehow inauthentic and selfish.
I stepped up and took on damaged goods. This is my reward: an endless stream of projections, rationalizations, and accusations.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I really don’t care to hear from a woman that guys like me need to step up anymore. It just isn’t the trump card that it used to be. What I want to hear about is women that choose to step down.
1904 – Anonymous Gentlewoman (USA)
As society is made, it is almost impossible for a man to go the right way about his relations with woman. The system prescribes a certain attitude. It is the attitude of crawl, salaam, obsequiousness and second fiddle. If you depart from it by a hair’s breadth your woman become suspicious of you. If you advise other men to depart from it you get a bad name. Women stand up for women’s rights and are made the subject of applause, bouquets and illuminated addresses. The man who dares come out strong for men’s rights does not breathe. Men do not want him. They are like canaries in cages, afraid to go out lest the cat get them. Peace at any price is man’s rule of life. Abroad he will swagger and bluster, and bully. “Nemo me impune lacessit!” he roars. At home his watchword is ‘‘Blessed are the meek.” Abroad he frowns and breathes fire; at home he is plain, unvarnished “him.” Abroad he struts, at home he slinks. Abroad he is very wise, at home he is a little child.— Gentlewoman.”
1946 – Kathleen Norris, novelist , journalist
It made me consider afresh what I often have thought of alimony; that alimony is essentially unfair, and that men who make and change laws so easily, are rather stupid that they don’t regularize this one. The childless woman I quote above was about 28. It is possible that “he,” whoever he is, will be paying her $6,000 a year for more than 40 years. A quarter of a million dollars for the 24 months she spent in disillusioning him and breaking his heart. Such a woman, if I judged her rightly, will not re-marry while this golden river is rolling in. She will have her love affairs and her freedom; she will feel herself infinitely superior to the quiet girl who sticks to her bargain, keeps her man happy and secure, and raises children.
1929 – Dorothy Dix, journalist, “the world’s most highly paid woman writer”
I often wonder that the modern woman does not perceive that she is killing the goose that lays the golden egg by her attitude toward men. By which I mean to say that it is women themselves who are destroying the things that they value most in life. It is women’s hands that are tearing to tatters the chiffons of romance and sentiment and idealism in which men have always clothed them. It is women who are stifling tenderness and slaying chivalry in the hearts of men. It is women who are doing away with all the graces and sweetnesses that made charm in the relationship between men and women and that incidentally lured men into matrimony.
For women are making men afraid of them and what they will do to them and that makes men cold and cautious in dealing with the fair sex. Even Romeo watches his step and counts the calories in his sweet talk when he keeps a date with Juliet nowadays.
Women don’t like this. They complain bitterly that there are no impassioned lovers. They say that young men are so afraid they may compromise themselves by their attentions to a girl that ten minutes alter meeting her they serve notice on her that they have no intention of marrying and that even one’s fiance’s letters read like a communication about the state of the stock market instead of being an outpouring of burning affection. …
Worse still, women are keeping men from marrying by demanding so much alimony that it makes matrimony not only a gamble in happiness but the most risky financial speculation they can engage in.
Under the present laws a man can marry a girl who makes no effort in any way to be a good wife. She can refuse to keep house, refuse to bear children She can be lazy, extravagant, high-tempered, nagging and make his life a torment to him, yet she can force him to support her as long as he lives. And, such being the case, it is not strange that prudent men are shying of more and more from the altar.
Look at the dates on those quotes. Has anything really changed? *Will* anything change? Women have the men they created and now it is hitting critical mass.
@ GT66,
“I have never been anything to the women in my life beyond what I did for them.”
Sorry to hear this. I find this very sad 😦
“Not a single one ever gave a rat’s ass who I was.”
Not even your mother? I’d hope that would be one woman who would.
Space:
“But MPK had women wanting HIM (who was presumably one of these smart nice men) back in 1977.
And he turned them down! All of them!”
SPace, I think you misread MPK. He didn’t say the girls were dating him or even that they were interested in him. He said he “had” a couple of girls he “knew” who were up front telling him they wanted husbands. He then clarified it by saying:
“Occasionally I tell myself I should have pursued those girls who told me they were looking for a husband in college. But then my better judgement gets ahold of me.”
That tells me MPK only knew these girls. It does not say he was dating them or that they wanted him.
Even if you read it saying they were interested in him, they were essentially saying they just wanted marriage; not necessarily marriage TO HIM, to MPK. When a woman says right out of the gate that she’s looking for a husband, that almost always translates into one of the following:
1. I have had my fun with the hot alpha studs, I know my time is running out, and I failed in my quest to lock down alpha c*ck for anything more than a few months. Time to change my strategy. You’re a nice guy who is gonna make good money and take care of MY babies and take care of ME. (This is the most common translation by far now.)
2. I want the status of being a wife. I want to be able to show the world that a man selected ME and that I am worthy of being selected. Doesn’t matter who the guy is; just so long as I have a ring and so that I am not 35 and still using the title “Miss” or “Ms.” (This was by far the most common translation around 1977.)
3. All I care about is what you can do for ME. I want commitment and I want it now.
4. I don’t like myself very much; I have no goal or direction in life; and I need someone to validate and affirm my worth as a woman and as a human being. And I want YOU to give that to me.
5. All my friends are getting married and I NEED a husband so I don’t look like a total slut loser to my friends.
Men’s risks in marriage are positively astronomical. And there is nothing other than Game or not getting married that a man can do to minimize those risks.
More to the point, a man doesn’t want to take on those risks unless he knows that the woman loves and respects him, and does not want to simply use him as a status symbol or an accessory or a utility. All too often, marriage is viewed only through its utility to the woman, and the man’s hopes, dreams, wants, and needs are ignored or downplayed.
Part of the problem is psychology telling churches the importance of “self esteem” and trying to make these women feel better about the terrible crap that they are pulling.
coupled with Dalrock’s point.
@Space
MPK and I went to the same university around the same time. I don’t know what his experience was but I have a general idea.
1. The girls that attended this university were not very attractive during this period of time. That was changing and by the time of my graduation in 1981 I would say that the girls were prettier than what MPK saw at his graduation in 1977. The reason was that the univeristy favoured the “ugly” girls over the pretty ones since this was mostly a science and technology school and it was assumed that the pretty girls were going to marry soon after college and become stay at home moms while the ugly ones would not. Houston was still a fairly conservative city in the 1970’s. Like I said, this started to change around the mid 70s.
2. The girls at the university had an inflated view of themselves and their perceived net marriageable value.
Combining 1 and 2 above, I would say that any girl that told me then that they were looking for a husband demonstrated either desperation or a dangerous cockiness. Either way, it also woud’ve been a turn off for me although I probably would’ve wondered the “what ifs?”
“I thought she loved me. But I think marriage was just another item on the checklist for her. Looking back, the sex we did have (when we still did it) was merely for procreation. For years now she pushes me away if I try to touch her.”
This is the frightening result of a woman setting her sights on marriage without much regard to the man she seeks marriage from. It becomes merely a symbol of her worthiness. The ring isn’t a marker of love and commitment; it’s a merit badge.
Far, far too many women marrying men they are not attracted to. Far too many women are not attracted to the men they married — either they lost attraction; or they never were attracted in the first place. They marry for status, for security, for validation — but not for love. And I think it has always been this way. The difference now is that men cannot enforce their marital rights because doing so is “abuse” or “rape”; and it is much easier for women to escape their marriages.
@Dalrock
I just got the chance to look. Nothing nefarious going on, they did a site redesign recently. Here is the link you are looking for:
http://www.boundless.org/adulthood/2012/the-trouble-with-men-is-the-same-trouble-with-women
[D: Thanks!]
Deti,
Well, I am somewhat relieved to hear about the possibility that I have misunderstood what MPK was getting at.
I get what you (Deti) are saying too…but I thought that all your own explanations applied to 2013 and not 1977. I thought in that era, women married because they really wanted to, and for the right reasons. But if you say this is not true, I accept.
But that would indicate that the SMP has been rotten for much longer than I thought then. It would mean that nothing much has changed in almost 40 years…as opposed to the slow decline I once imagined…
I wholeheartedly accept your explanations for the part about his not pursuing these women. If indeed he really suspected that they were in it for the fame/money/security and ONLY that, i.e. with no feeling of love for him as a human being, then I agree he did the right thing…So I drop that argument on the grounds of diminished comprehension.
But what about the second part of my comment?
Is MPK an ‘anomaly’ to reject a woman who might have been a good cook/cleaner/bearer of his children?
See, Deti, I have developed a knack for picking at the seemingly ‘esoteric’ for a reason.
You (and others here) are very good at describing the *average man*, as indeed do studies/surveys. All and good. Averages/the general picture/the rule/’most people’ is all good.
But unfortunately, *the average man* is a mishmash of different men of course. I cannot ask *the average* man a question.
So I can ask an *individual* man. Like MPK.
If he is all that typical, why was he, in 1977 looking for ‘smarts’ when he had ‘cooking, cleaning and baby woman’ before his very eyes?
(You can see my next question a mile off now, can’t you Deti?)
Did one of those Lutheran Church girls who could have offered him ‘cooking, cleaning and babies’ tell her daughter (the one she went on to have with another guy she married years later):
“Go to college and be smart, Darlin’. I wanted this guy back in 1977 and all he wanted was a woman with a degree in engineering…”
And hey presto, the “Strong and Independent” type was born…
Have I misunderstood something, again?
I don’t think it matters so much now how individual life-courses led to where we are.
But I think it helps to fit together the ‘missing pieces’ in order to correct our collective thinking.
I would really like to know what those Lutheran women did wrong, according to MPK. If this is ALL about how no-one cared for him as a person, then I withdraw my long drawn-out interrogation of sorts, and I commiserate.
But I have a hunch there is more to this. And it helps me (and I am sure other female readers here) to know what it is.
Sometimes I find it helpful to pick at the small details to understand the big picture.
This is one of those times perhaps.
Some Guy sez:
I stepped up and took on damaged goods. This is my reward: an endless stream of projections, rationalizations, and accusations.
I hope you find the opportunity to dump her ass at some point in the future, brother. Life is good as a single man, and certainly being single is much better than being some whore’s status marker.
Best, Boxer
AJ Miller,
Ah, I just missed your comment.
Thanks for your explanation.
I don’t fully understand it though…are you saying the girls got prettier in 4 years?? Or even over a 10 year period if this process began in the mid 70s?
Really?? Well, I wasn’t aware of universities picking ugly girls over pretty ones in that time period. I honestly never heard that one before…but thanks for the heads up, lol.
Anyhow, if these girls were just ugly, why didn’t MPK simply say that?
Deti,
“Far, far too many women marrying men they are not attracted to.”
Yes I know. I have described this on my blog before. It is the phenomenon I clumsily call ‘The reluctant bride’.
I agree it causes a lot of heartache, pain and misery for a family. It is not fair on the man, and later, on the children.
On that at least, we all agree.
earl says: “”Not a single one ever gave a rat’s ass who I was.”
Not even your mother? I’d hope that would be one woman who would.”
Maybe her but she died when I was very young so who knows.
I don’t fully understand it though…are you saying the girls got prettier in 4 years?? Or even over a 10 year period if this process began in the mid 70s?
Really?? Well, I wasn’t aware of universities picking ugly girls over pretty ones in that time period. I honestly never heard that one before…but thanks for the heads up, lol.
When I read that I thought about it for a bit. I think what he meant was that back in the old days, pretty women got married very quickly. The girls who went off to uni were the ones that were too ugly to be some dude’s first pick, and who were more likely condemned to be the homely spinster librarian type. In a few years, the social scene shifted to the extent that even pretty girls tended to enroll and put off marriage. I could be wrong though.
GT66: These are some stellar quotes you’ve been posting. Thanks man.
Space:
I can’t speak for MPK. He’ll have to come back and answer his questions for himself.
But from my perspective, my takeaway was that he thought these women just wanted husbands, without much regard to what kind of men these women were proposing to marry. It was as if they were going to a department store to pick one out and take him (it?) home complete with one-year limited warranty and 30 day return policy. Or worse yet, making their trip to the store expecting the precise make, model, color and size they want in stock for their convenience.
A man does not want to be a woman’s husband simply because he makes good money and can write checks to care for her (HER!) children.
He does not want to be the nice guy who helps her clean up the mess she created with F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer and Harley McBadboy.
He does not want the chance to be her husband simply because he happened to be there when the bio-clock starts roaring in her ears. It is the romantic equivalent of being the last kid picked for the flag football team in gym class.
These are men who have life goals. They have wants, needs, desires, hopes, dreams and disappointments. These men are human beings. They don’t want just any old wife. They don’t want a woman, they want THE RIGHT WOMAN, because the consequences of choosing poorly are ruinous in every way — emotional, spiritual, financial, social.
The objection is that these women give the distinct impression that they couldn’t care less about any of that. They simply want husbands and any old man will do; just so long as he gives her what she wants and she can claim the status of “wife”.
That’s the objection. That’s the issue.
@SpaceTravelleer and 8oxer:
I don’t know what MPK’s individual experiences were but I was somewhat trying reconstructing his environment.
I was always under the impression that the university, from its very founding, would prefer the more plain, homely and ugly girls over the pretty ones. This was because it was generally understood that the pretty women wouldn’t take long to marry after graduation and become housewives. Thus, all the resources and money that were given to such a woman was considered a waste. So ugly ones were preferred for admission.
This policy of preferring ugly girls over pretty ones was removed in the early 70’s. It took a while to take hold but I could definitely see an improvement in female beauty between 1976 and 1981. The change was remarkable. Other male students made similar remarks to me as well.
Deti,
Yes, if that is the sole issue, then of course MPK did himself a favour by passing.
Afterall, who wants to be a leftover choice?
I get that bit.
I really do hope that he drops by again. It would be interesting to hear his views too.
Now that you have cleared up my first query, I would like his views particularly on the cooking/cleaning thing…
AJ, MPK, Space:
I suspect the girls got prettier because of affirmative action policies and federal legislation encouraging and requiring nondiscriminatory admission policies which eventually led to relaxed admission standards to let in more young women. More women means better looking women. And, I suspect, dads and moms were encouraging daughters as well as sons to pursue higher ed. Feminism and technological innovations brought about a sea change with more and more women obtaining advanced education and entering the knowledge workforce as physicians, lawyers, government staffers, college professors, administrators, etc.
Far, far too many women marrying men they are not attracted to. Far too many women are not attracted to the men they married — either they lost attraction; or they never were attracted in the first place. They marry for status, for security, for validation — but not for love. And I think it has always been this way. The difference now is that men cannot enforce their marital rights because doing so is “abuse” or “rape”; and it is much easier for women to escape their marriages.
This from Deti I believe is very on the mark. And I can live with this, human beings are not perfect and that is just the way it is. What I do have a big problem with is the lack of holding to the marital contract by women. She doesn’t have to like the choice she made but she does have to honor her marriage. The price should always be borne by the individual.
I actually don’t mind that women have the option to not hold up their end of the marriage covenant.
What concerns me most is that the church is all-too-willing to bend over backwards and pump such women full of encouragement and self-esteem while simultaneously rebuking the husbands. It’s like they put out a big plate of hamster food every Sunday. (The topic of 1 Cor 7 will only be broached indirectly via a nervous joke: something along the lines of “if you really want to be celibate, try getting married.” And then all the talk of earning kitchen passes, being in the dog house, and having to sleep on the couch. “She who must be obeyed.” Ha ha ha!)
I ask the church men how their leadership manifests in their homes. I don’t really get a cogent answer….
MPK From what I gathder was an engineering student. That makes him a geek type and he was driven by his studies. ( a unique situation to this a typical man) marriage and family where not on his plate at the time,very easy to not pursue women. As a geek type he was more stimulated and attracted to the engineering scholl women AFTER he finished school especially when he met other women. Other men would have jumped on the dutiful wife type. Again he is a unique type of man. Nothing really there to say one way or another to make a political statement about his choices. I don’t think women started going to school so they could bag a college boy because they felt he would find them attractive.
429 comments. Jeez.
I was invited to do a post for Return of Kings, RooshV’s magazine format blog.
Basically, I point out that women do the exact opposite of making choices based on high character men and parenting qualities and they are literally compelled by genetic means to seek out high testosterone men because it is a “signal” of high immunocompetence.
I used a chart of data from a study in a The Journal of Psychology and Behavior and use the most raw data without graphs to illustrate the traits women prefer in Long and Short Term Mating Contexts and both Short And Longer Mating While Ovulating.
I show that women are compelled to be attracted to in order of preference Confrontational, Arrogant, Unfaithful, Muscular, Good Looking.
And I show via the data, they not only do they prefer these, what is called “Good Genes” traits but also ……
They “Dislike” the traits of Faithfulness, Warmth, and especially Intelligence, and while ovulating they are ambivalent, and even slightly “Dislike” in one ovulating context, Financially Successful.
And the big kicker is that those “Like” numbers were in the range of values of around “7” and those “Dislike” numbers were in the range of “13-15″.
Meaning……..
THEY DISLIKED THE PARENTAL TRAITS AND THE CHARACTER TRAITS TWICE, I REPEAT, TWICE AS MUCH AS THE LIKED THE ‘LIKE” TRAITS, THOSE “GOOD GENES” TRAITS.
Yes, they preferred those “Good Genes” traits. You have heard that before. Yes, you have.
But the list of those “Good Genes” was abbreviated at “Looks and Muscles”. What previous writings did not list were the Order of Preference, and the those other “special” “Good Genes” traits.
Or someone that was doing the interpreting didn’t have the backing of those Millions and Millions of Manosphere stories and an awareness of Game and PUA theory to put those “Good Genes” into proper perspective.
Yeah, Confrontational, Arrrogant, Unfaithful, Muscular, Good Looking.
Yeah, and they Disliked
“Faithful, Intelligent, Warm, and ( Let me set this up right. Do I have your attention?) ….
GOOD FATHERS.
All in that order, and when ovulating, those “Good Genes behavioral traits” were heightened over the “physical traits”
and those “behavioral traits” (character and parenting traits) that were “disliked” were even more disliked while ovulating.
So they despise GOOD FATHER BETAS TWICE AS MUCH AS THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO THOSE “GOOD GENES” SEXY TIME MEN.
Meaning they hate BETAS more than they are attracted to ALPHAS.
Does their behavior towards betas corroborate this data? Can you not take those above statements and just run with it and come up with explanation after explanation?
So chew on that and look for me on Return of Kings. This is my first “published” work and I fully intend to come out swinging.
“I don’t think women started going to school so they could bag a college boy because they felt he would find them attractive.”
It’s pretty safe to say the women MPK was talking about were at the engineering school to get educations and meet their husbands. There was a long running joke among men in college pretty much everywhere to be on the lookout for women there to get their M.R.S. degrees. There was a not-insignificant cadre of women where I went to college in the late 1980s who even then, in the throes of feminism’s muscle-flexing heyday, made no bones about the fact that they wanted to get married and be housewives after college.
There was a not-insignificant cadre of women where I went to college in the late 1980s who even then, in the throes of feminism’s muscle-flexing heyday, made no bones about the fact that they wanted to get married and be housewives after college.
I’m too young to remember this, but on my campus there are old photographs of classrooms filled with old school clothes washers and kitchen appliances. Before the doctrine of bigotry and hate which is known as women’s studies got started, there were courses in how to be a competent housewife, rear children, manage money and time, and run a kitchen. That suggests you are right.
What a different world it is today.
@ Mark Minter
and these geniuses vote.
8oxer,
“Before the doctrine of bigotry and hate which is known as women’s studies got started, there were courses in how to be a competent housewife, rear children, manage money and time, and run a kitchen.”
That’s called ‘Home Economics’ and at least in the 90s this was still taught in secondary school (High school).
One didn’t need to go to College for that!
But in fact, I and most of my classmates did not take those classes.
Why?
Because to us, it would be a waste of a school subject.
For we were taught Home Economics at HOME.
We picked classes we couldn’t get at home.
Like Maths, History, etc.
But those girls who needed/wanted these classes – took them willingly.
If these classes are off the school curriculum now, then, indeed… how tragic…
Might explain why children are obese now. Mother may not have a basic understanding of nutrition…
Deti/AJ Miller/also 8oxer,
That ‘admissions policy’ based on women’s prettiness or otherwise from the 1970s was interesting…
@ Mark…
I look forward to it. You don’t mince words.
Some Guy:
There’s one very simple reason why the church bends over backwards to accommodate women. It is because the women are the ones who do most of the volunteering, most of the decisionmaking on where the family will attend, and decide how much tithe money will be given. The women are also the ones who raise the most hell and complain the loudest when things at the church aren’t going well. The women of the church are the ones who threaten the pastors, sometimes explicitly, almost always implicitly:
“You either do what I want or I’m leaving. And I’ll persuade my friends and everyone else to leave too. We’ll take our volunteer time and our money with us.”
It is pretty much the same threat a wife makes to a husband when she “wears the pants.”
“You either do what I want or I will divorce you and take half the stuff with me. You’ll never see the kids again, I’ll find another man, and most importantly,
YOU WILL NEVER GET LAID AGAIN.”
@Solomon
So you do. At the ballot box and with your feet. And with your “pen” (keyboard). Take this data and start hitting people in the mouth with it.
You are what social media pros would call an “Opinion Builder” and “Influence Source”.
I give you the data, and you chew on it. And think of your own stories to build on it.
I am going crazy since I read it, broke it down, and came up with this analysis. And I see it everywhere.
Here. Kim Kardashian. Why wasn’t she skewered after the famous Ray J sex video? Why is she so revered and so celebrated by women, that they are enthralled by here every move. And doesn’t she chase testosterone, exactly because she is removed of financial constraints of actually having to consider parenting qualities?
Doesn’t this explain Frivolous Divorce? That after getting the hook set, they despise those beta dads and stomp on them on the way out of the door looking for Hunky Handymen.?
And the carousel? That they only accept Good Fathers when forced by diminished SMV? Then discard to continue the search for “Good Genes” sexy time?
Fellows, I can go on and on. I seems to me, I found the freaking Rosetta Stone.
Solomon, you use your position in the Manosphere and you “get some”. Hear me.
There was a not-insignificant cadre of women where I went to college in the late 1980s who even then,… made no bones about the fact that they wanted to get married and be housewives after college.
The culture in California must have shifted a little earlier, then. When I went off to college in the early 80’s, both I and my parents were counting on me finding large pool of nice young women who were seeking their “Mrs. degree” and who’d consider a tall, blue-eyed engineering major to be a good catch.
Apparently I was about 5 or 10 years too late. The “Mrs. degree” had been removed from the course catalog by the time I arrived.
the importance of “self esteem”
The fruits of feminism make women feel like shit, self-esteem tries to compensate. Does it work?
My basic disclaimer … Im not trying to disprove game or Dalrock, i’m basically trying to add to the coversation, the biological backdrop ….
Ironically I was going to post something similar to greyghost
Greyghost brilliantly states “They marry for status, for security, for validation — but not for love. And I think it has always been this way.”
Basically women are hard-wired to be in a harem to one man, THAT is the display of wealth, & social status women are basically biologically programmed to give a crap about …
Women basically ride the carousel, as it gives them the opportunity to participate in the soft harem of an alpha, along with all the female competition & drama whores … erm women are programmed to crave, not available anywhere else, but in an alpha’s harem, especially in their youth
Women are essentially alien & incompatible with even basic civilised behaviour
As women are programmed to be social, & society
The massive mistake most ppl make, this isnt the social or society of a civilisation
Woman are programmed to be the social, & society of a harem
This is essentially why women, frivorce their men in the millions & abort & mutilate their own boys, ie circumcision
Women dont play by the rules of society, or justice, women play by the rules of female logic & female competition
EVERY oppressive & corrupt society has a singular constant, women ALWAYS demand the right to murder & kill their own children, & betray the men who provide for their children
The feral behaviour we’re seeing today, ONLY kicks in when a certain event occurs …
This event is the invasion of invaders, the same feral triggers of vikings & romans, killing off strong able bodied men, causing women to spontaneously kill off their own children, so they bear the children of new invaders
The new invaders, are of course big government …
A womans biological response to government, ie CPS Services, family courts, & insane thugs who call themselves cops & judges
Is to biologically abort her children & frivorce her family, so she can mate with the invading government
Everything has a biological response, a biological backlash
All:
Please indulge a story of mine. This relates to Some Guy’s “marriage was a checklist item”.
In the fall of my senior year of college I was in a legal writing class with a pretty girl who was my age, but a year behind me in school. We had both just turned 21. She had a bit of sexual experience (confessed N=4, one of whom was an alpha 4 years older than she) whom she had broken up with a couple of years before. Her history slowly came out in hindsight: Lots of male “friends” (beta orbiters); reformed popular party girl; slutty friends; crappy family background. Didn’t matter. We started a sexual relationship within a month, which ended a 6 month long dry spell. I was smitten ’cause I was gettin’ some.
We had a good relationship until March or April of the next year. I was planning on grad school in another city. She was staying at my undergrad college town. She wanted me to move in with her. I couldn’t; I didn’t have the money and she didn’t either. I moved back home with my parents to get ready to start grad school in the fall.
I was in grad school for three years and carried on a long distance relationship with her. This was the worst 3 years of my life. She demanded more commitment. She demanded that I marry her. I told her I couldn’t, that I couldn’t be a good husband, I had no money, and I wanted her to be with me and live with me if we were going to get married. I told her I loved her and wanted her; but I couldn’t marry her while I was a poor student in grad school.
The response was swift. She shit tested me within an inch of my life. The sex dried up. She used sex as a weapon. She refused most every kind of physical affection. On some level I knew it was unfair, and I knew she was retaliating. I hated her for it. We fought constantly. But, I stayed with her because I approached her from a desperation, scarcity mentality and had convinced myself that if we broke up, I’d never meet anyone else.
After three years and at least three breakups, with both of us now 25, I moved to yet another city to start work. In the meantime, she had been accepted to medical school and was in her 3d year in Chicago. A few months into my job, and after her refusing to see me and stay with me at my apartment, I went to see her and broke up with her a fourth and final time. I could not take it anymore. I could not take the endless shit testing, the hot cold hot cold, the manipulation or the complaining anymore. I had grown to hate this woman, and I could tell she could not stand me. I literally could not take one more minute of abuse.
Looking back, what do we see? A woman who is demanding commitment and marriage. She views it as her right. She would not take any of my wants or needs into consideration. She instead demanded that I give her everything; while she gave me nothing. She stayed with me because she saw “beta provider” and “nice guy”.
When a woman is shit testing you like this and refusing any kind of physical affection, it’s time to call it quits. That relationship would not have made it to Christmas of my senior year if I could have foreseen what was coming.
Deti
You are right about the girls going to engineering school to meet their husbands. The point I was making was that those women were not primarily there to be engineers like a male student. They would be an engineers wife,doctors wife etc.
@Mark Minter, do you believe that data is universally applicable across time and cultures, or that it’s more specific to this modern Western culture we live in?
@kl
Oh btw face-palm at Northern Observers, fanatical white knighting for kl …
Basically she changed her story multiple times, bad mouthed her father & paraded her mothers crappy life choices, as something to be proud of …
Basically what I want to know, why is your mother attracted to drug users …
Why is your mother having kids with drug users …
& why are you trying to pass of your mother being dumped & used by drug users & drugdealers as a good thing …
Also why are you bringing up you were molested to complete strangers?
What you’ve done is the following …
You’ve made your mother out to be a typical white trash, red neck who sleeps around & has kids with drug dealers, YOUR MOTHER hangs around with men who molest you & rape you
& …. you blame it all on a man who isnt even there …
I hope all of the above makes sense, I know your hamster cant exactly keep up with us men …
Yes our logic, & our speaking our mind to you basically trashing & bad mouthing, your mother, your father & basically your whole family … is so mean
@Unicorn Hunter.
What I can say is that this study showed this data. It was performed at an American University.
What it does support, “prove”, validate, backup, however you wish to look at it, is this notion of Signal Theory from Evolutionary Biology or General Biology.
The best example is the Peacock. And most of the work has been done in BIrds. But some has been done in humans and other animals, i.e. the racks of animals like moose, elk, caribou, deer.
The theory says the Males have twice the parasite load of females. The assumption is testosterone is the cause. In order to develop the “high cost” signal, the tail of the peacock, the horns of moose etc, and hence, the musculature of the human, resources are diverted from the immune system. Muscles take calories. And furthermore, that signal, in the case of the birds and animals can actually have a “high” cost in that it can make the animal more susceptible to predators.
Remember that in the animal world and in the human society up until about 100 years ago, the largest threat to life was the microbial reality of the world. Infants often died before 2 years of age. Millions died in an influenza epidemic in 1920. The list of killers was quite long and has been more or less either eradicated or brought under control by immunization. There is long list of developments to hold this at bay, refrigeration, food inspection, public heath, antibiotics, sewage removal, and even up until 100 years ago, and many places far more recently, even safe drinking water. Dysentery was huge killer up until recently. It would be completely anachronistic to even remote think of “health” as it is and consider life as it was.
Without going into a long explanation, the variance in genetics is the domain of the male, and women have more of a constant set of genes. The reason for this is so that humans, or any species, are not driven into an evolutionary dead end. Qualities that make for more particular fitness come to bear in different times, different climates, and different circumstances. But only as a result of survival and not by choice.
So before any other aspect might be chosen, the immunocompentency of the male that visibly shows the fitness, represents that male at that time, that has the immune system to best match with those of that female and provide the best immune protection to the offspring. And it is so important, so urgent, that she has no choice in the matter. This is the first filter and it is a binary filter, fail this and you are out. Why would nature risk the investment of the limiting factor of female pregnancy, the investment of childcare for an infant, only for the child to die from some germ. She can not decide she likes some haircut or jeans in a decision that overides this reality. It is said she smell immunocompetency.
A wealthy man, a tall man, a smart man, even the bravest warrior can do nothing to protect his child from a germ, a virus, an overall constitution that does not agree with prevalent microbial reality of the environment in which the females resides.
So evolutionary biology states that species select on the basis of testosterone and those traits of testosterone are the signals that males “opportunistically” develop over generations.
That is about where I am in the research and reading right now. This study of Traits is totally independent of Signaling Theory was done in some school of psychology.
What has happened for me is that the association of two has set of a firestorm of recognition and association.
Now, what I can say is that the oldest societies known to exist, groups of people that have been on the planet longer than others either lock up their women or cut of clitorises.
What had worked in western culture up until now has been that economic circumstances have imposed controlling and constraining limitations on the choices that women have been able to make. And since those constraints have been lifted, you can view the resulting behavior and choices.
But think about it. Doesn’t all this make absolute sense? Why in a social context would women reject men that would favor children? At the expense of choosing those that obviously don’t? What other explanation could their be that their is some fundamentally biological reasoning that would preclude obvious good choices?
And that is why all of you are so angry. The readers of the blog have invested their very soul in becoming “Good men” only to find they are rejected over and over for the worst sort of men using the flimsiest of contexts for doing so.
@Novaseeker,
The behavior he describes, rebuking the sinner, is Christian. What is being described by some posters here, going hunting, is not.
@Earl,
What women don’t get is that liberation is actually a disguise for saying it is shameful to be feminine.
Oh very good.
Let me make one last point. When I listed those “Good Traits”, did not bells go off in your head?
You see “confrontational” and “arrogant” and because of Game Awareness, you think Cocky/Funny, you think “Pass the Shit Tests”, You think “Never buy her drink” and on and on.
When I listed that data about women “Disliking” (hating) betas, or men they rejec,t twice as much as they “liked” men they didn’t immediately reject (notice the wording), doesn’t that ring a bell about friend zone crap, beta orbiting, “sniper” game, the vale of “asshole game”, and the sheer importance of not falling into the category of man, the futility of white knighting, the futility of trying to change a situation where you get an LBJF.
And can that not explain the whole visceral “Creep” thing. And why women get so upset when a lower status (loser) male approaches her? She hates him. She is an Egg Protector. And that slimy beta with his low testosterone genes and slimy beta constitution is not getting her egg. And she will organize society, move heaven and hell, in order to keep that Creep away from her eggs.
Does it not somewhat explain the “Where are the good men?” whine (With the right genes and all the signals to prove to me they have testosterone and the provisioning she wants, even though the qualities of those “good genes” are almost mutually exclusive of the character it takes to succeed as provider? )
You could easily see where another analyst ( non Red Pill) of the data would see arrogant, confrontational and think “Good Genes” “because those are those competitive genes that help men climb to the top of the social status hierarchy and women choose on the basis of status.” And then comes out with this “Good Genes” idea and all the women cheer “yeah” they understand and it’s OK to want the “Good Genes”. So I could see how this study has been read and even released without massive controversy. The only big controversy was the Wall Street journal has an article that warned “The Pill could masks true attraction”. But now with our eyes, we see that data in a different light. We can see the WSJ article in a light that says in “Cads Vs Dads, Women hate Dads and throw themselves at Cads” So Better Cad Than Dad for a mating strategy.
We also know that a man can marry as an alpha-ish male and then married life converts him into a beta-ish sort of man. And possibly as he displays those qualities so necessary for parenting, the woman may see him with those “dislike” goggles over those “like” goggles.
My opinion is that the man actually stops testosterone building activities when in a relationship, reduces sexual competition, and in particular, gets fat. And my research shows that fat is a signal of high cortisol and estrogen. Cortisol and testosterone are inverse hormones in the body. Testosterone suppresses cortisol. So IF Cortisol Then No Testosterone.
And this is what leads to Dry Vagina Syndrome, which then leads to about everything else, husbands on Facebook, Husbands looking at porn. Husbands trying to continually placate wives and it doesn’t matter what they do because the attraction is gone and he is condemned to Beta Hell.
Husbands become ex- husbands as wives find all the societal back-up from millions and millions of other women that all “understand” that she despises that beta, and they all cheer her on jn “Lowering the Boom”. And then she returns to “Fabulous and Classy” status without that loser beta.
I can go on and on. Trust me, in the future, I probably will.
@ mackPUA says: March 18, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Question – just how big is your closet of straw men? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
@I Art Laughing says: March 17, 2013 at 9:32 pm
ANO, when someone comes in and explains about a woman done wrong, a woman who had to raise her family without the help of the father she chose and frames him as the sole problem then yes that is framing that woman as a victim.
What you’re saying is all the men who’ve posted about getting married and then had “the well go dry”, who were told “I’m not haaaapppppy”, and were divorced for “cash and prizes” – these men had no agency, and were helpless victims of circumstances beyond their control.
Because, you know, fair’s far – if you’re going to hold women accountable to such an extent for their choices in the men they marry, we have to do the same for men and the women they marry.
Or does the road only go one way where that’s concerned?
————
With regards to KL, most of the attacks I’ve seen so far have been based on limited information, combined with a pile of straw-men arguments projected from other people’s experience and social research of women’s behavior in general, because, well, AWALT.
Now KL may – or may not – turn out to be “like that” – I really don’t know. I’d submit that at the very least it’s premature to accuse her of the kinds of transgressions which have been alleged here without more solid information. Once that information’s available, then the community can help her ‘connect the dots’ and see things the way the community sees it.
As the good books says:
“For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” and “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt 7:2, 12)
Ultimately the feminist is accusing God, the ultimate patriarch.
On this we are 100% agreed. As the snake in the garden said, “Did God really ssssssssssay….?”
The Bible proscribed hunting?
Because, you know, fair’s far – if you’re going to hold women accountable to such an extent for their choices in the men they marry, we have to do the same for men and the women they marry.
Or does the road only go one way where that’s concerned?
Don’t be silly, it’s always only women’s fault. Men are perfect and would never make a mistake, even if he is a murderer, the woman he murdered is responsible. She shouldn’t have been wearing that slutty outfit.
@Ton – only other people. 🙂
Lol. Well played. I understand his point. Which is we should go to church. However I see no church that is not full of false teachings and leading men astray. Plus men go to church for a variety of reasons, not to be ran down, undermined etc. Given how far form God all modern churches seem to be, the deer stand is a safer place for your soul then the church.
Also, God is the God of war and trains my hand to war, so hunting men is not proscribed either
What you’re saying is all the men who’ve posted about getting married and then had “the well go dry”, who were told “I’m not haaaapppppy”, and were divorced for “cash and prizes” – these men had no agency, and were helpless victims of circumstances beyond their control.
Because, you know, fair’s far – if you’re going to hold women accountable to such an extent for their choices in the men they marry, we have to do the same for men and the women they marry.
Or does the road only go one way where that’s concerned?
Yeah the road does only go one way. What happens in marriage is at gun point. It is by law. If not for that we don’t have a manosphere. Misandry is by law with real guns ,tasers,and prison and all associated violence. Without that women would not matter. Trust me women know it too even the little princess you are standing up for. Until the law is changed this blog is just a discussion of truth not a route to the good life. Any woman even Dalrock’s old lady can slap the shit of him tonight and have him sent to jail when she chooses to by law. He does something to stop her he gets the DV stamp on his forhead and loses home and child.
Yeah it is a one way street.
@Ton – it depends on the context.
In war and criminal justice, hunting men is certainly within acceptable bounds. Outside of war, only mutually consensual pursuit is allowed. (Think “paintball” and “dodge ball. 🙂 )
greyghost says: March 18, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Yeah the road does only go one way. What happens in marriage is at gun point.
A women can hold a gun to a man’s head to get him to marry her?
Wow…..
Seriously though GG – you didn’t answer the question I asked, you answered a question I didn’t ask.
Yep. Way more things are allowed then prohibited but it’s all a matter of context. Being a sniper and under legal authority is not the same as some dude in a bell tower on a college campus. Leastwise in the short version. Complete issue
A women can hold a gun to a man’s head to get him to marry her?
Nope lies and delusion work just fine, along with natural sex drive and desire to love ones children.. Then the guns come out. The manosphere is here to remove the lies and delusion and help explain the the human nature of the other stuff. I think you know this.
A Northern Observer “For those who’d ignore the kids of these single moms, I’d urge you to consider that these kids didn’t ask to be in this situation – they’re just a much of a victim of the feminized Hamster 500 as anyone else.”
Being that I don’t have my own children as of yet, I tend to play the part of fun uncle with all my friend’s kids. But the only way I’d be caught caring for a single mom’s kid, is if the single mother went away. Otherwise any good I might do would be just as quickly undone. The closest to compromising that would be if the single mother in question was no longer of the character, mindset, pride and/or narcissism that brought her to be a single mother in the first place. Only men go through such trials though, no woman would ever deign to ‘prove’ that she’s a changed person… there would only be shaming, then a man with any sense laughing in her face, and the two parties walking their separate ways.
Apples and oranges are being compared here. There is no equality in this and I think you know this too. Men have a different set of rules applied to them
Any single mom wants me to take care of her kid must shoot herself in the head for the sake of her child to let all know she is serious about her childs well being. Otherwise it is just another women living off her child. Any suffering the child endures is at the feet of the mother because she has the authority to dictate the terms of the entire situation.
This is obviously a “male” site.
Mark Minter
My opinion is that the man actually stops testosterone building activities when in a relationship, reduces sexual competition, and in particular, gets fat.
Fat, especially belly fat, is a key factor in the production of aromatase.
Aromatase actually converts testosterone to estradiol – one of the forms of estrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/528575_10
Not to go too far afield, but the modern diet with all its sugar promotes the storing of fat in the human body, along with other nasty things such as decreasing insulin sensitivity.
A Northern Observer: you must help these kids because they have no father figure because the mother is a whore
Me: No
A Northern Observer: but you are not a Christian, you have a high level of fear and you are paranoid. (More shaming language follows)
Me: Whatever
A Northern Observer: but why? Tell me why so I can discuss with you until I am blue in the face
Me: I don’t have to
A Northern Observer: you must help these kids because they have no father figure because the mother is a whore
Me: No
A Northern Observer: but you are not a Christian, you have a high level of fear and you are paranoid. (More shaming language follows)
Me: Whatever
A Northern Observer: but why? Tell me why so I can discuss with you until I am blue in the face
Me: I don’t have to
“The readers of the blog have invested their very soul in becoming “Good men” only to find they are rejected over and over for the worst sort of men using the flimsiest of contexts for doing so.”
It is one of the side effects of putting women on the pedestal. I know it because I used to do it.
Now I’m more of a good guy to men…because I know they will appreciate my help or acknowledge my generosity. Male friendships over time are probably more rewarding than any relationship you will have with a female…even your wife. Think about it when it comes to the example of buying drinks…would you reject a guy’s friendship if he bought you a beer? A lot of my friendships started that way. Do the same with a chick and she’ll laugh as she walks back to her alpha and gives him the drink you bought. (I know because a gal actually gave me the drink that a guy bought her)
I’ve killed the nice guy and chivalrous behavior for most gals…I make exceptions for the elderly and girls that show enough femininity to me. Most women these days get almost nothing from me than those attractive traits Mark mentioned.
@Anonymous Reader.
OK. Is there anything else you could tell me?
Basically I got the majority of this info about cortisol and testosterone from The Women Racket by Steve Mockey. And in research with search phrases using “Cortisol and Testosterone”. I saw some studies that took some birds and either injected testosterone or implanted some little rods underneath the skin to measure in one study immunosuppresion and in another, cortisol vs testosterone. One of the graphics said “Testosterone suppresses Cortisol. Cortisol is linked to “status stress’, insulin issues, diabetes, health problems. And over time leads to the buildup off abdominal fat on men as they get older leading to vascular issues, diabetes, heart disease, strokes. etc. And the two more immediate issues, that we can readily manifested today in society, depression and impotence.
So if there are some links or something you could give me to get better acquainted with the process, I would be most appreciative.
Mockey hints that there is an evolutionary shift occurring, that as men are forced into lower and lower status, this cortisol issue is forcing a modified sexual role on men, as mere support staff, much like Worker Bees, for females and high status “good genes males”.
I have noticed this grand shift in the hatred of the general body of men for the general body of men. The other day some WSJ story listed how Average Women, like an SMV of 5, on OKCupid think that 80% of the men on the site are ugly, rating about 20% of the men literally as 0s, and the Journal discussed this phenomenon of why women find the majority of men to be ugly beyond redemption.
I think there is massive evidence of this overall shift in the attitude of women towards men and I think it deeper than Feminism. And 36% of men are obese with a BMI greater than 30-40 and 4% are extremely obese (BMI 40+) and 34% are overweight (BMI(25-30) for a total of 74% as overweight or obese. 3 out of 4.
So whatever the reason, you can bet that those Signal Receptors in women are not registering these men as having testosterone and thus prone to that severe rejection that I previously detailed.
Of course the reverse for women is true also, 36% are obese (BMI 30-40)and 8% are extremely obese (40+), 24% are overweight with a BMI of 25-30.
But I don’t think, at least I have no data, to believe that men “dislike” women they do not find attractive far stronger than they “like” the women to do find attractive. I think it might be the reverse, that men actually “like” the women that they “like” twice as much as they dislike the women that don’t
For example, where the women had a 13-15 range “dislike” values vs 7 range “like” values. I would think the men would have 13-15 “like” values vs 7 “dislike” values. Men go gaga over women more than women do over men. I have never seen a women run into sign while looking at a man. Happens all the time with men.
So it is my opinion that the weight of men is causing severe social consequences for them as the vast majority of women are more repulsed by overweight men than perhaps in prior times when men so overweight.
So if you can help me find some info on testosterone, weight, etc. I would appreciate it.
ANO,
Looking at the facts on the ground and suggesting that men not marry based on them doesn’t make anyone here a victim. That is one of the things that we talk about here and as Dalrock pointed out in this post it is rarely spoken about elsewhere. Part of the threat narrative (see Typhon Blue’s videos) is that the oppressor class has to be the victim to “other” the oppressed. (I think some of that is silly but it works here). Suggesting that the matriarchal feminist system is in fact victimizing children and families with its injustice is a far different thing than broad brushing women as a class. Even the AWALT argumentation serves somewhat to point out that under this current system any woman can and may use this unjust legal/social system to cause damage to those around her. Meanwhile, the very people with the tools of injustice and oppression still get to claim victim status backed up by white knights such as yourself.
So to your mind, we are essentially at parity? Men and women are truly equal before the eyes of the law? To my mind that is the only way you’d be able to make that argument with a straight face. Suggesting that complaints about an unjust system and pointing out particular examples is different than pointing out the general condition of all humans fallen nature. If the father was being rewarded and encouraged by society for abandoning his family (as is the case with today’s women) your point would hold more water in my opinion.
Just saw this profile on a Christian dating site:
27/f never married
“I have a beautiful daughter who means the world to me! I love working with kids and hope that one day I can find a great husband who supports me in my dreams to be a stay at home mom.
Q: I’ve been a Christian for …
A: I hadn’t been active for many years, but started attending church again after my daughter was born.”
@Mark Minter
http://tinyurl.com/cotzzr7
That’s a link to the T replacement forum over at http://www.t-nation.com. There’s a decent bit of amateur endocrinologist information there with respect to testosterone levels what helps and what hinders them etc.
Re: deer stands and hunting….. Since the OId Testament has hunting rules and specifically calls out certain wild animals as being kosher (Deut 14:5), the idea that there’s something unchristian about hunting is ludicrously wrong.
Anti-hunting sentiment is just another aspect of modern culture’s ingrained tendency towards male bashing. It has no true moral basis. NEVER DATE A GIRL WHO HAS A PROBLEM WITH HUNTING.
More on hunting….
Deuteronomy 14:4-5 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep.
All the critters in verse 5 are wild, always have been wild, and cannot be obtained except by hunting. Yet they were kosher. Clearly, there was no prohibition of hunting. (Why modern Orthodox rabbis teach that Jews can’t hunt, escapes me. The text doesn’t support their claim.)
Leviticus 17:13-14 13 Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”
No prohibition of hunting… just drain the blood per the kosher laws, then eat. No prohibition of hunting.
Proverbs 12:27 27 The lazy do not roast any game, but the diligent feed on the riches of the hunt.
Clear enough: don’t waste meat. But no prohibition of hunting. See also where David protects flocks by killing lion and bear — predator control, we’d call it today. And also where God gave Adam and Eve animal skins to wear. (Take that, leather/fur haters)
Mark Minter: The readers of the blog have invested their very soul in becoming “Good men” only to find they are rejected over and over for the worst sort of men using the flimsiest of contexts for doing so.
Excellent one sentence summary of the entire manosphere.
@Mark Minter:
http://pescience.com/erase.html
I’d run through the journal articles related to that one. It’s actually an aromatase inhibitor, but it works directly to lower cortisol and increase Testosterone levels.
Cortisol levels wax and wane for a lot of reasons. Cortisol is quite important, as it will actually improve memory at a certain point (there’s a reason why cramming the night before a test can help) and forces the body to use its resources. It’s really the “use” hormone, if you want to break it down that far. However, it has suppressor effects on anabolism and structural repair systems. It’s also what causes faces to be “sunken” as you get older. There’s a reason people can “see” the stress on your face, as Cortisol will oppose collagen formation.
Here’s a Church Dalrock can put on his website…
http://greenstreetchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PSonM.pdf
Oh yeah, I saw a comment on a political blog’s combox of a pastor using “Churchianity” in a service. That was kind of surprising to see listed in passing.
The anti hunting stuff isn’t simply male bashing, it rural White man male bashing. You know the kind of men the left hates the most because we by into their hogwash the lest
Testosterone smashes Cortisol. It’s a key reason men take it. Course it’s framed as improved recovery time from training and testosterone helps you recover up to 4 times faster.
“But we do need each other, most of us humans, and we are made that way, so we are just going to have to figure out a better way.”
We’ve heard that before many times. I recall one woman in HUS commenting that “men and women need to solve these problems without disempowering either gender”, or something like that. These were not her exact words, but she actually used mentioned the potentional “disempowerment” of either gender. I kid you not. What kind of BS word is that anyway? Screw it.
The simple truth is this: Western women are interested in “gender” reconciliation…as long as it’s done on terms that they dictate. One look at the popular discourse in the media about “gender” roles makes this apparent. (“Gender” is also a BS word, nothing more.)
““You either do what I want or I will divorce you and take half the stuff with me. You’ll never see the kids again, I’ll find another man, and most importantly,
YOU WILL NEVER GET LAID AGAIN.”
That’s certainly an interpretation worthy of attention. I recall one commenter on the now-defunct blog of Ferdinand Bardamu. His assessment of female-initiated frivorce was that it’s the equivalent of a preventive attack. What happens is that the wife observes the comparative rise of her husband’s SMV as he reaches his late 30s, and she decides to preventively strip him of any opportunity to leave her, pair up with a younger woman and have children with her. She wants to rob him of any opportunity to pull women. That’s why she decides to financially and psychologically devastate him. The collateral damage doesn’t matter to her – she just wants to ruin him utterly. That’s how the Feminine Imperative works. I think it’s a sound assessment.
There is a poster here called “Just Saying.” Any relation to “Just Asking” from a past few posts?
[D: The IPs and email addresses are the same.]
“I now support men over women”
Exactly it should be about supporting the strong & successful, the capable, who need the help most
Support the strong, & successful & you get a stronger better, successful society
Which is precisely why, women support the weak & poor & charity, not to help the poor but to destroy them
Supporting the poor is NOT the same as SOLVING poverty
Supporting the poor only reinforces their poverty
Supporting the weak only reinforces their weakness
Supporting a person for being weak, is nowhere near as effective as FORCING THEM to be strong
To a woman charity & the poor, basic powerplays, women use to wreck & destroy societies & attack the vulnerable & infirm
It’s all about the feminine imperative ….
I was also referring hollenhunds excellent commentary …
“I recall one woman in HUS commenting that “men and women need to solve these problems without disempowering either gender”, or something like that.”
Prime example, women will always mediate to destroy
Supporting, mediating a problem only prolongs a problem
It only gives the visual illusion of being effective, when the covers blown on how damaging & ineffective their so called support is, basic hysterics ..
Which is why politics doesnt follow a state of religion, or anything tangible, politics follows a state of hysteria
I worked in data, big data, as a database engineer for 25 years. Some manager was talking about men that did the job and said “You’re born to it”. I don’t know if I was or if it was a skill that I developed or both.
But I have this knack to spot a pattern in data, and then to drill on it. I can tell developers often the module and line in programs where errors are occurring just by looking at data, transformation flow, and seeing patterns. So anyway.
This whole premise that I have locked in above, this Testosterone based Evo Psych idea of attraction is the result of two years of constant reading in the manosphere. I have all these observations and data, all these essays and anecdotes, and then I stumble on Signaling Theory another time, this time with more awareness then maybe the first couple of times when I read it literally. Before when I read about Signaling Theory, when sort of new to the whole Evo Psych thing, the subject “compared” peacocks to Watches and Sports Cars in men, and this time, I said screw that. I had that Trait preference during ovulating data fresh in my head. And so I jumped on the direct connection of testosterone to attraction, and rejected that idea of status signals. It was one of those “light bulb” moments.
And data point after data point continues come across.
Here look at this. This is from the link that Unicorn Hunter gave me.
“The men with lower testosterone levels had an increased risk of dying from any cause, but most particularly of cardiovascular disease,” Khaw tells WebMD. “We looked at cancer, too, and found no evidence of a link to cancer with higher testosterone levels.”
Nearly 12,000 men enrolled in the long-term study from 1993 to 1997. More than 800 of the men died by 2003; Khaw compared these men’s testosterone levels to those of some 1,500 living study participants.
After adjusting for factors that might affect risk of death — including age, weight, smoking, alcohol use, high blood pressure, diabetes, physical activity, education, and social class — the link between low testosterone and earlier death remained.
Compared to men with the lowest quartile (25%) of testosterone levels:
Men in the second lowest quartile were 25% less likely to die.
Men in the second highest quartile were 38% less likely to die.
Men in the highest quartile were 41% less likely to die.”
Now, bear with me on this please. If I seem to ramble I am sorry.
Now given that information above, and the premise that something subconscious in women is driving attraction, exactly for the reason of biologically producing the most “Fit” offspring, that immunocompetence is key and possibly even more, given that data up above, isn’t there some validity to this idea given the behavior of women that we have noticed and documented in the manosphere?
So please bear with me. There seems to be too much evidence to discount it, and support for the idea is coming from the weirdest corners. I really mean the best for all of us.
I recall one commenter…His assessment of female-initiated frivorce was that it’s the equivalent of a preventive attack////wife observes the comparative rise of her husband’s SMV as he reaches his late 30s, and she decides to preventively strip him of any opportunity to leave her, pair up with a younger woman and have children with her. She wants to rob him of any opportunity to pull women. That’s why she decides to financially and psychologically devastate him. The collateral damage doesn’t matter to her – she just wants to ruin him utterly
This would explain why some women, nag their husbands into getting vasectomies, right before filing for frivorce. Such a woman is trying to reserve his future economic productivity for her and her kids, and therefore she wants to ruin his ability to produce a second family after she dumps him. Such a woman would probably have no problem CASTRATING her husband, if she weren’t afraid of getting shot.
Do NOT get a vasectomy. EVER. Score one big one for the Catholics on this poiint.
And be ESPECIALLY cautious if she hasn’t been putting out much, or not at all, for a long time. Even more so, iis she suddenly resumes an active sex life with you, after a long dry spell, in order to induce the vasectomy. In that situation, it’s very likely that she is premeditating a frivorce, and that nagging you into a vasectomy is a strategic sterilization for her monetary benefit. DO NOT get the vasectomy, and DO quietly get yourself a really good divorce lawyer, because you’re about to be betrayed.
And even women. To me, the key to pushing back Feminism is science. Data upon data upon data that smacks them, and if not them, then younger girls and boys, that get data and fact implanted before that dogma grabs them.
I read study last night that was done at SUNY. The study asked questions about traits of animals, male and female, sex traits of children, sex traits of adults, and generally accepted ideas among humans like “Humans like sweet tasting things” or “Humans are universally repelled by feces and vomit”. The questions as to rate the statements as “Due to Nature” or “Due to Nuture” (culturally formed) The participants were classified as “working in academics” or not. “Parents” or not, liberal or conservative. And if academic working in “Sociology or Women’s Studies” or not.
The was a general acceptance of all groups about the traits of animals. And in the generally accepted ideas about humans being “Due to Nature”.
Parents, whether both step or natural, classified the sex traits of children as Due to Nature, regardless of job or politics. Those that were not parents tended towards Nature if conservative, towards “Nuture” if liberal. With Sociology and Women’s studies being most toward Nature.
The biggest disagreement came in sex traits of adults. The more academic, the greater the trend towards “Nuture” over “Nature” with liberal leaning to Nuture, and of course, Sociologist and Feminists staunchly in the “Nature” camp.
Ok, you ask “Why waste time doing a study like that? I could you that.”
The conclusion is that fact and science dominates thought except where you don’t want it to. And maybe you can’t argue those staunch supporters of Nurture off of their position, but there is hope for the others. Particularly parents, particularly the mothers of sons. That what the study showed. The women probably want to believe Feminism, but that boy is right there making a lie out of it every day.
My ex-wife and I had a daughter first. My ex was staunch New York Jewish Feminist and thought her mother to be in Vanguard of feminists and she felt this need to follow for the sisterhood. Kids shouldn’t forced into gender roles, etc.
So then my daughter was born. My wife had her in the toy store to buy her a tool box. My daughter throws the fucking on the ground and heads over the Barbie aisle and pitches the biggest freaking fit you ever saw. And when there was any choice of color in something, the girl not only picked Pink, but hot electric Barbie Pink. Needless to say, the gender neutral daughter of my feminist wife had a pink Barbie Jeep, every costume of every princess ever sold at the Disney Store, about 20 tiaras, a princess vanity table in her room,. and just about every “play” makeup kit ever made.
But then Boy came.
She purposefully tried to condition him to gender neutrality. No fucking way. She would take her eyes of him for a moment and he would get a saw and start working on the table legs.
Once we were in a restaurant, and his thing was going to bathroom alone. He was barely able to walk, but he was adamant about heading off to the bathroom alone. So he heads off and he’s gone for a little longer than normal, and one of the men comes out of the bathroom, scans the restaurant and locks in on me. My son and both have the same Surfer longish blond hair, real thick. He gives me this look like “Your son”.
So I go in the bathroom. The kid had found the custodian closet next to the bathroom, got a big wrench out, and was trying to figure it out, and “working” on the toilet. And I am not tool guy. I pay people to work on things. He had no example for this. He wasn’t “being like dad”. I came into the stall and he just looks over his shoulder at me like “Hey dad, I’m, just trying take this toilet apart.” And he was quite pissed that I wouldn’t let him. And the whole bathroom thing was an experiment for him to see what exactly he could get flushed down those commercial toilets.
So reason the study was done was there had been a visiting professor in Evo Psych from an Ivy school came for a talk, and there was about 100 people that showed up for something that had room for about 20. And most were faculty that nothing to do with the subject. And there was this shout down of the guy. And it made the New York news. Like a David Brooks story. And all the comments were from people condemning the behavior of the faculty in not allowing academic freedom that conflicted with there views.
So this study was done to quantify the “who and what” that were particularly prone to accept the subject and who were against it.
The only way to beat these people is marginalize them from a scientific viewpoint, that their views are entirely political, entirely ideological, and that they harming people.
So I am going at it from the testosterone and cortisol viewpoint. I believe at least on a cursory exposure that women taking a less feminine role in society is raising testosterone levels in women and their immune system is ill equipped to handle it as well as increasing cortisol in their bodies. And a lot of the health issues, and I believe, even the increase in breast and ovarian cancer is due to these factors.
And I believe that pushing men down in status so that women may rise is having significant health and social issues for men, particularly with testosterone and cortisol. I believe it is as much a factor in obesity and weight issues in men as diet.
So please bear with me. The above links helped a lot. If anybody sees anything, I’m always here at Dalrock. Drop a comment with the link. Thanks.
As a single woman, this comment really caught my attention:
…if you’re a single gal hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women. A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.”
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been discouraged by the candidate pool. Which is why for a while I didn’t date anyone. But my question is, if a man is not worth marrying, why is he somehow worth having a kid with? So these women say “you’re not ‘actually dependable and responsible to have a life with’ but you are dependable and responsible to have a kid with”??? I’m sorry but doesn’t having a child with someone tie you to that person for life, as marriage does? I’d like to have children someday, too, but I’m not going to just have a kid with some guy and then discard him. I’d like to be married first and have some time with the hubs before the kids arrive. And there are men out there that are “actually dependable and responsible to have a life with.”
<Mark., these look like typos or autocorrect errors..
Parents, whether both step or natural, classified the sex traits of children as Due to Nature, regardless of job or politics. Those that were not parents tended towards Nature if conservative, towards “Nuture” if liberal. With Sociology and Women’s studies being most toward[ Nature.????? shouldn’t this be Nurture?]
The biggest disagreement came in sex traits of adults. The more academic, the greater the trend towards “Nuture” over “Nature” with liberal leaning to Nuture, and of course, Sociologist and Feminists staunchly in the “[ Nature.????? shouldn’t this be Nurture?] camp.
@Mark Minter
Please share more. I am absolutely flabbergasted by what you have posted so far. I feel like I need a testosterone shot badly now.
“Please share more. I am absolutely flabbergasted by what you have posted so far. I feel like I need a testosterone shot badly now.”
It’s easy…eat better…lots of meat, cruciferous vegetables, and any variety of nuts. Take zinc and vitamin D3 supplements. Lift weights…especially the heavy leg ones…squat and deadlift. A lot of guys shy away from those…but to me they are the most important exercises. If you can afford it find natural testosterone booster supplements…and any excess body fat you have burn it off. Try to get at least 7 hours of sleep a night. Approach women…take calculated risks…conquer mountains.
Avoid sugar, soy, city drinking water, and drink alcohol in moderation.
Well boys, I personally think you’re looking at it wrong.
Marriage takes two to make it work. It only takes one to destroy it. The christians are right. Stop blubbering about double standards. Stop with the phony excuses. Much as the fat feminist slags may deny it, women are the weaker sex, physically AND mentally. The same allowances you make for children, or retards or other members of society must be made with respect to women. Regardless of the modern new age tosspots, homosexuals, feminists and other turdies – you ARE responsible for the health and wellbeing of your woman.
Christians are not telling you to ‘man up’ by eating a bucket of chit; they are telling you that you must, above all, comport yourself like a MAN and not like a child. If your marriage falls apart you have to be satisfied that you did everything in your power to prevent it. You not only have to answer to God on that score, you have to answer to the bum you see in the mirror when you shave in the morning – and neither of them are going to cut you any slack. We are our own worst critics and it is in our best interest that we go to our limits and beyond to make our marriages work – because no matter how hard you try, if you fail – you will be feeling guilty about it regardless. It’s human nature. Men can be very irrational too and often will blame themselves for the failures of their families.
I don’t judge people and if your marriage failed it is none of my affair; if you tell me you did the best you could I will take your word for it. It is YOUR conscience that must be clear, and if it is, recovering from that irrational sense of guilt is going to be that much easier if you know that you went far above and beyond to make your marriage work.
Big Bad Jim, that was the most meandering, presumptive and self contradictory rant Ive seen made at Dalrock in a long time.
Big Bad Jim – ”Christians are not telling you to ‘man up’ by eating a bucket of chit; they are telling you that you must, above all, comport yourself like a MAN and not like a child.”
Jim,
You must be new around here?
Which Christian leaders are simply putting out this message that men need only comport themselves as men?
Here, and around the MAndrosphere, Dolrock et. al. have been introducing us to those Christian (and SoCon/TradCon) leaders who’s message to men is to “man up and serve her”.
There’s good old Mark Driscol with his “man up and marry these used-up sluts and single mothers” message, Bill Bennet with his advise to young men to work to make themselves marriageable-n-divorceable, and a host of others all telling men in one way or another how to become better supplicators and pleasers to women.
Most of us here are quite familiar with these leaders and their message. Perhaps you could link us to these other Christian leaders who are telling men to simply comport themselves as men, irrespective of whether it is pleasing to their women or not?
@Big Bad Jackass
I know your trolling, pretty badly… but since im in a mood to post pointless crap … heres my response …
I’ve always held the view, the hottest women bang the top 10% alphas, not to have sex with them
But to placate them, to ensure the alpha’s dont turn on them & keep all the resources & cash & fancy cars to themselves
As a biological response, women send the hottest, youngest sluts they can find & ensure these powerful men arent a threat to them
Survival > nurture or whatever half assed crap women call their vagina’s today …
Sex & reproduction is ALWAYS secondary to feral primitive survival …
Sex & families, is secondary to a woman’s feral primtiive need for survival & dominance
Basic Anthropology
& marriage …
Wrong we are not responsible for the health & wellbeing of women … Government is …
Women abort their children & frivorce their men to marry government
Want proof ? 41% of all children born to women are now illegitimate bastards …
Dont you get it? Women dont have kids for men anymore, women have kids for government
Women divorced men decades ago, with the advent of feminism, something theyve wanted to do for centuries
The manosphere & MRA’s are basically rebuilding from the wreckage & destruction these so called Christian sluts & whores, & feminists, have done to our society & our rights to our families & even to our own GODDAMN CHILDREN
FYI marriage as an institution didnt fail, WOMEN FAILED
Women failed their own families
Women failed their own children, slaughtering them unborn, ripping them out of their own goddamn wombs, under anaesthetic of course … so civilised …
Women failed society & destroyed the human rights of men on a GLOBAL SCALE, aborting their children & stealing & destroying their property & income
Women being the typical feral primitives for centuries … did what they always do … they destroyed their own humanity
In short women destroyed their own families & slaughtered their own flesh & blood, for the new invading army …
The invasion of Government into family life
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_INSURANCE_BIRTH_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-18-19-16-32
Enjoy paying more for women’s abortions en sheet!
Anyone else notice the irony here? A post which begins with the idea that it is easy to call out men and calls Christian men cowardly for not calling out women, ends up being just another post calling out Christian men.
Umm, Jim? She is a child and I should do everything “within my power” to save my marriage? Does this include putting her in a “pumpkin shell” there to keep her very well? Do I get to beat her to convince her of the error of her ways? If she is basically like a mentally disabled child should I think about a padded cell for when she has a tantrum? I am curious what you would have a man do?
She gets to beat you, & jail you in a none-padded cell anyway …
Women beat you to it I Art Laughing, by about 50 years …
Okay, bitter clinger. So what you’re saying is that men lack any responsibility AND agency? It’s one thing to call good men out in order to serve the feminist interest and another to call white knights out for supporting those interests. I see the irony, do you see the difference?
Yeah mackPUA, but I’m talking about an “ideal, pristine” environment. Besides that, if I do a “good” job she’ll never get out of the house or have access to a phone to call for help. After all we’re dealing with a near idiot here, how hard could it be to curtail her fractiousness?
Mack PUA, your reading and retention skills leave something to be desired. My mother NEVER was involved with a drug abuser. That was my goddaughter. I said as much in my statements. If you are going on the attack, make sure you get the facts straight. Chris, the molestation really happened. My Uncle came to “help” us, and that is when it happened. God help anyone who lies about something like that. People can overreact in this day and age, but maybe if someone had called the police on him, at least I would know he never did it to anyone else but me. I was 6. I mention it, not for attention, bomb throwing results, sympathy, etc. It is painful to even think about, or even write about. But it does happen and I am probably overprotective with any small children in my family, for that reason. And Soloman, Northern Observer. the gentleman who was a virgin when married, thanks for letting me expand my list of men I look up to.
lol, IArtLaughing, you have no idea how close you are to the truth
That’s basically what women want, women want to be locked up in a house all day
As long as they have access to an alpha, & compete in a harem with other women, they really couldnt care less
Women are essentially primitive barbarians, biologically speaking
Women’ve been this way for centuries, precisely because there has NEVER been work for women, apart from useless roles as teachers & nursemaids & prostitutes
Women have never been able to work, precisely because ALL the well paid jobs involve grinding physical labour …
Now apply this for centuries & women’s basic ridiculous inability to reason is pretty clear …
You cannot evolve a sense of intellect & justice, unless you work for something
Does anyone else find it entertaining to note that when Dalrock posts an article about female tendency to say b.s. like “You are sooo mean! You must hate women! It wasn’t my fault!”, some wimminz shows up and says [to Mack PUA] “You are sooo mean! You must hate women! It wasn’t my fault!”
It’s like they’re machines with a limited number of stock phrases they repeat over and over, whenever they’;re caught out lying or being deceptive.
When it first appeared (right on cue lol) I was tempted to believe that Dalrock himself was posting these “kl” messages, just to prove his own point, but I don’t think he could fake this level of transparent cluelessness. He simply writes too well and he’d make the show more subtle and intellectual.
@Choked
Please share more. I am absolutely flabbergasted by what you have posted so far. I feel like I need a testosterone shot badly now.
Be very careful with anything like this (even non-hormonal supplements). Juicing has some pretty nasty side-effects if not used under close medical supervision, like impotence and sterility.
Before going to your doctor and getting on the juice, try lifting weights (including squats, as was mentioned above) and losing body fat. Your body will boost its own production of natural testosterone this way. It’s best not to start introducing artificials unless you’ve tried all the naturals first.
Also: cut out smoking (whether tobacco or other substances) if you use anything that way. Carbon monoxide is a total killer of the male libido.
@kl
It doesnt change the fact, you bad mouthed your dad, & tried to make your mother out to be heroic, for the problems she created in the first place …
Also it doesnt change the fact, you have no right to talk about something as private & sensitive as molestation to complete strangers
The fact its your goddamn god daughter makes it a hundred times worse …
FYI, again im not attacking you, im pointing out the ridiculous changes in your posts
FYI, again which you never addressed
Im stating airing your families dirty laundery & sexual misconduct to complete strangers, makes you look like a desperate for attention, insecure, attention whoring, wackjob …
Ahem, I think it is becoming quite clear who is the “whackjob” (spell it right, at least), here.
lol Boxer, did you catch Northern Observors white knighting … hilarious
Bitch slapping womens hamsters, hamsters cant press DV charges … muhahaha
Maybe in Sweden …
@kl
Im not the one sympathy whoring my grand daughters molestation … that is absolutely red-flag, wackjob behaviour
“It’s like they’re machines with a limited number of stock phrases they repeat over and over, whenever they’;re caught out lying or being deceptive.”
Another one they have is “I’m rubber and you are glue…whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.”
Nothing makes me laugh more than seeing a woman call a man the same thing he just called her. (wackjob)
Gear rarely has negative side affects. Leastwise outside of the bodybuilding world.
unless you call 1800 pound totals negative
yeah mack,,,
Looks like you are going to have to send ol girl a shirtless photo.
Dear Ton:
Gear rarely has negative side affects. Leastwise outside of the bodybuilding world.
unless you call 1800 pound totals negative
Don’t want to get into a huge argument about anabolic steroids here, but I definitely disagree with you.
http://sportsci.org/encyc/anabstereff/anabstereff.html
I’m not inclined to tell you (or any other man) what to do, mind you. I just hope you do it smartly, and with as much information as possible.
Best, Boxer
earl’s entry needs to be repeated:
“So she never nagged the guy, she never questioned his authority, she was submissive, she satisfied his sexual needs, she supported him in his times of weakness, she never insulted his manhood”
If he bolted on her then he is a jerk of epic proportions. However if she acted this way I doubt he would have bolted. Most guys don’t bolt if they have a woman that acts feminine.”
Well put. Very well put. Waiting for feminist hamsterresponse to it.
@Mark Minter:
There was a study that hit that compared T levels to age in men. It isn’t actually about age but total health/disease state. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247013.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Gary+Wittert That should let you find at least listings for the specific studies. You might actually want to find a full copy of: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23094995 (A lot of times, just tossing a journal article’s full title into Google will let you find a real copy of it for free. /hint)
On the topic of Steroids, don’t get into that until WAYS down the line. There are serious risks to “pinning” and it’s not going to do a whole lot but cost you hair (DHT level rise) without a full system able to handle the Testosterone load. The first thing is always: clean up the diet, start doing workouts that put a *heavy* load on your body not heavy *strain*. (You can do this body weight, but we’re talking lots of chin ups/planks/handstand work. I.e. gymnastics)
If you want the “quick and dirty” advice: get a copy of Starting Strength, find a reasonable gym, get a mp3 player, some loose fitting workout clothes and go with a full Paleo diet. That’ll cover 85% of the details.
@A Northern Observer:
What you’re saying is all the men who’ve posted about getting married and then had “the well go dry”, who were told “I’m not haaaapppppy”, and were divorced for “cash and prizes” – these men had no agency, and were helpless victims of circumstances beyond their control.
Because, you know, fair’s far – if you’re going to hold women accountable to such an extent for their choices in the men they marry, we have to do the same for men and the women they marry.
Or does the road only go one way where that’s concerned?
Clearly the road goes both ways. There are a couple of different problems here.
The first is that the Manosphere often tends to overstate its case, and this tendency sets up straw men that are easy to knock down. It is self-defeating, and detracts from the valid parts of the message. However, it is up to you whether you want to look for the wheat among the chaff, or merely have fun knocking down the straw men.
The second point is that, when it comes to marriage detonation by women, it is very hard to spot the women who will do this 5, 10, or 20 years down the line. Number of previous partners is a “tell” – and don’t women hate it when we call them out on this.
When it comes to marriage (or, more often, relationship) detonation by men, it is much easier to spot the men who will do it – they might as well have “EVIL” tattooed on their foreheads. And don’t the women love them. Just look above at the post by tweell:
I work in a prison. The psychopaths incarcerated here have an average of six children, and multiple women clamoring for their attention. Violent narcissistic conscienceless thugs with no possible means of support, and women are falling over themselves to catch them.
I work in a prison. The psychopaths incarcerated here have an average of six children, and multiple women clamoring for their attention. Violent narcissistic conscienceless thugs with no possible means of support, and women are falling over themselves to catch them.
This is the key to rule of law and civilized society guiding the normal tendancy of women for social order. Knowing what we know about female nature and game. Organize rule of law and social custom that makes a beta sexy as a beta being as productive and ambitious as a blue pill love sick lad trying to impress pussy with his reliable hard work with honest loyalty.
BTW do not think for a moment women will not be guided by gina tingles and always have for that matter.
“Chris, the molestation really happened. My Uncle came to “help” us, and that is when it happened. God help anyone who lies about something like that.”
It’s pretty stupid of you to try and convince me that this really happened. Way to miss the point of my post. The point is that your gender has lied so often and poisoned the well so thoroughly that I (and quite a few others) are becoming numb to your claims. Regardless of the truth. I remember on Sunshine Mary’s thread about female “rape + pedophilia” recollections that one commenter’s female acquaintance had claimed to be a rape victim – when he grilled her she admitted that the man had only looked at her intently. Never laid one hand on her. Never SPOKE to her. Suppose the commenter had believed her and gone into White Knight mode? An innocent man could have been beaten by vigilantes. Or killed by cops during arrest. Or driven to suicide. Or maybe just raped for real in prison before getting consumed by AIDS. It’s nonsense like this that makes us mad. And causes us to take a dim view of all the so-called “victims” out there.
Moreover, we’re thoroughly sick of the voyeuristic, trauma-mongering way in which females approach these matters. You & all the other misandrist “victims” are akin to trench-coat flashers – striving for a reaction of shock & horror by using sexual exhibitionism. Only difference is, society rightly condemns the latter group as “perverts”, while saying that the former can never be criticized because they’re Noble Survivors (TM).
In short, don’t blame me…blame your fellow feministas who’ve strip-mined empathy wholesale by crying “wolf” one time too often. And, even if they’re not crying wolf, flaunting their pain to undermine men’s legitimate interests, as you are trying to do here. I have a tremendous amount of compassion for those whose stories I’ve corroborated (having done so in my line of work) but faceless strangers on the ‘net? With misandrist agendas? Not so much. What little compassion remains is reserved for those who truly deserve it. As Al Pacino put it, “Empathy was yesterday”. And kl & Just Saying have their “Sisters” to thank. I don’t like being this jaded; in some ways, I miss being the the “Chris_Williams” who was a male feminist in Middle School (no joke) and was naïve enough to think feminism was about equality. The fact that I’ve lost this innocence makes me loathe your politics all the more.
PS: kindly stop raving about your childhood misadventures – real or imagined. God knows I don’t want to know any more details, and the rest of us are wise to your game, so why don’t you quit while you’re ahead? After all, you keep talking about how “traumatic” it is to bring up. Thanx!
Chris_Williams says @ March 19, 2013 at 7:28 pm …
Wow, and well said! Especially this: “In short, don’t blame me…blame your fellow feministas who’ve strip-mined empathy wholesale by crying “wolf” one time too often. And, even if they’re not crying wolf, flaunting their pain to undermine men’s legitimate interests, as you are trying to do here. ”
It has been my observation that women’s words are worthless. Unlike men, women have never had to rely on words to keep others alive, build civilizations or put humans in outer space, they treat words as idol entertainment. Once I began to notice, it was also fairly obvious that most of the time, women’s words are 180 degrees out of phase with their actions. As such, I no longer take women at their word but at their actions.
Even here, it seems to me that the majority of the women come here and participate purely for the entertainment value. It gives them an outlet to kill a few minutes here or there with people and issues they can forget about the minute the screen turns off. A few women seem to be sincere but TBH, far too few to give me any hope that change is possible WRT to status quo.
The thing about accusations, reconstructed memories, etc., etc. as that women in general (when not talking towards some political agenda but to their own personal sense of things) doubt accusations much more than men do. I tend to lean towards white knight feelings when I hear of an accused rape (If I ever come across an actual rapist, I will beat the guy to an actual pulp. Of course, by rape, I mean physically coerced rape… not the ‘Oh, I was drunk last night, and the morning after I’ve changed my mind about it’ that the courts now accept as ‘rape’), but time and again, when I talk to the women I know, they tend to be of a more innocent-until-proven-guilty mindset when it comes to accusations of rape.
I can think of a great many possible reasons for this, I wonder though, what is the actual reason for this? Do women witness that many other women making false accusations? Are men’s white knight reactions to rape accusations based on a false impression that rape occurs a lot more than they do, while women know that they don’t occur even a tenth as often as advertised by misandrists?
They Call Me Tom:
Here are some quotes along your line of thought:
1916 – Agnes McHugh – Chicago attorney
A man jury will not convict a woman murderer in this county, if the prosecutor is a man. I think this leniency may be traced to the chivalry latent in every man. The jurors see two or three big strong men sitting at the prosecutors’ table, and subconsciously feel that these fierce prosecutors are attacking the frail, pretty woman in the prisoner’s chair. Their instinct is to defend her. Perhaps their pity would not be stirred so profoundly if a woman was in the prosecutor’s chair. I believe the leniency of juries with feminine slayers is responsible for the wave of ‘affinity crimes’ sweeping Chicago. The woman criminal will receive justice only when there’s a woman in court to prosecute her. We demand justice for women — not maudlin sympathy or leniency.
1922 – Judge Florence E. Allen – First Criminal Court Judge, in 1922 Elected to Ohio Supreme Court
“Men have always sit on juries and men instinctively shrink from holding women strictly accountable for their misdeeds. Now that women sit on juries I expect the percentage of convictions in cases of women to be greater. Women are more clever than men in arousing sympathy. I had on a woman, a hardened criminal, stage a terrific fainting spell in my courtroom after the jury found her guilty. It took four men to carry her to jail. She continued having these spell, so long that I had to defer pronouncing sentence. Finally I sent her word that the longer she acted so, the longer she would be in jail. Within a few moments she sent up word that, she would be good and received her sentence meekly, with no trace of feeling”
Rape accused kills self after ‘victim’ admits false charges
A man facing a rape trial committed suicide in Indore days after the complainant reportedly admitted that he had only tried to hold her hand after a fight over money.
Roopkishore, 53, was found dead in his home in Palasia locality on Sunday, four days after the woman, 33, admitted during trial that she had falsely charged him with rape to avoid repaying the money her husband owed him.
1919:
During the past two or three years, something like fifty women arraigned on the charge of murdering their husbands have been turned loose by Chicago juries, until it has come to be understood that if any woman desires to be rid of her husband, all she has to do is to lure him into Chicago on some pretext and then shoot or poison him.
This is so well understood probably, that it explains the boldness of a woman “young and pretty” of course, who after procuring a divorce from her husband in a Chicago court room day before yesterday began gloating and then pulled a pistol from her handbag and shot him down under the eyes of the judge of the court and bailiffs and spectators. Then she gaily flounced out of the court room, saying that he got what is coming to him.” She was sent to jail, probably somewhat surprised at the cruelty of the court, but comforted in the thought that bail, would be forthcoming and that later she would be the center of interest at a trial, where she could weep the sloppy jury into turning her loose.
Then, off to the nearest movie company booking office!
The judge who turned down the husband’s application for divorce from the woman and granted one to her instead with alimony, probably is a bit surprised over the impulsiveness of the pretty lady who suddenly decided to forgo the alimony (or was the husband insured?) and unselfishly shot him to death.
Probably she had figured it out that she would be worth more as an actress or lecturer, with a record of having killed her husband in the court room, than if she did as most of the husband killers of Chicago have done the past few years merely shoot him as he sleeps or put poison in his coffee.
Opus said hundreds of comments ago something about baptizing children of unwed mothers. I am working on family history of my wife here in rural Mexico and have access to images of original documents via the LDS in Utah, starting around 1620.
Always, the priests here in this village baptized all kids. In some time periods, they had separate books for “natural children” so as, I suppose, not to contaminate the legitimate children but they all were baptized. That refusal to baptize may be a cultural thing in that nation, because I doubt it is Catholic dogma.
@ James says: March 19, 2013 at 6:47 pm
The first is that the Manosphere often tends to overstate its case, and this tendency sets up straw men that are easy to knock down. It is self-defeating, and detracts from the valid parts of the message. However, it is up to you whether you want to look for the wheat among the chaff, or merely have fun knocking down the straw men.
Sadly agreed, which means that it’ll take longer to get to the critical mass needed to effect social change at a substantive level.
The second point is that, when it comes to marriage detonation by women, it is very hard to spot the women who will do this 5, 10, or 20 years down the line. Number of previous partners is a “tell” – and don’t women hate it when we call them out on this.
I’ve seen it both ways, although I’ll grant Dalrock’s statistical analysis which shows an overall predilection for women to hit the “detonate” button – with society’s encouragement and support.
(An aside) I have the book “Without Conscience” by Robert Hare, who is renowned for his study of psychopaths. On page 171 of this book there’s a story of “Tess”, a young girl adopted into a family, and it describes how she calmly talks about wanting to do unspeakable things to do to her infant brother. An investigation into her background showed unbelievable levels of neglect and sexual abuse, which damaged her ability to pair-bond at a very young age.
Reading that, I have to wonder if a “high N” counts causes the same kind of damage as sexual abuse that some posit may contribute to psychopathy. If that’s true, then we could have an science-ish explanation why a high “N” count leads to a higher risk of marital detonation over time. (I would note that Dr Hare turns this argument around, and posits that an inability to pair-bond is a result, not a cause of psychopathy).
(end aside…)
When it comes to marriage (or, more often, relationship) detonation by men, it is much easier to spot the men who will do it – they might as well have “EVIL” tattooed on their foreheads.
This I’d disagree with – “covert aggressive” people are masters at manipulating others around them all the while hiding the “evil mastermind” tattoo. I learned that one the hard way…(Google “covert aggressive” to learn more…)
And don’t the women love them. Just look above at the post by tweell:
I believe it. What many people just don’t get is how compelling a true psychopath can be, and draw even trained psychologists into their web of charm and deceit.
—-
For those who are interested in the seemingly inexplicable behavior of psychopaths, how to spot them, and where they can be found in society – I highly recommend the book “Without Conscience”.
@ I Art Laughing says: March 18, 2013 at 11:07 pm
ANO, Looking at the facts on the ground and suggesting that men not marry based on them doesn’t make anyone here a victim. Agreed.
That is one of the things that we talk about here and as Dalrock pointed out in this post it is rarely spoken about elsewhere. Part of the threat narrative (see Typhon Blue’s videos) is that the oppressor class has to be the victim to “other” the oppressed. (I think some of that is silly but it works here). Suggesting that the matriarchal feminist system is in fact victimizing children and families with its injustice is a far different thing than broad brushing women as a class. I have no problem with that, and agree with that line of thinking.
This, I have an issue with though:
Even the AWALT argumentation serves somewhat to point out that under this current system any woman can and may use this unjust legal/social system to cause damage to those around her.
Except AWALT leads anyone who follows it into the trap of becoming the very thing you’re supposedly fighting against, because by it’s definition it’s “other”ing an entire class of people regardless of their actual character. Sure, “the system” may enable any woman to press the “detonate” button, and Dalrock has show that there are lots of women who’ve pressed the “cash and prizes” button. But what about the rest of the women who would never think of doing such a thing?
Meanwhile, the very people with the tools of injustice and oppression still get to claim victim status backed up by white knights such as yourself.
Unless a rebellion is fair an impartial to both sides of the coin, then it’s no better than the oppressor it claims to be fighting.
So to your mind, we are essentially at parity?
Men and women are truly equal before the eyes of the law?
Before marriage – yes. Both genders can “win” by “not playing”.
After marriage – no…. although BC’s and MA’s recent divorce reforms looks like a step in the right direction.
To my mind that is the only way you’d be able to make that argument with a straight face. Suggesting that complaints about an unjust system and pointing out particular examples is different than pointing out the general condition of all humans fallen nature. If the father was being rewarded and encouraged by society for abandoning his family (as is the case with today’s women) your point would hold more water in my opinion.
Except I’m not arguing about what happens to men and women after marriage!
My point was about holding men just as accountable for their choice in partners (or getting married in the first place) as the community here is holding women accountable for their choice in partner (or getting married in the first place).
—-
Link to BC’s newly passed divorce reform – check out the “Highlights” section towards the bottom:
http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2013/03/bc-celebrates-new-family-law-acts-significance.html
MA gets rid of “lifetime alimony”, allows people paying alimony to modify or end their payments: http://www.massalimonyreform.org/news.html
MA change may make it harder for women to justify being a SAHM:
http://betterafter50.com/2012/06/divorce-law-changes-in-ma-women-beware/
arg…didn’t put enough line breaks in the prior post…this is what the first two paragraphs should’ve looked like:
@ I Art Laughing says: March 18, 2013 at 11:07 pm
ANO, Looking at the facts on the ground and suggesting that men not marry based on them doesn’t make anyone here a victim.
Agreed.
That is one of the things that we talk about here and as Dalrock pointed out in this post it is rarely spoken about elsewhere. Part of the threat narrative (see Typhon Blue’s videos) is that the oppressor class has to be the victim to “other” the oppressed. (I think some of that is silly but it works here). Suggesting that the matriarchal feminist system is in fact victimizing children and families with its injustice is a far different thing than broad brushing women as a class.
I have no problem with that, and agree with that line of thinking.
This, I have an issue with though: …
(maybe D can edit that post and delete this one?)
ANO,
I understood it just fine. Trying to draw a line between all the women who might benefit from the unjust system and the unjust system itself I see as counterproductive. This in my opinion is simply due to the fact that until women start standing against the system of oppression that they may find personally beneficial it is completely unlikely to change. In short I’m saying that women (yes as a class) are a privileged majority with a near monopoly on the power of the State How do you propose to change that arrangement without causing some “innocent” women to realize the error of their ways (also known as being a misogynist)? Meanwhile, we are the oppressors and a majority of men are still siding with women.
Maybe someone should tell these men that white-knighting won’t get them laid. It doesn’t seem to ever stop them from trying. Why do you suppose that is?
Do single women who adopt count as single mothers? It’s not a better situtation, but it is included?
@ I Art Laughing says: March 20, 2013 at 2:01 am
ANO, I understood it just fine. Trying to draw a line between all the women who might benefit from the unjust system and the unjust system itself I see as counterproductive.
That’s unfortunate, because an AWALT policy will drive away potential allies and make the struggle longer than it needs to be.
On the other hand, if you make “an unjust system” the primary issue, the community would do better. For example, the response Chris_Williams made at March 19, 2013 7:28 pm to KL was masterful at identifying and attacking behaviors the problematic behaviors of “your gender” and it’s effect on him w/out personally attacking KL. It’s an example others would do well to emulate.
This in my opinion is simply due to the fact that until women start standing against the system of oppression that they may find personally beneficial it is completely unlikely to change.
And if the “the resistance” imposes an AWALT frame on these women, how likely are they to join forces with the manosphere and stand up against the system?
And if the “the resistance” imposes an AWALT frame on these women, how likely are they to join forces with the manosphere and stand up against the system?
Women will never join forces with the manosphere. As scientific studies show (see Steve Moxon’s “The Woman Racket”) women have an in-group preference way higher than men. Women associated with men (as a group) towards other women is against nature and it will never happen. (Of course, as in anything biological, there will be exceptions, after all, there are albino crows which are white)
And the manosphere will never stand up against the system. We are not a resistance: only a bunch of guys exchanging useful information.
There will be no movement. Everything will be done at the level of individual behavior. Men will keep on rejecting marriage more and more. The economy will get worse and worse. When women realize that it’s more profitable for them to be anti-feminist than feminist, they will reject feminism with fury and they will swear they have never been feminist. As Yohami said, women are not creatures of principle but of convenience and feminist have been adopted because it has been convenient for them. With the decline of the American economy in the next decades, a provider will look more and more convenient.
From the Atlantic,
http://m.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/spouses-probably-shouldnt-try-to-split-household-tasks-exactly-evenly/274133/
I like the last sentence of that article:
We’re married, so we help each other. And the helping isn’t to protect the marriage, or to keep the people in the marriage happy. The helping is the marriage itself.
Excellent point imnobody. Also,the fact that we exist is enough to get their hypoagency butter churning. We HAVE to go along for the ride, or ELSE. I wonder how much State force will be used to force compliance? Put me down for dissenting way before they ask for my testicles (ala Femitheist “Divine”).
My question is (and anyone can answer):
My dad is always pushing me to get advanced education. Since i was little. My dad was very scary growing up and very controlling. No dating, no talks about boys or marriage or relationships. It was all about school and grades. Right now I’m getting a pharm d degree but I am soooo miserable. I’m really angry at my dad. I was crying to him yesterday about how I hate studying and how I don’t want to be a pharmacist, and he was like “You need to be able to take of yourself! A parent’s job is to make sure their children don’t suffer. I want to make sure you don’t have to depend on a man! It’s not about being happy. DO you think I love what I do? NO! But I do it to take care of my family. If you have children some day, you will understand! I wanted to be doctor but I didn’t get a chance. Your mom dropped out of nursing school when she got pregnant! It is up to you to finish!!” My mom was there too, and she was just nodding in agreement.
Why is he like this? Is he right? Is he just doing his job? I’m so unhappy right now. I’m lost. I don’t want to be a pharmacist, but I’m about to graduate 😦
Adele says: “My mom was there too, and she was just nodding in agreement.
Why is he like this? Is he right? Is he just doing his job? I’m so unhappy right now. I’m lost. I don’t want to be a pharmacist, but I’m about to graduate.”
He is right. If you were ten years old and crying about going to the dentist, knowing that you don’t like it, but *not* knowing what the ultimate outcome of not going to the dentist would be, how would you expect your father, who being older, *would* know the ultimate outcome, to react?
Like going to the dentist, he doesn’t give a shit if you don’t like it because he knows what the ultimate outcome needs to be and that you just need to get there. Once you have your degree, you can pursue work that is more interesting, safe in the knowledge that your degree gives you a fall back that safeguards your ability to take care of yourself.
It’s either that or you take your immediate happiness chasing butterflies and end up earning a living as a toothless stripper telling your customers how your Dad never made you do anything you didn’t like doing and that’s why you never went to the dentist and every tooth rotted out of your head.
How many females allies does one expect? I’m thinking you’ll drive men away/ attract fewer men by soft balling things
I’ve not seen many women walk away from team woman. How many lady trolls show up here vs the non trolls?
Semi: OT: Yet another example of feminist overreaction. In brief, a woman at a tech conference gets someone fired over a “sexist joke” that wasn’t even sexist. Now a man with three kids is out of work and what’s Adria Richards’ response? To compare herself to Joan of Arc.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391667
And, in keeping with my earlier point, she too has milked her childhood trauma for sympathy. I’m not going to post the link to her page because I’m not interested in the nauseating, fawning, “special survivor” claptrap I’m sure to encounter. Already her white knights are saying that we have to be “understanding” because her experiences have made her “sensitive” to sexism.
(PS: Also pay attention to the behavior of the feminist “Truthtacular” on that thread. Truthtacular uses the discussion to engage in a reframe whereby she gets to talk about having large breasts, and what a terrible burden it was to have so much attention from men as a girl. A classic Tactic #3 from my post on March 17th (woman uses childhood trauma to draw attention to her sexual characteristics, thereby emphasizing her SMV).
On her page Ms Richards claims “not to be a feminist”, so apparently she’s like many other women today: one who’s happy to let institutionalized radfem policies do her dirty work for her (in this case, getting a man fired over a petty vendetta) while rejecting the “Feminist” label herself. Something to keep in mind when the kl’s of the world claim that it’s just the radicals who are the problem, and that women and men have to “work together”. Or when so-called “moderate” feminists claim that feminism is the best means of securing rights for both genders.
The truth is, all those “moderate/non-feminists” like Adria Richards are, to use an analogy, akin to ordinary Germans or Japanese during WWII. People who, by and large, were not Nazi Party members or Japanese militarists. And who probably would have been horrified to know about Bergen-Belsen, or the Babi Yar Massacre, & the Bataan Death March. Nevertheless, they still:
1) lacked the moral courage to stop their governments when they first noticed things were going wrong
2) internalized most of the cultural extremism put out by the “true believers” in German/Japanese supremacy, and
3) passively profited from the injustices committed by the extremists.
In the end, failing to stop injustice when it could have been contained cost ordinary Japanese and German citizens dearly.
With the coming collapse of the American welfare state and the population-replacement of Western North Americans with unproductive (and truly misogynist) non-Westerners the current Gynocracy is not exactly secure. It sure looks like all those “non-Feminist” women out there are, similarly, well on their way to getting burned. Not literally, one hopes (see, e.g., Dresden & Tokyo, 1945).
@ GT66
Well you are right about that. I definitely wouldn’t want to end up a toothless stripper. Lol. Seriously, that is a horrible thought. I guess he’s right then. I should stay in school.
But it’s kind of in opposition to the message of “women are doing too much unnecessary school/education/degrees”. Because I’m feeling like, well what am I in school for then, if its just a waste of time anyway. Plus I feel like I’m just doing it because my parents said I should.
But I guess at the end of the day, its better for me to have the degree rather than not have it.
So I suppose my dad’s right then
Adele — long-term perspective or no, it still sucks. Good luck to you.
Wow.
Look, boys – I know that beating up the church is all the rage these days and on some levels they deserve the beatings they get. But on marriage…who are you going to believe? Here we have the boys in the manosphere, none of whom can hold a woman longer than a night. If ya quiz ’em on it, they will tell you they don’t WANT them longer than that, then they will tell ya they CAN’T have them longer than that because women are too irresponsible to stay with one man! Get your story straight fellas – and ask yourselves: what do YOU know about marriage?
Now look at the church – they wrote the book on classical western marriage and their principles have withstood the test of time. Other than the usual liberal stupid people – everyone wants a lifetime, loving marriage. Why not listen to the guys that actually invented it rather than these angry, women hating slobs of the manosphere?
Want a good marriage and love life? Go for the conservative christian chick, and pay attention to the church’s guidance on healthy marriage. Want a fast pump n’ dump? The only ones into that are the feminist slags and sluts – and if you take up with them you deserve what you get.
“Which Christian leaders are simply putting out this message that men need only comport themselves as men?
Here, and around the MAndrosphere, Dolrock et. al. have been introducing us to those Christian (and SoCon/TradCon) leaders who’s message to men is to ‘man up and serve her’.”
Doug Giles (look him up at clashdaily.com) is one of the few. A recent article (written by someone else) on his site said “Take a look at your church. What are your messages like? Are your messages geared towards men? On Mother’s Day do you praise women and on Father’s Day do you berate men? Is it decorated in fruity colors and an assortment of puffy, lacy, and flowery decorations?”
http://clashdaily.com/2013/02/man-stuff-when-men-lead-properly-in-church/
Also, he did two short Youtube videos on 10 ways both men and women can wreck marriages. On his message to women, he mentions things like excessive nagging, sex denial, etc.
I don’t agree with him on everything, and his material on raising daughters looks questionable. (He seems to focus on having them shoot guns, hunt, learn martial arts, etc. Nothing wrong with that, but is the focus on rape prevention and being “tough” or raising a future wife who can be godly, supportive and submissive?) Nonetheless, he’s one of very few Christian leaders who isn’t afraid to call out both sexes.
John – ”Doug Giles (look him up at clashdaily.com) is one of the few. “
Thanks, John.
Indeed, Giles seems to be a serious male church leader. I also followed the links in the item you linked, and checked out the Church For Men site.
One article there that I especially liked was David Murrow’s “Our Grandfather Who Art In Heaven”, which deals directly with the matter of Churchians who eschew the idea of God being “judgmental” towards the things they prefer. While written in a gender-neutral way, it seems to me that his chosen example of a woman’s attitude demonstrates that he is not one to pedestalize women:
Big Bad Jim – ”Now look at the church – they wrote the book on classical western marriage and their principles have withstood the test of time.”
Really? Which “church” would that be? The Episcopalian Church? Or maybe, Focus On The Family? (Be sure and check out Phineas’ excellent take-down of Dobson’s pabulum, starting here: http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/bd-1-women-are-the-more-spiritual-sex/)
Look I used to be a Churchian myself – for nearly 4 decades. I used to buy whatever the “church” was selling, perfectly willing to engage my own rationalization hamster to help make that square peg of church teaching fit the round hole of observable reality.
So, I can understand you dutiful, even if blind, devotion to this nebulous idea of “church”. Still, the modern church has fallen to feminism, whether or not you can bring yourself to recognize what has happened.
BBJ – ”… boys in the manosphere, none of whom can hold a woman longer than a night.” &
“Why not listen to the guys that actually invented it rather than these angry, women hating slobs of the manosphere?”
Pathetic. You’ve already sunk to the female tactic of shaming. Do check out ‘The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’.
Try to count the number of different types you’ve used in your short time here.
Here’s a hint for you, it doesn’t work anymore. Men have been subjected to this female-style shaming for so long that immunity has been developing.
But, if that’s the best you can do….
Giles impressed me early in red pill days.
Not any more.
He is kinda sorta Dricoll-ish in that he tries too hard to be manly in the manner he speaks and writes. Where Driscoll does it with sex, Giles uses guns and hunting and kicking ass.
You will see his true colors, not in how he tells his girls to shoot guns and such, but in how he implies they are as rough and tumble as any man, and how he not only personally presents a threatening face to the boys, he makes remarks about how his girls can kick their asses. he holds men in low regard for the easiest of reasons that churchians choose. Our sex drive.
I stopped reading Giles tradcon churchian BS about 5 years ago. And to think….he was soooooo close to being an example to hold up. In the end, he is like a full time version of when many churches try and have “burgers and classic car day” or some other silly pandering idea like that.
Find a pastor boldly consistently holding women accountable without qualifier or self effacement as the spoon of sugar with it. Good luck.
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
BBJ….this is not a throw down question…….Are you serious?
Can you read, categorize what you read, and sort things accordingly? This site is populated by a very wide mix of men. Amidst the group are decades married Christian men like me. The blog host is as well.
OUR (the Christian men) point is simple. DO NOT follow the churches teachings on marriage, follow the bibles teaching on marriage. The church will have you divorced and your “good Christian girl” on to the next man in her serial monogamy.
Before you badly embarrass yourself, you should read a whole bunch of the posts here as well as the blog roll on the side. Read Society of Phineas as I suspect you may appreciate his focus and maybe you will learn something.
@Big Bad Jim
I’ve been married for nearly 20 years, and very happily so. What that has to do with the accuracy of my arguments is beyond me though. The fact is the biggest single problem is denial of the problem by modern Christians, and you are exhibit A. The question I would ask you back is why you are so invested in the current feminist corruption of the church? Why is a threat to corruption a personal threat to you?
Why is a threat to corruption a personal threat to you?
It would inflame Mrs BBJ
Big Bad Jim:
“Now look at the church – they wrote the book on classical western marriage and their principles have withstood the test of time. Other than the usual liberal stupid people – everyone wants a lifetime, loving marriage. Why not listen to the guys that actually invented it rather than these angry, women hating slobs of the manosphere?”
No. The church didn’t write the book. They already had The Book. Yes, those principles stand the test of time — when they are taught and followed. Almost no one in contemprary Christianity teaches or uses them now. Almost no one in contemporary Churchianity expects women to learn and follow them. You and Churchianity didn’t invent lifetime marriage and they are not teaching it now. What is being taught in church now on how to create and sustain marriage is not biblical.
“Want a good marriage and love life? Go for the conservative christian chick, and pay attention to the church’s guidance on healthy marriage. Want a fast pump n’ dump? The only ones into that are the feminist slags and sluts – and if you take up with them you deserve what you get.”
Conservative Christian chicks are among the worst offenders. No Christian man could meet their insane standards. Christian men who try to date CCCs routinely get blown out with nuclear rejections. Christian men are finished before they even start with a CCC. Also, the typical CCC isn’t a virgin — she simply reserves sex for “fast pump ‘n dumps” from superalphas in the hopes of snagging one of them for a relationship. There is no real meaningful sanction against premarital sex in church or in society. Those who can get sex, do, and do so with relative short term impunity.
The church pays lip service to traditional sexual morality, but does so only to make itself look and feel good. It shames and berates men for “predatory” and “lustful” and “immoral” thoughts and behaviors to make itself think it is “doing something” about the “problem”. The church is terrified of hurting and offending its female membership and so it looks the other way at female sexual promiscuity, even from its own ranks. The leadership knows very well some or even most of the female members are promiscuous or were at one time. Anything even remotely holding women to account for sexual behavior is derided and denounced as “impolite” and “not nice” and “rude” and, most importantly, “judgmental”. Men are sternly reminded to “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The church has gone out of its way to excuse, explain, justify and rationalize female promiscuity, even creating a false theology and faulty hermeneutics and scriptural exegeses to support it.
The church’s response to the problem is to say if a woman is having extramarital sex, it is because men are tricking and defrauding and misleading her into it. But if a man is having extramarital sex, he is an evil predator. If a woman is cheating on her husband, the man has created a problem in the marriage that drove her to another man and caused her to cheat. She has no control over it; her husband FORCED her to cheat. According tot he church, if the marriage is to be savied, the husband must win her back and do what she wants in the marriage; while she is not required to do anything , not even repent of her sin. But if a man is cheating on his wife, it is ALL his fault; he bears the full weight of his sin, and the wife is fully justified in divorcing the husband. The church presumes that a divorced woman is such because a bad, evil man maltreated her or abandoned her. Her ex husband is a jerk, a bum, a layabout, a drunk, or an abuser. But if a man is divorced, it is because he is a jerk, or a bum , or a layabout or drunk or an abuser. Absolutely no consideration is given to the woman’s role in the marriage and the part she might have played in the marital problems.
The church’s response to the problem is to say if a woman is having extramarital sex, it is because men are tricking and defrauding and misleading her into it. But if a man is having extramarital sex, he is an evil predator. If a woman is cheating on her husband, the man has created a problem in the marriage that drove her to another man and caused her to cheat. She has no control over it; her husband FORCED her to cheat.
And you can be a stand-up guy, raise your kids right, bust your ass to provide a home for your family, and every Sunday some creepy preacher will get up and be disrespectful to you while he flirts with your wife and daughter from the pulpit.
Contemporary Christianity? No thank you. All you Christian guys should quit supporting these scumbag preachers who play this game. They’re on the “cash and prizes” gravy train, same as divorce attorneys and other parasites.
Of course I don’t know for sure, but “Big Bad Jim” sounds like he has his hand in this racket, himself.
deti says: March 21, 2013 at 11:45 am
The church’s response to the problem is to say if a woman is having extramarital sex, it is because men are tricking and defrauding and misleading her into it.
Not just the church – others are claiming men “wake up a woman’s love” even though they have no intention of following through.
No mention of the woman failing to do proper due-diligence to make sure the guy’s intentions were in the right place at all….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/cheating-husband-billboard_n_2924419.html
These kind of stories get lots of “you go girl!” responses. I wonder if any husbands have done something similar to wives who have cheated? I doubt they’d get so many pats on the back.
Say hello to the Feminine Imperative, John.
Check this out http://www.cheaters.com/
I pray and read the Bible on my own time. Until I find a church that has Christian leadership. Slim pickings on that in California.
BBJ said: “Now look at the church – ”
Yes look at it.
“they wrote the book on classical western marriage and their principles have withstood the test of time.”
You sure we’re looking at the same thing?
“Other than the usual liberal stupid people – everyone wants a lifetime, loving marriage.”
In other words any “true” believer. Nice argument. So how do you explain the rates of “re-virgins” and what the Bible classifies as adulterers (in open adultery) all throughout all but the most traditionalist churchians?
“Why not listen to the guys that actually invented it rather than these angry, women hating slobs of the manosphere?”
Why listen to a guy who evidently crept in “unawares” and seems to be interested in silly women?
On a related note, The Atlantic can be relied upon to ignore the pesky pachyderm in the Brooklyn studio apartment at all times:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-decline-of-marriage-and-the-rise-of-unwed-mothers-an-economic-mystery/274111/
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/getting-married-later-is-great-for-college-educated-women/274040/
La la la…..we are strong, we are awwwsum…..la la la…….men are mere vessels to project into…..la la la……we have all the options and all the answers…..la la la……(I don’t get it, something invisible keeps crushing my foot)…..
Pingback: Red pill bitterness | Dalrock
I just found out one of the girls I grew up with got married.
The man is a senior level computer information engineer. Salary wizard says $78,000.00 – $98,000.00 annually for this position.
After learning this I had to comment on this website and article. The girl who just got married was well known in our town. She was passed around from partner to boyfriend to partner to boyfriend and all the random hookups in-between. She was a party slut done by one loser after another. She did ALLOT clubbing extasy and drugs on the weekend. She known for giving great head.
Rumor from her friend at the time said she became an escort near the University and quit after 5-6 weeks. She then become a waitress and stayed there for many years. Her future seemed sealed as an aging wage slave. As far as I was concerned justice almost was served. But now, apparently she just pulled off the impossible and got married at 32. I’m looking at their Facebook pages. The smiling joyous happy couple. This is absolutely disgusting. Is their a place I can upload photos without revealing the URL?
I looked up his name on the county property records website. He owns a house valued over $400,000.00. Correction. ‘They’ own a house valued over $400,000.00. He is the sole owner listed under purchased by. This is unfair and wrong.
So this ex-party girl has gone from having her cake in her prime 20’s to eating it at 32? This is bullshit. These smiling photos are of of a chaste suburban house wife and future mom of the year. This is not who this women was. This chick was a whore I am so upset right now. This is just wrong. Why do men marry these sluts because they need a regular place to dip there wick? This guy looks absolutely clueless in his photos! If only he knew!
Do I have a moral obligation to inform him of his wife’s past? I want to tell this guy so badly. But at the same time I feel it would be wrong? So conflicted!
Need a response.
Apologies for my impatience.
Why do men marry these sluts because they need a regular place to dip their wick?
Because most men cannot stand lifelong celibacy, and if virgins are just not available, most men (including most virgin men) are going to have to settle for sluts, whether they like it or not.
(back in my single days, I myself once dated an ex-hooker that I met in Bible study. She really did have a heart of gold, as the stereotype suggests. Regrettably she was damaged in many ways, and couldn’t sustain a relationship. But she had a lot ot offer, if only she could have gotten a bit more healed..)
This guy looks absolutely clueless in his photos! If only he knew… Do I have a moral obligation to inform him of his wife’s past? I want to tell this guy so badly. But at the same time I feel it would be wrong? So conflicted!
Don’t do it. There is a SLIGHT chance that her repentance is real; and there is a better than even chance she was actually honest with him about her past. If she were PRESENTLY promiscuous, yes, you could arguably have an obligation to speak.
But not if it’s all in the past. Leave it alone. She may be the only chick this poor guy could ever get, so don’t ruin it for him.
Michael – Patience
One of my friendly acquaintances – a twat, but a very bright one – is entirely unaware that the night before his wedding his to-be-wife was servicing one of the local Alphas. That was then and now she is a mother of a teenager so I guess she calmed down. My friend is blissful! – and remember that, as the Chinese say, if you seek revenge, dig two graves.
Do you and the couple hang around together socially? Whatever you do, make sure you DON’T confront the wife directly. She’ll deny, deny, deny and he will believe her. What you have to understand is, he’s viewing everything through “gash-goggles”. Given her past I’d say there’s about a 90% chance they’ve had premarital sex. The guy sounds like a Beta or Omega Male so this could well be his first sexual partner. He’s bonded with her and she’s his princess (at least in his mind). For now, he’s not going to tolerate anyone force-feeding him the truth.
What you can do:
-Congratulate him and tell him you’re available for a movie or a beer whenever they come back from the honeymoon. If you have a girlfriend, bring her along to allay suspicion. Since he’s a “nerd”, invite him over if you have a computer problem. He probably games – find out what his favorite shooters or computer RPG’s are. Join his gaming clan. Use it as a chance to talk if he wants to. Don’t be too persistent about talking to him or he & his wife will get suspicious. Keep in mind that Borderline & NPD women usually try to isolate their husbands & control their friendships. If you want to connect with him you need to be subtle.
-Bring up your college days in a roundabout way when she’s not around (Things sure were crazy back in the day! haha!!) Do not refer directly to anything she did – just bring up that lots of drugs were available, there was a party atmosphere, and everyone was wild.
-Tell him about the ex-boyfriends but do not mention their connection to her. Especially if they’re bad-boys “Hey, remember old so-and-so? He’s got a pentagram tattoo and he did two years for burglary…”
-If he asks you point-blank about her, don’t go into detail for now. Praise her for “overcoming her past” & so on. This will be really effective if her family life is a mess. Subtly bring up any family issues he may not be aware of. Ask him how much time he spends with his in-laws. Are they still around? If not, why? How do they treat him?
I give them two years tops before problems start. If he trusts you and admits things are going downhill, start to feed him bigger pieces of the “Red Pill”. Give him detailed advice about how to protect himself financially (and even physically).
Your story really gets to me because it reminds me of another rich, “geeky” guy I read about in the news last month. He was scrawny, obviously beta, intelligent, and wound up getting involved with a similar woman (an adult film star from some big breast porno website). After they got engaged, she rewarded him by stabbing him to death. He couldn’t see past her breasts and it cost him his life. You’re not wrong to ask for advice here – the man’s future definitely depends on it.
Micheal,
What ever happened to being happy for people? What about his past? You know, some people do beat the odds. With any set of statistics, there’s always outliers. And, as has been hinted, maybe she (or he for that matter) has changed her ways. Maybe she (or he) hasn’t. The more time you spend around them, you will be able to tell. If she hasn’t changed, then him putting a ring on it isn’t going to stop her.
“What ever happened to being happy for people? ”
…And there you have it, folks. Another enabler trying to “police the hierarchy”. Note how Hopeful attempts a reframe by switching the issue to the husband’s chastity. The posts from the Hive-Vagina and its components are so predictable I know what they’ll be before they appear.
@Michael —
Unless you have evidence she is currently stepping out on him, I wouldn’t recommend bringing up the past. It’s not going to be helpful. Either he knows (he may) or he doesn’t, and either way he is now married so that’s done.
Why do guys marry women like that? Because they lack options, and don’t want to be celibate or alone or both. They don’t have many choices because they aren’t very attractive to women, so they end up with a woman who isn’t very attractive to men (for marriage, I mean). That’s how it works.
….Start to feed him bigger pieces of the “Red Pill”. Give him detailed advice about how to protect himself financially (and even physically)…
+1 to this.
This is very good advice even if their relationship is solid (which, despite its inauspicious prodrome, it might be). Teach him the redpill so he can defend himself if it blows up… and… to lessen the chances that it will blow up in the first place.
In the long run, you’ll be doing BOTH of them a favor, although understandably, your true concern is helping HIM.
“Don’t do it. There is a SLIGHT chance that her repentance is real; and there is a better than even chance she was actually honest with him about her past.”
Yeah right. Are you a troll or what?
Someone should send an anonymous e-mail to the husband from an internet café about the truth.
Michael,
that slut and her white knight aren’t your concern. Let it go. Have nothing to do with them. They made their choices. The marriage will probably blow up anyway in a couple of years.
“me: Don’t do it. There is a SLIGHT chance that her repentance is real; and there is a better than even chance she was actually honest with him about her past.”
HH: Yeah right. Are you a troll or what?
And yet you agree with me at least with regards to nonintervention:
“HH: that slut and her white knight aren’t your concern. Let it go. .
I personally know couples of similar situations, for what it’s worth, where one or both have been very sexually active (ie, sinful), before marriage. Yet where there has been true repentance, and they have been honest about it up front, a happy family life can still be built. It’s harder, as all manospherians know, but it IS possible. Give them a chance.
So don’t ruin it for this poor guy. Teach him some redpill self defense tactics, yes. And if you find out she’s cheating NOW, by all means say something. But otherwise, “let it go”
“Why do guys marry women like that? Because they lack options, and don’t want to be celibate or alone or both.”
Pay for escorts. Problem solved. It costs about 10% of what he’ll have to eventually invest into his marriage to that village bicycle, IF the marriage lasts at all.
Why do guys marry women like that? Because they lack options, and don’t want to be celibate or alone or both.”
Pay for escorts. Problem solved
THat doesn’t work for those whose religious beliefs require them to reserve sex for marriage.
Michael,
Tell the guy NOW. Don’t let him waste his life married to that skank. He only has one life to live. He shouldn’t waste it with low class trash. If you care at all about decency and fairness in this world, then TELL HIM NOW.
And the men, christians, and woman telling Michael to not expose the liar and trickster skank are disgusting. You folks are aiding this female liar, helping her to trick this decent guy. And using religious terms such as repentance as an excuse to aid in the victimization of a man. Truly sickening.
If you are real, Michael, tell this guy NOW before he has any kids with her.
And the men, christians, and woman telling Michael to not expose the liar and trickster skank are disgusting. You folks are aiding this female liar, helping her to trick this decent guy. And using religious terms such as repentance as an excuse to aid in the victimization of a man
If they are already married, it’s irrevocable — he’s stuck with her, and should use the red pill knowledge to make the best of it.
AND… it’s true that SOME people with nasty pasts, DO change. Don’t be too quick to believe repentance, but, don’t discount the possibility either. If they’re still married in 10 years, she was probably sincere…
Gentlemen:
I know it was fiction, but years ago I recall watching an episode of Bergerac which was set on the island of Jersey. The plot revolved around the fact that this up-market older guy had married a skank. The climax of the show came when someone went to the husband to inform him that he had something unpleasant to appraise him of, to which the husband replied to the characters and the audiences surprise, ‘I know all about my wife’s former life’.
… and then there are the other sort. Girls who are only too keen to reveal their partner count (or something like it). I was looking through some paperwork (for The British Embassy in ****** actually) when I came upon a letter (from that same country) addressed to me dated Wednesday the 23rd. The following caught my eye:
‘I’ve never enjoyed lovemaking so much with anyone before. I have been to bed with a couple of men several times, purely because of the way they have satisfied me sexually. Yes it was only for the sex and it was marvellous. But now…’.
This is clearly a strong empowered woman confident in her sexuality: she is sex-positive.
I notice on the facing page the following:
‘You know exactly what you are doing. You are so experienced. You make me feel so good (sic erat).
I Love it’.
Proof that a (peceived) high N count never hurt a man? I don’t think I replied. One can hardly take a woman like that home to mother.
@ Höllenhund
“that slut and her white knight aren’t your concern. Let it go. Have nothing to do with them. They made their choices. The marriage will probably blow up anyway in a couple of years.”
What if it was you? How can someone make a fair choice under these circumstances? If you choose to buy my car and I roll back the odometer 100k miles and falsify accident papers would you still buy it?
I cannot predict if the marriage will blow up. But I can tell you that if it does – she stands to gain everything at his expense without having to do anything for it. She was a waitress. An ex -party slut. With no education, and no relevant career experience to speak of (sorry being a waitress is not a career). And after sleeping with half the guys in central Florida all she has to do is trade numbers over calamari appetizers and 10 months later she’s set for life? That’s unfair. I had to work my ass off. And now her heavily pounded slit rockets her into a $400,000.00 house upper middle class status and all the goodies without having to work anymore? That’s bullshit.
I’m Christian I understand and yes I realize it’s “none of my business” and “Michael you have no right!” Michael how dare you!” “Get a life!” etc but I don’t care. I’m going to send an anonymous email to her new husband. Sorry but if the truth has already been told – it won’t matter will it? Because if that dude were me I would damn sure want to know the truth.
Many posters mention repentance and forgiveness. Doesn’t repentance and forgiveness start with honesty and a confession of past sins? When you are married “the two become one flesh” so to speak. Right? So don’t both have a right to know. Old habits die hard. If the husband was an ex felon or convicted child molester doesn’t the wife have a right to know?
Openness and honestly is something I doubt has occurred here. If this girl was honest and he accepted her for who she is now and loves her for who she is and doesn’t care about her past even if he doesn’t know the extent of it great. I wish them best of luck and hope their marriage lasts forever. However I’m confident no such honestly has occurred here. Otherwise she would have never got married.
However then again it’s a crazy world. The news story in the other comment about the Porn star stabbing her husband means her husband must have known she was a porn star and yet he still married her.
I’m going to send an anonymous message. If the guy cares he deserves to find out before it’s too late. If not then it doesn’t matter.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Cya
Micheal – keep your anonymous letter to yourself. You have no idea what “the husband” does and does not know, if the girl’s repentant or not, and chances are the letter will get a scowl, then tossed in the garbage as the ravings of some jealous lunatic.
About this:
That’s unfair. I had to work my ass off. And now her heavily pounded slit rockets her into a $400,000.00 house upper middle class status and all the goodies without having to work anymore? That’s bullshit.
Just as unfair as Christ living a perfect life, then taking the consequences for our sins on himself? To me this sounds more like your angry she got the material goods “award” w/out “working”, while you have to slave away.
My advice to you is to repent of that envy and don’t try to drag the guy and girl down just because you’re pissed that she “didn’t get what (you thought) she deserved.”
Hopeful says:
March 26, 2013 at 1:16 pm
“Micheal, What ever happened to being happy for people? What about his past?”
If you knew squat about Game, modern relations between the sexes, etc., you’d be aware that a man’s premarital “N” being large is almost irrelevant to his willingness to remain married (and be faithful within it). OTOH, a woman’s “N” being high is likely to kill her ability to stay in a marriage, unless she’s married to an uber-alpha (who’s unlikely to have married someone with her issues to begin with).
Have you not seen the information on this diagram?
I suggest that you need to learn much more before taking any positions here. That is, your posts should be solely questions for some months to come.
Luke, you just quoted two questions I asked. Did you read the rest of my post?
Yes, I did, Hopeful. It is hard to reconcile someone understanding the truth I described, and your questioning it, other than you not knowing much about the subject, or (perhaps) being an agent provocateur, the latter being a dishonest and malicious type of poster, not uncommon for the more hardened feminists posting here to be.
Well, I’m not a hardened feminist. I’ve read many feminist theorists and don’t use that word to describe myself. I’ve been on this site for a while reading various posts. I just think there are always at least two sides to every story and without knowing the people Michael was talking about, I did not want to assume the worse. I guess I just like to look on the bright side, as my name suggests. Sure, the relationship and marriage could play out the way many posters on this site have predicted. And sure past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior (as others have said as far as the wife is concerned), but it’s not the only predictor. As with any set of data there are always extremes. Suggesting the husband’s past does not excuse the wife’s past. You’re right, she didn’t do herself any favors. She’s the exception rather than the rule. That’s not a problem. The problem is all the other women who try to follow her example.
“Michael-I’m going to send an anonymous email to her husband.”
Truth has won. Righteousness has won. The Christian(or not) slut apologist white knights have lost. Thankfully, there are men who still care about the lives of other men. Of course, those men have to reject the modern christian slut apologists to help desperate, naive, lonely men who have been tricked by modern young american women. Michael, you are truly doing God’s work. You are possibly saving a guy from wasting his ENTIRE life. Hopefully, the guy can see the chick for what she is before he has kids with her.
“Pay for escorts. Problem solved
THat doesn’t work for those whose religious beliefs require them to reserve sex for marriage.”
That’s their problem. Either you care about your religious beliefs or your ability to have regular sex in today’s SMP. You cannot do both.
“Michael,
Tell the guy NOW. Don’t let him waste his life married to that skank. ”
Isn’t it a bit late to do that? He already signed up for marriage 2.0. If he tries to remedy his situation now, he’ll get disemboweled in family court and turned into a social pariah for being “judgmental”, “entitled” and “blowing his perfectly good marriage up for no reason at all”.
Look, the thing is that you mostly cannot help beta chumps like him. Beta chumps have always been society’s slaves, robbed of options to improve their quality of life. Everybody conspires to keep them down. And make no mistake about it: any man who signs up for marriage 2.0 to an American woman in 2013 is a beta chump.
„What if it was you?” – Then I’d be stuck in a miserable place with no escape until I die. That has been the standard fate of beta chumps since the beginning of time. At this point there’s not much he can do to remedy his situation. That’s what betas are: useful idiots who get stuck.
„How can someone make a fair choice under these circumstances?” – I don’t know, maybe by simply assuming that an 32-year-old, non-religious, urban American woman who worked low-paying jobs all her life is probably a used-up tramp? Does that count as a fantastically wild guess? Or maybe by getting freely available information about what marriage 2.0 actually is?
„And after sleeping with half the guys in central Florida all she has to do is trade numbers over calamari appetizers and 10 months later she’s set for life? That’s unfair. I had to work my ass off. And now her heavily pounded slit rockets her into a $400,000.00 house upper middle class status and all the goodies without having to work anymore? That’s bullshit.” – It isn’t bullshit, it’s genetics. Beta chumps like you and that guy create wealth because they don’t know any better, and then women like that tramp leech off you for their own purposes in one way or another. That’s how the human race has always functioned. This is exactly the reason I told you to let it go. Do it to preserve your psychological well-being, because if you fail to do that, you’ll keep getting outraged by skanks like her and you’ll go nuts. As long as you keep clinging to faith in the Christian God or any other deity, none of this will make any sense and your life will be never-ending mental torture. You can only move on if you accept that all religions are BS designed to keep betas like you down. (They are.)
„I’m going to send an anonymous message.” – Do it if it makes you feel better about yourself. Just be careful not to disclose any personal information and not use an IP address that can be traced back to you. I’m pretty sure there’s some idiotic feminist law on the books that make this a criminal offense, because you „caused a woman mental distress” by „attacking her sense of self-worth” or some other BS reason.
I am a woman who is past my childbearing years, and this is how I see it. When I was young most women wanted to get married. It was their life’s ambition. This was in addition to anything else they wanted to do, which might have meant a career or making raising a family their career. Then the divorce rate skyrocketed, largely as a result of men and women not being on the same page about relationships. Women wanted help at home and to be treated equally. Men were still programmed to want things the way they were before the women’s movement. Men naturally became less interested in marriage as a result. So there was a larger pool of women looking to marry than men. Some of these women became desperate toward the end of their childbearing years and elected to use sperm donors or other methods of having a child, with or without the relationship. The desire to procreate is that strong. In time, the general societal values changed to the point where marriage was seen as an option, but not a pre-requisite for having children. Like everything else, it became a choice, and one there was no shame in not making.
Also, the kids of people in my generation grew up as children of divorce, and seeing what their parents went through are not so crazy about getting married as a result. It is not a blame-men or blame-women or blame anyone situation. I just think women gave up trying to find the kind of men who would be all the things modern, liberated women need them to be. Men still haven’t really caught up with the social/sexual revolution of the ’60s and ’70s. Many of them have chosen to opt out of long term relationships, being at a loss to give women what they want from them. I hate to say it but a lot of men still choose never to grow up, and women want men who are grown ups, who will honor their commitments to them and their children, not men who cheat and make themselves yet another child in the family. Women really want men who were more like their grandfather’s generation, except that they want them to accept and treat them as equals, not as children who they must protect and treat like property. Women want a partnership, not a parent/child relationship or a master/servant relationship.
To the original poster, I think what you say is only more evidence that you are yet another man who is woefully behind women in terms of your mentality. It is almost comical to me to read your opinion. You have made an outdated caricature of yourself. I say it’s no wonder women are choosing to go on their own and have children. I honestly think that in most cases, they and their children are better off. It’s a sad commentary, but one I feel I must make. And I am a Christian with degrees in Theology to boot. I just think some of the Christian values spoken of here are even more evidence of why young people today are rebelling against them. They are outdated and don’t speak to what they really need from each other and committed relationships. The Christianity I believe in does not include outdated values about male/female relationships. The younger people today have too much sense than to buy into that. It’s Christianity that must change, not the people, before the value of commitment in a relationship and marriage can be preached and accepted by the younger generation.
>> The Christianity I believe in does not include outdated values about male/female relationships.
If you categorically reject a man’s authority in his own marriage, then you will be unable to understand Christ’s relationship to the church. (When husbands are reduced to mere boyfriend status, there is always a concurrent move to revise Christ’s role as Lord.)
The fact that you are unable to appreciate this is precisely the reason why the early church forbade women from taking leadership positions.
Ronnie,
Although I can agree with some parts of what your saying, I must object to others, especially this statement:
I just think some of the Christian values spoken of here are even more evidence of why young people today are rebelling against them. They are outdated and don’t speak to what they really need from each other and committed relationships. The Christianity I believe in does not include outdated values about male/female relationships.
God does not change. See Hebrews 13:8. To be Christians is to be changed by God and live according to His will, not ours. God doesn’t change to fit what we feel is “modern” or “updated.” It is our job as Christians to learn what God’s will is and to follow His way. The more time we spend with God the more we are conformed to His way. This is our duty as Romans 12:1-2 says.
Ronnie – ”It’s Christianity that must change, not the people”
Behold the Churchian Entitlement Princess in her base form – “God must change to suit what people (ME) want”
CEP – ”I say it’s no wonder women are choosing to go on their own and have children. I honestly think that in most cases, they and their children are better off.”
I take it that you are oblivious of the studies which clearly show otherwise? Statistics probably aren’t your “thing” either, I suspect.
But, forget all those icky facts, you just know on that emotional level (that you mistake for spirituality) that your feelings are more accurate than observable facts. You go GRRL!
“Women really want men who were more like their grandfather’s generation, except that they want them to accept and treat them as equals, not as children who they must protect and treat like property.”
Translation: Women want men to act like men on the woman’s terms.
Hon…we are not equals. We were never meant to be equals.
It is always enlightening to have the benefit of comments from people such as Ronnie, a Christian woman of mature years with at least a Masters degree in Theology, (and possibly a herd of cats – though she does not say) who believes that her own religion – you know, the one with the eternal verities – should change to fit in with women’s lib; and that our host Dalrock despite his considerable analytical work thereon – and a Doctorate in Red Pillology – has failed to understand the Sexual Market Place (how could I have failed to see that). Must dash – its a Bank Holiday weekend and I need to get some Pump and Dump with some enlightened, liberated, confident-in-her-own-sexuality woman – certainly not that forty-something one who I have to avoid because she thinks I should man-up for her benefit. Hey, its MY body and I will do what I like with it. No one owns me and anyway why should I waste my time on some aging bitter losers like you lot – who do you think you are, Helen of Troy?
if you’re a single gal hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women. A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.”
Instead of chastising these women, you should be happy someone is responsible enough to take care of the children. Most of the men who get these single women pregnant are not interested in taking care of children. They are just as happy to have their fun and not have to accept the consequences. At least the women are responsible and want to take care of the children and give them a happy life. So excuse me, but I see this from a completely different angle. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. Seriously.
Wow, how presumptuous and misogynistic of you, Opus. I guess I shouldn’t expect more from someone with your attitudes. You only go to prove my point. I own no cats and am happily married for 33 years. I am certainly no “aging bitter loser”. Wow, what assumptions. I guess I assumed better of you, not worse, like you have assumed of me.
Ronnie says: March 28, 2013 at 12:22 pm
A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.”
And that poor kid has to live with these selfish women’s decision to intentionally deprive them of a father in their lives.
How compassionate of you and your kind.
“”God does not change. See Hebrews 13:8. To be Christians is to be changed by God and live according to His will, not ours. God doesn’t change to fit what we feel is “modern” or “updated.” It is our job as Christians to learn what God’s will is and to follow His way. The more time we spend with God the more we are conformed to His way. This is our duty as Romans 12:1-2 says.””
No, God doesn’t change, but we change, and our ability to understand God’s true message changes. Most of what has been written in the Bible about male/female relationships was written by old men in a culture of male domination and inequality between the sexes. I am looking squarely at St. Paul when I say that. We have advanced very far since St. Paul’s time (hopefully) in how we view male/female relationships. St. Paul was a fallible man, just as fallible as anyone writing on this page. Sorry but I don’t buy into his outdated philosophy.
Ronnie says:March 28, 2013 at 10:09 am
Women wanted help at home and to be treated equally. So it wasn’t enough that the guy made the money that put food in her stomach and a roof over her head, he had to “help at home” too? As if he wasn’t already helping at home by making the income needed to make that lifestyle possible?
And this “treated equally” – let’s be real, that’s “fem-speak” for “do what I want, or else.”
No, God doesn’t change, but we change, and our ability to understand God’s true message changes. Most of what has been written in the Bible about male/female relationships was written by old men in a culture of male domination and inequality between the sexes. I am looking squarely at St. Paul when I say that. We have advanced very far since St. Paul’s time (hopefully) in how we view male/female relationships. St. Paul was a fallible man, just as fallible as anyone writing on this page. Sorry but I don’t buy into his outdated philosophy.
Good grief. Is she serious?
Ronnie says: March 28, 2013 at 12:37 pm
No, God doesn’t change, but we change, and our ability to understand God’s true message changes. Most of what has been written in the Bible about male/female relationships was written by old men in a culture of male domination and inequality between the sexes. I am looking squarely at St. Paul when I say that. We have advanced very far since St. Paul’s time (hopefully) in how we view male/female relationships. St. Paul was a fallible man, just as fallible as anyone writing on this page. Sorry but I don’t buy into his outdated philosophy.
Ah! Someone who’se drunk deeply at the well of historical criticism, and the nonsense that logically follows it. St Paul, when writing/speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was infallible. Any “advances” in male/female relationships that’ve happened since his time have, in fact, been wandering from the structure that God Himself set out, and as such must be regarded as heresy.
“And that poor kid has to live with these selfish women’s decision to intentionally deprive them of a father in their lives.
How compassionate of you and your kind.”
Most women by far do not intentionally deprive a kid of a father. Most if not all women want to be married to the father of their kids. But with fathers like they have to choose from these days, they’re actually better off not exposing the kids to them. Many of them actually DO meet men later in life who are grown ups and willingly take on raising the woman’s kids as their own.
I also think it is presumptuous to assume that these women are conscioulsy going out there to have kids without a father. Do the statistics tell us how many of them wanted to make a life with the father but did not succeed? NO. So I call bullshit on most of this because I think I know how most women work, thankyouverymuch.
Isn’t there new research that says the more a man does around the house the less ass he gets? Fair certain that disproves the claim all a woman wants is help around the house
“Ah! Someone who’se drunk deeply at the well of historical criticism, and the nonsense that logically follows it. St Paul, when writing/speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was infallible. Any “advances” in male/female relationships that’ve happened since his time have, in fact, been wandering from the structure that God Himself set out, and as such must be regarded as heresy.”
If you think St. Paul was infallible, you are the one drinking the kool aid, not me. No one is infallible but God. But that’s OK, yours is the view that is going the way of the buggy whip, not mine. And thank God for that! I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a society that was dominated by people with your values. I don’t like some of the new values either but I believe in equality of the sexes and that this is God’s will. Equality does not mean “the same” it just means men don’t think they’re better than women or vice versa. Of course people with your outdated views have never been able to grasp that distinction. But like I say, your views are going away. Too bad people are throwing God out with them. That part is regrettable. God gets a bad rap because of what people like you have ascribed to him.
The prudent choice would be to not have kids with men that you don’t want your kids being exposed to. But that’s logic which is something women don’t take into account.
Keep hating on men Ronnie…the overlords who have brainwashed you depend on it.
Ronnie says: March 28, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Most women by far do not intentionally deprive a kid of a father. Ok, if they get pregnant and have a kid and aren’t aware the kid isn’t going to have a father in their life, that’d be reckless endangerment.
Most if not all women want to be married to the father of their kids. But on what terms? That’s the rub! Are these women the kind of people a man would want to commit to? Do they believe in “’till death us do part”, or is it “until I’m not haaapy any more” at which time they divorce him and leave him and his life in absolute shambles?
But with fathers like they have to choose from these days, they’re actually better off not exposing the kids to them. Many of them actually DO meet men later in life who are grown ups and willingly take on raising the woman’s kids as their own. Then wait until this “white knight” shows up, get married, and have kids then. It’s the best way for everyone.
I also think it is presumptuous to assume that these women are conscioulsy going out there to have kids without a father. So what you’re saying is – they’re unconscious, some random guy “just happens” to get them pregnant, then he disappears, and here she is with this kid?
I think not….
Do the statistics tell us how many of them wanted to make a life with the father but did not succeed? NO. So I call bullshit on most of this because I think I know how most women work, thankyouverymuch. I think Dalrock’s already posted stats which disprove your “I call bullshit”
You need to do more reading here dearie…
I love it:
The OT is wrong – written by a bunch of mysogynistic beardy old men – not one of whom had a Facebook account – shows you how out of touch they were. St Paul, yes he is wrong too – wrong about sex, and almost certainly a virgin; at least there is nothing in the NT to suggest otherwise. Please don’t, however, gain the impression that happily married cat-less childless Ronnie is some sort of God-Hating Atheist or perhaps batting for some other non-Abrahamic Religion. No, it is not like that at all, for as we learn God doesn’t change, but we do (let’s conveniantly ignore hard-wired Biology) as does our ability to understand the Bibles message (i.e. when it had at last become indistinguishable from Radical Feminism).
Tomorrow I will be explaining how The Declaration of Independence is now properly understood as a form of fealty to his late Majesty George (the Third of that name). God save the King.
Ronnie says: March 28, 2013 at 12:52 pm
If you think St. Paul was infallible, you are the one drinking the kool aid, not me.
And you came to that conclusion because you were there, and you, of course, know oh-so-better what God really meant, eh?
Equality does not mean “the same” it just means men don’t think they’re better than women or vice versa.
There may be hope for you yet, as red-pill’ers believe both men and women bring certain things to the table that both need from each other. Where the usual disagreement is on what those “things” are, as most feministas decry traditional feminine qualities and try to get women to act like men, while trying to get men to act more like women.
Needless to say, society’s been suffering from the resulting train wreck for years, and will suffer for years to come.
“”If you categorically reject a man’s authority in his own marriage, then you will be unable to understand Christ’s relationship to the church. (When husbands are reduced to mere boyfriend status, there is always a concurrent move to revise Christ’s role as Lord.)
The fact that you are unable to appreciate this is precisely the reason why the early church forbade women from taking leadership positions.””
The God I worship is the God who showed himself in Christ washing the disciples’ feet as a God of service. One who humbles himself so that those who follow him may be respected and put above his own authority. This is the teaching I follow about Christ’s relationship to the church and which I apply to male / female relationships – to both men and women alike.
there was a larger pool of women looking to marry than men.
Ha ha ha ha ha. That’s funny. On what planet? Church men who reserve sex til marriage, want to marry before 20. And the women won’t talk to them til they’re about 30 or 35. This amounts to 10-15 years of unwanted celibacy, forced on men because women are too busy having “fun” to settle down and marry. When they finally do, often the groom is still a virgin…. but the bride is usually NOT.
Women really want men who were more like their grandfather’s generation
Bull$#!%. I spent my entire teens, 20s, and early 30s, defying the counterculture and forging myself into exactly that kind of old-fashioned, honorable, chivalrous, romantic, hardworking, honest man… LIKE MY DAD…. and saving my virginity til my wedding iight (which I hoped would happen around 19, not my late 30s)…..and it got me nothing but REJECTION. Despite the fact that I also have height and good looks and education and a lot of other traits that women SAAAAAAY they want.
Only when I achieved a prestigious professional position and my income skyrocketed, in my mid 30s, did I get any real traction with women. Dating and marriage suddenly became easy.
I say it’s no wonder women are choosing to go on their own and have children. I honestly think thin most cases, they and their children are better off.
MASSIVE amounts of empirical data show that your view is totally wrong. Except in the rare case of physical danger, kids fare FAR better off with their own fathers. Even a lousy father, improves life outcomes a lot, relative to no father at all.
And I am a Christian with degrees in Theology to boot
I once dated a political science graduate who had never heard of Original Intent, the Commerce Clause, the 10th Amendment. She had only the vaguest knowledge of the Constitution. What on earth were they teaching her, Marx?
She should demand that the college give her a refund for providing a defective product. And so should you.
.. the Christian values spoken of here are even more evidence of why young people today are rebelling against them. They are outdated and don’t speak to what they really need from each other and committed relationships.
So tell us, how are the committed relationships of young folks, working out according to the NEW rules? Ahem. Their relationships are a WASTELAND and you know it. We all know, from generations past, that the old ways worked a lot better. So why are you, and the youth, so resistant to going back to them?
It’s Christianity that must change, not the people, before the value of commitment in a relationship and marriage can be preached and accepted by the younger generation.!
Spoken like a true pagan troll. The very defintion of repentance, which is the ticket-of-entry to the Christian faith, is that people must change because they are in the wrong. Duh.
Next you’ll try to tell us that the churches should disregard 5000 years of divine revelation, and start marrying sodomites. Ha! How silly! Only an idiot could even imagine such a thing…..
Ronnie says:March 28, 2013 at 1:02 pm
The God I worship is the God who showed himself in Christ washing the disciples’ feet as a God of service. One who humbles himself so that those who follow him may be respected and put above his own authority. This is the teaching I follow about Christ’s relationship to the church and which I apply to male / female relationships – to both men and women alike.
Christ humbling himself was not about putting others under His authority. And this is the same Christ which drove the vendors out of the temple with a whip, called the religious authorities of His day hypocrites, den if thieves, and other insulting terms – in public no less! He is the same Christ that flattened Sodom and Gomorrah, routed the Canaanites from the Promised Land, handed Israel over to their enemies when Israel fell away and worshipped other “gods”, etc.
Your sanitized, wimpy-soft “version” of Christ is not the Christ of Scripture.
But with fathers like they have to choose from these days, they’re actually better off not exposing the kids to them.
So,… why the hell are they fornicating with these men, when there are so many good men being simply IGNORED by women?
Many of them actually DO meet men later in life who are grown ups and willingly take on raising the woman’s kids as their own
Yes, but those men were generally grownups at age 20, and they had to wait 10-15 years for the WOMEN to grow up. Then, at long last, the woman is finally ready to settle down, and she tells teh good guy, “Instant family! Don’t you just love my kids!… Oh, you’d like to have some kids of your own blood too… uh, no, I’m DONE. I have kids by Harley O’Badboy already… No, I don’t want to have yours.”
Doesn’t this strike you as, oh, I don’t know, colossally unfair or something?
“The prudent choice would be to not have kids with men that you don’t want your kids being exposed to.”
Bingo!
As I’ve asked earlier in the comments, if a guy isn’t worth marrying, then what makes him worth having a kid with?
“Then wait until this “white knight” shows up, get married, and have kids then.”
This is my plan. Waiting is not a passive thing, either. If I want this great guy, then I gotta be a great gal.
PS
Yes, but those men were generally grownups at age 20, and they had to wait 10-15 years for the WOMEN to grow up. ..I have kids by Harley O’Badboy already… No, I don’t want to have yours.
This part is autobiographical. It’s the reason why I eventually stopped dating women with kids. In almost all cases, they are okay letting Mr Niceguy’s lineage to go extinct, and having him pay for Harley O’Badboy’s kids to go to college.
I actually knew a few guys who took that deal. I refused.
“Then wait until this “white knight” shows up, get married, and have kids then.”
This is my plan. Waiting is not a passive thing, either. If I want this great guy, then I gotta be a great gal.
Surely thou art wise.
Also… “Waiting is not a passive thing” IMHO, should mean, actively search. Visit other churches, get on Net. Cultivating your own virtue and physique is great but make it easier for good men to find you.
One more thing,. politely initiating with women over and over, only to be rudely rejected — the so-called “nuclear rejection” which, strangely, happens a lot in Church (wtf?) — gets old. Once a guy has been shot down enough, he’s less likely to initiate. Past age 30 this is particularly likely. I myself eventually concluded, “If she’s not interested enough to make the first move, she’s not interested”, and I can’t be the only guy who figured that out.
So…when you find the type of guy you’re looking for, you might need to be the one to ask HIM out. No subtle hits, men don’t get hints. Be brazen, like Ruth coming onto Boaz on the threshing floor. (That, by the way, is all the biblical justification anyone needs, for women making the first move in romance. The contrary doctrine is cultural, not biblical).
““Women really want men who were more like their grandfather’s generation, except that they want them to accept and treat them as equals, not as children who they must protect and treat like property.”
Translation: Women want men to act like men on the woman’s terms.”
I have a more simple translation: women want fried ice.
“It’s the reason why I eventually stopped dating women with kids. In almost all cases, they are okay letting Mr Niceguy’s lineage to go extinct, and having him pay for Harley O’Badboy’s kids to go to college.
I actually knew a few guys who took that deal. I refused.”
This is enlightening. I never knew guys thought this way. This is certainly the reason why I never liked dating men with kids. So I use some self-control and discipline and now I get to deal with baby-momma drama? No thanks.
“At least the women are responsible and want to take care of the children and give them a happy life.”
BS. Single women are mostly inept, overworked, stressed-out, miserable parents raising psychologically damaged, dysfunctional thugspawn – the louts, criminals, thugs and whores of the future. Single motherhood is a pestilence and shouldn’t exist, period. Or at least it shouldn’t be subsidized in any way, for the sake of our civilization. Women who get impregnated by deadbeat alphas outside marriage should either abort or put their children up for adoption.
anonymous says: March 28, 2013 at 1:31 pm
So…when you find the type of guy you’re looking for, you might need to be the one to ask HIM out. No subtle hits, men don’t get hints. Be brazen, like Ruth coming onto Boaz on the threshing floor. (That, by the way, is all the biblical justification anyone needs, for women making the first move in romance. The contrary doctrine is cultural, not biblical).
Ruth’s actions took place in a particular cultural context, where marriage was partly related to the passing of property inheritance from one generation to the next. After Ruth appeared under Boaz’s cloak, and told him he was the man who had to perform the duty of a relative to her deceased husband, Boaz had to go to a ‘closer relative’ first. When the ‘closer relative’ declined to perform this duty, Boaz was able to take Ruth as his wife, along with the property that became hers when her first husband died, and father a child who would inherit the property owned by Ruth’s first husband.
For Hopeful, knowing you have to be a great gal to catch a great guy is _huge_, and I give you major kudos for executing on that. It may not be necessary to be be as brazen as anon recommends, often just being open and kind to the men around you, being a “good ear” with good boundaries will draw the right kind of guys to you.
Wishing “Hopeful” all the best in her search. 🙂
This is enlightening. I never knew guys thought this way
Really? You seriously were unaware that a LOT of men, actually WANT to have kids of their own? Why do you think we get engineering degrees and work 14 hour days?
“”Equality does not mean “the same” it just means men don’t think they’re better than women or vice versa.
There may be hope for you yet, as red-pill’ers believe both men and women bring certain things to the table that both need from each other. Where the usual disagreement is on what those “things” are, as most feministas decry traditional feminine qualities and try to get women to act like men, while trying to get men to act more like women.””
Well, thanks for thinking there’s hope for me, but most “feministas” today don’t think we all excel in everything equally. Then again you can’t generalize about men or women. Some women I know are just naturally able to beat the crap out of a guy and have more guts to handle combat than some men I know, so for me it’s on an individual basis what we should or should not be doing, not based on sex or gender at all. But yeah, any kind of “one size fits all” philosophy is unwise.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
“This is enlightening. I never knew guys thought this way
Really? You seriously were unaware that a LOT of men, actually WANT to have kids of their own? Why do you think we get engineering degrees and work 14 hour days?”
No, it’s not that I didn’t know guys want to have kids of their own, it was just I didn’t know they didn’t want to deal with someone else’s kids. I had never heard anyone state it so plainly. So all the kids in your house have to be yours? Got it.
“So…when you find the type of guy you’re looking for, you might need to be the one to ask HIM out. No subtle hits, men don’t get hints.”
The guy I’m seeing now I did ask out. I gave him my number and told him to use it. He was surprised and still teases me about it seven months later.
“”Christ humbling himself was not about putting others under His authority. “”
I’ll assume you meant “above his authority”. You are thinking in terms of king/subject or master/servant. God and Christ are not about that. That is human hierarchical thinking. And if the foot washing wasn’t about Christ putting others before him and making them more important than him, then what praytell was it about?
“”And this is the same Christ which drove the vendors out of the temple with a whip, called the religious authorities of His day hypocrites, den if thieves, and other insulting terms – in public no less! He is the same Christ that flattened Sodom and Gomorrah, routed the Canaanites from the Promised Land, handed Israel over to their enemies when Israel fell away and worshipped other “gods”, etc.
Your sanitized, wimpy-soft “version” of Christ is not the Christ of Scripture””
Christ and God have many facets. Just because I mention one doesn’t negate the others. It’s how they fit together that is the rub. Sorry you aren’t up to understanding that. I don’t have time to make it make sense to you. You either get it or you don’t.
I am just astonished and saddened at the angry, negative attitudes toward women on this board. I am sure that God and Christ would not see women this way. I implore you to go back to Scripture and pray that you may see women, including women who have children out of wedlock in a more positive light. Your hatred and villification of women will not get you into heaven. I don’t approve of everything some women OR men do but what you people are insinuating is just vile and untrue. You don’t hate the sinner you hate the sin. And besides, you don’t know why women end up the way they do. You would have to know their situation and walk a mile in their shoes. Just sayin’.
No, it’s not that I didn’t know guys want to have kids of their own, it was just I didn’t know they didn’t want to deal with someone else’s kids. I had never heard anyone state it so plainly.
To be clear… I wasn’t opposed to taking on stepkids IN ADDITION TO having kids of my own. However, the deal I was offered, was, take on stepkids INSTEAD OF having kids of my own. I knew a few guys who had fewer options than even I did, and who DID take that deal — apparently believing it was their only chance at marriage. Sad. I wouldn’t do it.
Divorced mothers, in particular, are especially resistant to the idea of having kids again with a new husband. The one and only never-married mother that I dated, was more realistic. She married soimeone else, but she did indeed have another kid with him.
So all the kids in your house have to be yours?
No. But SOME of them need to be. Unless there’s a medical barrier, of course. But refusal to bear my own children, as distinct from inability, is not acceptable.
Ronnie says: March 28, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Well, thanks for thinking there’s hope for me, but most “feministas” today don’t think we all excel in everything equally.
Tell that to the feminista’s who say “anything a man can do, a woman can do better.”
Then again you can’t generalize about men or women. Some women I know are just naturally able to beat the crap out of a guy and have more guts to handle combat than some men I know,
Well, if the guy’s a wimp, that’s not saying much.
Ronnie – “I am just astonished and saddened at the angry, negative attitudes toward women on this board.”
Really!?!?
You didn’t think that any men could rival your own bad attitude towards men (as well evidenced in your posts) in their appraisals of women (as they’ve oft-as-not learned via thew school of “hard knocks”)?
I guess you really buy into that “anything a man can do, a woman can do better” myth/meme – even as it applies to denigrating the other gender.
Sorry to inform you, but good as you are at disparaging men, the guys here can hold their own against the likes of you.
am just astonished and saddened at the angry, negative attitudes toward women on this board
None of these guys started out angry or negative. They all started out with love… and got burned.
This is the emotional wreckage left by the modern woman. Not pretty, is it?
Some have been baselessly rejected for years, or even decades,in favor of badboys. Some have been emotionally abused by women. Some have been divorced through no fault of their own, and stripped of everything — kids, home, finances, and even freedom. Some have been cheated on and cuckolded.
Others, like me, are happily married & fathers NOW, but have one or more of the above events in their pasts, and would like to spare others these troubles (or, perhaps, just still feel a need to vent.)
“To be clear… I wasn’t opposed to taking on stepkids IN ADDITION TO having kids of my own. However, the deal I was offered, was, take on stepkids INSTEAD OF having kids of my own.”
I understand now. Thanks.
I didn’t think I was disparaging men. I was saying that men in general have not gone in the same direction as women and women want something from them that they are not prepared to give them. I was saying that most women want a responsible man who wants a committed relationship and will honor his commitments. Most enlightened men admit that women are more mature and civilized in general than most of their male counterparts. If even they would admit that, then how am I full of hatred for men? I don’t hate men. All of my closest friends are men. I don’t grind any axe about men at all and never have. I just state what I think is true.
What is obvious to me is that there are far more women haters amongst men than there ever will be men haters amongst women. Women generally expect men to be the way they are (“boys will be boys”) and will change themselves in order to accommodate them. There are women who will even go with men in jail or defend their sons on death row, which is even more evidence that women are the more forgiving of the sexes toward the opposite sex. I have never seen hatred toward anyone like that of men who hate women. Seriously. That’s why you very rarely find female serial killers or rapists. Think about it. And I’ve seen hatred like that on this board. Think about it.
Ronnie says:
March 28, 2013 at 2:23 pm
“”Christ humbling himself was not about putting others under His authority. “”
I’ll assume you meant “above his authority”.
Correct.
You are thinking in terms of king/subject or master/servant. God and Christ are not about that.
Yes He is. At the end, every knee will bend and every tongue will confess that He is Lord.
That is human hierarchical thinking. And if the foot washing wasn’t about Christ putting others before him and making them more important than him, then what praytell was it about?
It was about using His authority and position to serve others. It was not in any way, shape, or form about making others more important than Him.
Your sanitized, wimpy-soft “version” of Christ is not the Christ of Scripture””
Christ and God have many facets. Just because I mention one doesn’t negate the others.
Ok, so please feel free to educate us on the rest….
It’s how they fit together that is the rub. Sorry you aren’t up to understanding that. I don’t have time to make it make sense to you. You either get it or you don’t.
Please drop the shaming language as it has no place here.
I am just astonished and saddened at the angry, negative attitudes toward women on this board.
Even if it’s well deserved?
I am sure that God and Christ would not see women this way.
You need to do more studying on God’s opinions about the sexually immoral. There was a time in OT Israel when the kind of irresponsible, promiscuous, sluttish behavior that’s lauded in current society got the death sentence. The adulterers that Christ hung out with were people who knew their condition and were repentant. The unrepentant got called out and named for the trash they were.
I implore you to go back to Scripture and pray that you may see women, including women who have children out of wedlock in a more positive light.
Scripture portrays women who have kids of out wedlock in a positive light? Where? I’ve studied the Word for years and haven’t seen anything that supports that.
What I have found is that such classes of people are in for a peck of trouble:
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Ga 5:19–21
and
For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Eph 5:5–6
Then again you can’t generalize about men or women. Some women I know are just naturally able to beat the crap out of a guy and have more guts to handle combat than some men I know, so for me it’s on an individual basis what we should or should not be doing, not based on sex or gender at all. But yeah, any kind of “one size fits all” philosophy is unwise.
Fail.
Yes….you CAN generalize, about anything, and still have that Some women I know be an exception. This is one major liability in the way women GENERALLY think (meaning there are some women who do not think this way, you unfortunately DO think this way). A generalization is a statement of a statistical reality, its not ALL, or NONE. And this pedestrian rejection of generalizations with pat statements about how one size doesn’t fit all is pure emotional bunk.
Its annoying, and if its all you have….post where there are other women who will get batty eyed about you all being unique snowflakes.
If you take medicine, if you choose to not smoke, if you ever have subscribed to a diet or an exercise regimen, you have accepted a generality. If you have ever availed yourself to counseling or psych therapy, if you have ever followed an economist, if you have ever chosen a particular school for a child, you have accepted a generality.
Without generality, every doctor, every therapist, would have to do every single test known to mankind on every single person, or interview a counseling client for years, in order to then go ahead and treat them.
This argument makes me generally pissed off. (but once it didn’t, so that one size fits all bad mood pissed off is bad)
One of the better aimed barbs that non-believers frequently aim at Christians is that their approach to the Gospels is Pick and Mix; and of course much the same sort of reproach is made by Catholics to Protestants generally (Anglicans don’t count as real Protestants). Ronnie is thus open to the same jibe, and so it is interetsing to see that her chosen accentuation is the feet washing sequence; and I note that the new Pontiff is similarily motivated. Personally, of course, the idea of an Argie on his knees suits me very well (Las Malvinas soy Britanicos – as we say around here) but even I would have to conceed that that would be a fairly limited interpratation of the Gospels. I am sure Ronnie, would (metaphorically at least) enjoy some top-man on his knees before her. Personally, with the opposite sex, I have always found it better the other way round. 😉
I too feel entitled to choose my favourite part of the Gospels and so I will go for the part where his Mum gets told off for interfering in Man’s work, and will she go back into the kitchen and get on with the ironing (New Atheist Version – it may be different in the KJV). That’s the way to deal with Mothers – and they are, in my personal experience, happier that way.
Ronnie – I didn’t think I was disparaging men.
Let’s recap:
”Men still haven’t really caught up with the social/sexual revolution of the ’60s and ’70s. Many of them have chosen to opt out of long term relationships, being at a loss to give women what they want from them. I hate to say it but a lot of men still choose never to grow up, and women want men who are grown ups, who will honor their commitments to them and their children, not men who cheat and make themselves yet another child in the family.”
As if women are actually more “grown up” and can be relied on to behave any better.
”you are yet another man who is woefully behind women in terms of your mentality.”
But, many (if no most) women are the ones who are actually “behind” in their mentalities these days…”Sex & The City” as iconic role-model, for instance.
”Most of what has been written in the Bible about male/female relationships was written by old men in a culture of male domination and inequality between the sexes.”
The same tired line we get from the self-identified gender-feminists – and, of course, they think sooooooo highly of men
Really, Ronnie, my guess is that examples of your disdain for the male gender is only limited due to your limited posting here. You started off with the disparaging in your first post. I believe that is quite telling as to your nature.
Ronnie – ”What is obvious to me is that there are far more women haters amongst men than there ever will be men haters amongst women.”
Wow, you must not get out much. Misandry is largely ubiquitous in our modern society. But, like many women, you never even notice – because it seems perfectly natural and completely acceptable to routinely “bash” men.
Ronnie: I was saying that men in general have not gone in the same direction as women
Correct. Because that direction is WRONG.
women want something from them that they are not prepared to give them.
We will give you what our fathers gave our mothers. (I say this as the son of an oldfashioned goodguy…. I cant’ speak for the children of divorce or thuggery. But my Dad did right by Mom, and that’s what my wife gets. Except that… yes, I did change diapers fairly frequently, and I’ll pitch in and clean the kitchen when she’s overwhelmed. On the other hand, I cook less than my Dad, so it’s about even.
I was saying that most women want a responsible man who wants a committed relationship and will honor his commitments.
After age 30, when their looks are starting to fade and the hot badboys stop chasing them, sure. In the early/mid 20s, it’s mostly WOMEN who are commitophobes. They RUN FROM a nice guy who would marry them.
LMost enlightened men admit that women are more mature and civilized in general than most of their male counterparts.
If “Enlightened” now means either stupid, blind, or dishonest, then I agree.
What is obvious to me is that there are far more women haters amongst men than there ever will be men haters amongst women.
Given the vicious way women treat men in the dating realm and divorce court, I find that rather difficult to believe.
Women generally expect men to be the way they are (“boys will be boys”) and will change themselves in order to accommodate them.
Feminists don’t do that. That’s pretty much the definition of a feminist: not accepting men as they are.
There are women who will even go with men in jail
… but they won’t date a nice guy
or defend their sons on death row,
why defend him, if he’s actually guilty? just because he’s your son, doesn’t make him automatically right.
which is even more evidence that women are the more forgiving of the sexes toward the opposite sex
You have NO IDEA how much hurt women inflict on men, do you?
I have never seen hatred toward anyone like that of men who hate women.
You’ve probably dished it out without a second thought.
Seriously. That’s why you very rarely find female serial killers or rapists.
Those crimes are not driven by hate. And in any case, they represent a very small percentage of the male population, So your comment is just about as unfair, as if I were to take the WELL DOCUMENTED FACT that women are much more likely to commit child abuse, and use that to characterize all women, or some subset of women that I was upset with.
And I’ve seen hatred like that on this board. .
No you have NOT seen it.. That kind of guy isn’t going to get on the internet and weep about how women mistreated him. He’s going to go out and DO something really bad.
The guys here are those who started off as nice guys and were punished for it.., by women who told them they wanted nice guys. And if women started rewarding nice guys, they’d come right back to you.
“I was saying that men in general have not gone in the same direction as women and women want something from them that they are not prepared to give them. I was saying that most women want a responsible man who wants a committed relationship and will honor his commitments.”
Bullshit. In an environment of unrestrained hypergamy, a woman does not want “a responsible man who wants a committed relationship” until she has gone through the alphas in the vicinity, is in her early 30s, and is now ready to settle down and have a child (usually one, MAYBE 2, but almost never more than that).
Or more often, the woman is a single mom and desperately NEEDS “a responsible man” to shield her from her irresponsibility. But she frames it as a “want” so as to burnish her “strongindependentwoman” cred.
“What is obvious to me is that there are far more women haters amongst men than there ever will be men haters amongst women.”
You are either lying or live in a cave.
Earl, of Ronnie’s insipid claim that ”… there are far more women haters amongst men than there ever will be men haters amongst women.” – ” You are either lying or live in a cave.”
In a cave where the equal-women routinely beat up the enlighten pseudo-males, apparently.
Ah, but what could we really expect of an ageing Christo-feminist? Funny thing is, she probably truly believes the stuff she spouts. From the Bible having been written by male sexists, to men not being worthy of the women, to this notion that men hate women more than women hate men.
Christo-feminists, despite the stated Christian values, are more like the gender-feminists, who, like Ronnie so freely expresses, simply believe that women are superior to men – on virtually all measures. Thus, to them, even rather vile disparaging of men isn’t considered “hate”; but, even the mildest of criticisms of men IS hate. Which is why despite ample empirical evidence to the contrary all around her, she manages to see hatred from men on this forum, but is seemingly unaware of just how little regard (or even outright hatred) the average women has for the average man.
oops!
meant to say:
“even the mildest of criticisms of women by men IS hate”
[I really should proof-read before posting – as opposed to afterwards]
Slwerner does rather highlight the elephant sitting on the settee when he correctly observes that in her first post here, Ronnie (is that really a girls name in America?) manages to go on a man-shaming rant. She may not realise it but that is as common amongst the theologically-challenged women who comment here first time as amongst those better qualified to talk about the Deity, and so it is rather grist to our mill, a bit like aging Gazelles being set loose near hungry Lions, I would say.
As this post is, however about single motherhood, I am motivated to relate the following:
I had begun to date a woman who it has to be said – as someone later said to me ‘no one could tame, but you went out with her Opus’ and I did so for about six weeks. I was twenty-seven and she a year older. One day, I was driving with her in my top-of-the-range Coupe, when she suddenly blurted-out that, ‘she knew a guy who had said that if she ever wanted a child he would happily be the man to ensure that such a happy event occured’. She made it clear that he was a big hunky guy. I confess I was (and remain) really quite shocked. What a thing to say to your boy-friend, especially given that I would have been considered from her point of view, quite a catch, as she was from the depths of the council-estate (trailer-trashy). Roissy would doubtless say that it was some sort of fitness test, but I don’t really think so. My guess is that this guy was some sort of Beta who figured that the only way he would ever sleep with her was by making an offer she might not refuse. What does it say about the woman’s short-sightedness (from endless angles) that she could even think that way. Perhaps she realised that I was an Alpha-cad who had only one intention and that I had indeed satisfied myself with her in that direction (after about thre or four dates) and that sooner or later I would be bound to lose interest.
As it happened I never saw her again, but years later I was told that she had married a thick-brickie and had three childen.
Opus says: March 28, 2013 at 4:34 pm
One day, I was driving with her in my top-of-the-range Coupe, when she suddenly blurted-out that, ‘she knew a guy who had said that if she ever wanted a child he would happily be the man to ensure that such a happy event occured’.
I think Mr Omega wouldn’t be so happy if he’d followed through, and then found out he was on the hook for child support in order to give her her “happy event.”
If you really want to see who hates who…which gender initiates most of the divorces?
Here ya go Ronnie. Another generality that I am utterly certain, if raised here, you would say , no no no, you cannot generalize, it depends on the situation.
http://news.yahoo.com/9-negative-effects-divorce-reportedly-children-220900169.html
These types of things are the reason women who deny generalities MUST do so, because when you decide to divorce, nothing and I mean nothing that would refute the heart can clutter the mind.
Gentlemen, why argue this point with someone who is an obvious feminist and modernist? You won’t convince her (she dismisses Paul, after all, which basically means making up her own religion to match her contemporary values, which is typical of her type). More water under the bridge, really, drifting ever downward. She isn’t worth your time.
Pingback: Why aren’t men responding to economic signals? | Dalrock
I suppose Ronnie must have been having a bad day: between 10 am and 3 pm yesterday she fired-off no less than nine comments (presumably whilst supposedly working). Clearly something about Dalrock’s post hit her Achilles’ heel.
Of course, she might be right in everything she says, and Paul is certainly difficult for some women to swallow, but frankly, if you call yourself a Christian, yet seek to minimize Paul, then one has to wonder whether a different religion (if any) may not be preferrable to being an avowed Christian; a little bit like being a Leftist who dismisses the entire writing of Marx, but still insists on calling herself a Marxist. That her views are those of someone with more than one degree in Theology makes one wonder what is being taught these days at Seminaries and the like. Dalrock (if I may say so) seems to be something of a modern day Martin Luther, and I much enjoy the way he manages to make people like Ronnie squeal. May he have many Theses (about 95).
Novaseeker says:March 29, 2013 at 8:05 am
Gentlemen, why argue this point with someone who is an obvious feminist and modernist?
Because it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
Because it’s a chance to review some fundamentals that should be patently obvious.
Because others may have the same position / questions, and responding may change the position / opinions of some of the “lurkers”.
Ronnie,
Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of humans.
“Gentlemen, why argue this point with someone who is an obvious feminist and modernist?”
Because 90% of men will nod their heads and baaaaaaaaa along with her obvious incorrect statements.
Besides anybody that disses St. Paul causes me to have a beef. If she goes into dissing the Virgin Mary territory then I’m bringing fire and brimestone.
“Women really want men who were more like their grandfather’s generation, except that they want them to accept and treat them as equals, not as children who they must protect and treat like property”
Guess what? The reason your grandfather acted like that was because he was empowered with the AUTHORITY over his wife.
ar10308 says: March 29, 2013 at 9:45 am
Guess what? The reason your grandfather acted like that was because he was empowered with the AUTHORITY over his wife.
which is partly because, back then, he was also legally responsible for her actions.
“I was saying that most women want a responsible man who wants a committed relationship and will honor his commitments”
You are a wretched liar. Watch what women do and ignore what they say. Their words are but chaff in the wind. Their actions show the truth of their hearts and they are slaves to their hearts which are decietful above all things. Eve is to be under the authority of Adam just as the Church is under the authority of Christ. Until you acknowledge such truth, you deny Scripture and God Himself while eating of the fruit of the tree that God said we shall not eat.
Solomon looked out over 1000 men and found but 1. He looked out over 1000 women and found none. Such is the state of humans today.
The Rationalization Hamster does not wave a checkered flag. A yellow one, maybe.
Women wanted help at home and to be treated equally. Men were still programmed to want things the way they were before the women’s movement. Men naturally became less interested in marriage as a result
Well then, let’s cure this “men help at home” problem so we can have a utopia
So does Ronnie win the Rationalization Hamster 500?
I’m fair certain you cannot hold a rational conversation with a woman like ronnie until you paint her back porch red. Which what she wants and why see runs on in such foolish manner
Any woman who thinks women are better suited for combat is beyond foolish. On my last military trip down range we frequently carried 150 pounds and more for 10+ miles up and down the mountains of a-stan. Most fit women don’t weigh that let alone have the strength/ stamina ratio to pull that off
But there are no shortages of gashes who think because their beta boyfriend won’t put her in her place, she can go toe to toe with jaun, skinnies, hajjis etc
@Ton – her idea of “combat” is doubtless kicking the local wimp around.
@ Northern, most Western White men won’t hit back. Real damn easy to beat down a White knight, beta, Christian chump etc when he refuses to hit women
@Ton – that was a point “GirlWritesWhat” made about women who rape men. The men – to a man – didn’t resist for fear of hurting their female assailant.
One of my troopers let his ex-wife beat the snot out of him because he refused to hit back or even restrain her. This was a tough kid, Ranger tab, trigger time in Iraq as a grunt, etc but to well indoctrinated in the ways of the beta to help himself. And too embarrassed to press charges
I’d beat my bottom dollar she knew it and that’s why she attacked. I’d also bet my bottom dollar she would not have pulled that stunt with me, but it does seem like once a quarter I am reminding some woman I hit back.
Ronnie: “I am just astonished and saddened at the angry, negative attitudes toward women on this board. I am sure that God and Christ would not see women this way. I implore you to go back to Scripture and pray that you may see women, including women who have children out of wedlock in a more positive light. Your hatred and villification of women will not get you into heaven. I don’t approve of everything some women OR men do but what you people are insinuating is just vile and untrue. You don’t hate the sinner you hate the sin. And besides, you don’t know why women end up the way they do. You would have to know their situation and walk a mile in their shoes. Just sayin’.”
There aren’t negative attitudes towards women. There are negative attitudes expressed against faulty women. Show me a repentant sinner, and I’ll show you a forgiving Christian. Show me a prideful and unrepentant sinner, I’ll show you a board full of people eager to humble them, for the sake of helping them see the way to repentance.
“Because 90% of men will nod their heads and baaaaaaaaa along with her obvious incorrect statements.”
And 98% of women.
Ronnie is a perfect example of why women as a group, at home and in public spaces, should read and self examine a whole lot more and talk a whole lot less.
I am just astonished and saddened at the angry, negative attitudes toward women on this board. I am sure that God and Christ would not see women this way.
Are you sure about that, Ronnie?
Pingback: Links and Comments #6 | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Why Write Child Of The Ghetto? Because They Still Exsist In Canada | What Is Up Canada 2
Protestants created that narrative for the same reason they created the Maria Monk narrative and other libels.
Pingback: Men Need Responsibility and Reward | Free Northerner
My word, I am astonished! It may be right to remember that we are all sinners, and praise God that Jesus has died and taken all our sin so that we may stand pure in the sight of God, ALL of us. A far more productive way to go forward on the single mother issue is to pray and love them. God will sort the rest. Pray for yourselves who support the above view that you have understanding and the right attitude in your hearts toward it. Single mothers need love and support.
I am a single mother who loves jesus and tries to live my life right with God. I recognise that elements leading toward my situation were my own sin which I recognised and sought forgiveness for and now “it is finished”. I don’t believe it is up to other men and women (who are all sinners) to cast judgement and come up with ways to make single mothers feel guilty; this is in no way a christian or helpful attitude. Love and support them. I would not sit here and produce a similar argument for a different sin in order to achieve whatever it is you wish to achieve with the above statement – Jesus is all over it and we have our commandment – love your neighbour. Leave the judgement of our hearts and sin (single mother or otherwise) to our Lord.
Anonymous
If Jesus has it covered then why are you so worried about being loved by other people. Love your neighbor and be hated by your neighbors for being a single mom. You are making a judgement on others making a judgement that you don’t like. If you are good with god you will go to heaven. That does not mean some chump is required to love you.
Cannot see how you love Christ and fail to capitalize His name, but let’s give you the benefit of the doubt on that one and for the sake of arugement agree you are right with the Almighty.
Why would I want a single mom and her thug spawn in my life. How would that possibly make my life better? Why would I place such a limit on producing and providing for children of my flesh and blood?
Short of God showing up in a burning bush and commanding a man to marry one, single moms are not good for men.
What I wonder is the point in being anonymous on the Net where everyone is anonymous. In fact on the net one can create any identity that one chooses, and be whatever one wants to be (as the old ad for the U.S. Army used to say). No one will judge you for it or doubt your bona fides. Yet Anonymous anonymously with a piece of Jesus-is-my-boyfriend Hamster-driven Rhetoric seeks that we do not judge her, a single mother – not that the essay is aimed at women like her but at the men of the cloth who enable the disaster which is single mother-hood – she hasn’t noticed, for in Hamster World nothing exists other than the Hamster-self. The logic of Anonymous seems to runs thus: We are all guilty; therefore we should not judge; therefore we should love and support Single-Mothers [insert the hate group of your choice]. What a noble sentiment, and largely indistinguishable from ‘man-up and marry those sluts’. I believe in tough love and thus I give that to single mothers, by exercising a Zero-tolerance policy towards them – even and especially for their preferred pump-and-dump.
A far more productive way to go forward on the single mother issue is to pray and love them. God will sort the rest. Pray for yourselves who support the above view that you have understanding and the right attitude in your hearts toward it. Single mothers need love and support.
No, single mothers are living the life of “not needing a man”. They don’t need his love, or his support. They just need other men to drain him of his tax money and reassign it to them.
If there is a god, he put single mothers on this earth to be used by the younger, less experienced brothers. They are here so you guys can build your confidence and get your sexual needs met, until you gain the skill and game to lock down a woman who is fit for marriage. No single mom is fit for marriage. They chose the role of “harlot”, and we need to respect and use them in the way they have chosen to be used. It is their calling and vocation.
Regards, Boxer
Strong words, Boxer.
Anonymous says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:29 am
Choose to sin, choose to suffer, has NOTHING to do with your salvation later, but absolutely impacts life here and now! God accepts your repentant heart, BUT, that does not change the damage you did to yourself.
If Adolph Hitler had an epiphany and became a Zionist, what Jew in their right mind would vote for him to be the next Prime Minister of Israel???????
Undeniable Truths of the Manosphere:
1. Any blog comment by a single mom replying to a manosphere post must contain in some form “Judge not lest ye be judged” with the misconstrued context of “you have no right to judge me because you’re just as sinful as I am”.
2. Any married female blogger blogging in or around the manosphere is married to an alpha to whom she is strongly sexually attracted.
I recognised and sought forgiveness for and now “it is finished”
No….it is not finished. Your kids have a whole life to live with two separate households in the best case, and an absent father in the worst. Sure, it is finished as far as your choice and your situation with God. I take you at your word.
But this dilemma is the same one surrounding divorce. We gag speaking against something someone has yet to do because it offends those who done done it.
Pingback: Book Review: Federal Husband by Doug Wilson at | Faith and Heritage
This is a dangerous post. Men in the ‘church’ are sending messages DEFENDING the way their leaders teach. They protect the source of their own destruction.
Pingback: The birds and the bees and accidentally finding oneself pregnant. | Sunshine Mary
I was kicked out of church. I guess they sure showed me eh?
Why is it that a man’s genitals are the only catalyst to the transformation of whether a woman is seen as ‘good’ or ‘evil’?
You say this: Yet Christian men and Christian leaders can’t bring themselves to criticize women for the rampant and very open flaunting of biblical teaching on marriage and sexual morality by women.
Excuse me, last I looked, wasn’t Jesus the head of your Church? When did your ‘leader’ and when did ‘men’ own my life?
This is exactly why I am no longer a Christian. What you are suggesting is BULLYING, and what you are saying is not to be ‘afraid’ of being seen as a bully? You know why? Because what you are suggesting is totally wrong.
You are NOT gods, remember that.
Women will stand up and FIGHT back because we know we aren’t ‘fighting’ a deity. We’re fighting an ideology. It’s one that is oppresive, mysogynistic and keeps women as second class.
And I am NOT afraid of you!
Pingback: Brilliant advertising. | Dalrock
Pingback: Women’s morphing need for male investment. | Dalrock
I think you forgot to mention the problem that men are having with pornography. When woman can never “measure up” because they are being judged and thought of as inadequate the breakdown begins. You failed to include some very important subject matter…or is this all about women sinning again? Read the staggering statistics on pornography addiction and how Jesus said it is adultery to look at another women with lust. Your article has holes in it…and so does the responses of some of the males here.
Raechel – I don’t think he forgot anything. An article about general female forms of sin doesn’t have to also point out man’s failure as well – particularly since there’s already plenty of places where men’s shortcomings are outlined in excruciating detail.
Good Post!
Once in Church, that had about 70 % women, when the subject came up of David & Bathsheeba, i condemned Bathsheeba for her in her sin. The women were a bit shocked, & they asked what point that i was trying to make. I said she was just as bad as David because she was not innocent. In every case i read, everybody puts full blame on David.
She did not cry rape, & she also hid it from her husband Uriah The Hittite.
Also would a woman bathe in the nude in her backyard? If most wouldn’t do it these days, they would not do it back in those days.
Pingback: Divorce is Good for Women and Families | The Reinvention of Man
@Elspeth Re: explaining female projection. I really mean explaining to men the fact of you and SSM agreeing that “in love with” is the same as “sexual attraction”. Obviously you don’t need that explained to you, since you said “Amen!” heartily already.
Hence, as I said, *because* women orgasm easier in committed relationships with in-love males, women erroneously assume that the fact that a man’s willingness to commit depends on his perception of his enjoyment of sex.
oops wrong thread
What bunch of Christ-less, Pharisaical bull crap.
C is surely a Sadducee or Essene.
Why were the called “Sadducees?” Well, they didn’t believe in the resurrection, so they were SAD, YOU SEE.
(ducks quickly under his desk)
Pingback: Off to the races… | Dalrock
From the single, no children, male perspective – even being nice to a single mother is a minefield. Twice I have hung out with (maybe you can call it “dated”) single mothers and asked for nothing in return (no, not even sex). I helped with her child(ren), bought her/them things, took her/them places. Just a good time out, some family type fun. (Single moms don’t have the time or resources to date often without the child(ren) present.) In both instances the women got angry when the relationship wasn’t going further, faster. They said I was leading them on, and the child(ren) were getting used to me being around and would be disappointed. One of them had a threatening ex, which is a whole ‘nother issue…
Pingback: Repackaging feminism as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock
Pingback: The Church Man | The Reinvention of Man
Dalrock, you write:
“Calling out women on the other hand is extremely difficult. It (on the surface) goes against our instinct to protect women, and it makes you feel like a bully. Plus, when you call out men they tend to own up to what you are calling them out on. When you call out women you are off for a day at the races.”
This is a common theme of yours – that men need to call out women – usually you make the point in a context of how modern feminism seems to be at odds with the Christian understanding of Biblical marriage that you endorse.
I’m not a party to the Christian groups that must endure this conflict – but I believe in pluralism and I think it’s important that we find ways to allow traditional groups to thrive and flourish. In a context over an overwhelming secular culture making so many inroads against traditional sub-cultures – how do you propose men within these sub-cultures call women out?
Another part you write:
“Yet Christian men and Christian leaders can’t bring themselves to criticize women for the rampant and very open flaunting of biblical teaching on marriage and sexual morality by women. This cowardly silence is not only sinful but immensely harmful to men, women, and children.”
My question here is a bit rhetorical – but … this too is a point you make often – that Christian churches routinely bend to what you take to be the flaunting of biblical teaching.
If this is so – don’t you think that the pressure on church leaders to sustain UMC status contribute to the widespread willingness to compromise with the superculture this way?
Brother in this instance you have listed women and men who are to far right and meanwhile you teeter on the edge of tp far left. Heres the deal you have hit on the truth that others failed to go into as iam. Asing that statement on the information you supplied. We all know pregnancies dont just happen. It tales two. Also education is a factor. Because whatever you grew up around you tend to gravitate toward. Income could play a factor as far as she has none and he has some however even uber rich or comfortable mem and women divorce and have children out of wedlock. The socioeconomics of it all takes a back seat to the fact we have chosen for theost part to raise our children in godless or partly godless homes. No fasting or praying or Bible reading can be found or heard. Yes there are also exceptiins to this rule such as men and women who are raised in multiple wife house holds to one woman house holds where she doesnt sit and eat until after he does. The point is there is no happy medium with people any more. As a result the masses have seen only these two examples andd said nope not for me. So no praying no Bible reading no standard by which we are to measure our future spouse and co parent and no direction and guidance to wait on God to bring him or her when we are ready not when we are lonely. I agree yes women are as stated in the Bible the weaker sex as far as when a man tells us what we want to hear whether rich or poor we are hooked. Women are by no means stupid or sheep either. But here again different backgrounds produce different desires that women have in mind for their significant other. Then as you mentioned there are women who say they are going to forgo all the drama and just get pregnant whether a man is present or not (I.e. sperm banks) and raise their child alone. And the theres the all important human factor. All of the stars could align with. Christian back ground a solid education even I you did drop out you can still jave a good head on your shoulders but your very much flesh and subject to weakness when you have submitted yourself to enough of praying and Bible reading or you refuse to hearken to said praying and Bible reading. Im typing all of this to state that there are more points of view than you listed or were listed by you. Sin is to blame whether it comes in a male or female form. You have to take each case as a case by case basis. One blanket answer is sin. However each dynamic is different. Was she young and ignorant and he older and seductive or vice versa.
did she just want one thing?
Our society has definite flaws that all started with our denying the Lord who bought us. We need to get back to acknowledging Jesus christ in all we do with prayer and Bible reading and such columns like this will not be necessary.
Pingback: He left out harlots. | Dalrock
Donalgraeme,
“Of course, what really should happen is that these single moms put their kids up for adoption (no lack of willing parents right now) and enter a convent for 20+ years, and only return to the world after they have hopefully repaired their broken minds and souls.”
Whoa, thanks for cutting through all the nonsense and getting right down to the heart of the matter!
To all those sort-of taking Northern Observer’s side in that particular dispute: once upon a time, women lived in dread of accidentally getting pregnant….
Days of Broken Arrows:
“. I did and lived to regret it”
Oh come on man! You can’t toss out a teaser like that and expect to not be hounded for the full story! Change the name, file off the serial numbers, as needed–but please please give us the gist of it! There is nothing like Real Life Experiences to convince the sceptical.
LisainVermont says:
March 15, 2013 at 6:59 pm
“There is only one cure for this scourge: Celibacy for all—men and women—until marriage. Men of this board it starts with YOU. You can’t change the world but you can impact change by refusing to sleep with these would-be baby mammas and by training your sons to do the same.”
Incorrect. Aside from the fact (described aptly just below your post) that women are the gatekeepers of sex, not men, there is this: Marriage is gone in the West for now. (Version 2.0 is marriage only in name, not in substance, not even close.) So, men should be aware that there is NO marriage to “wait for”. If they choose celibacy (with or without porn/masturbation), and/or the egg donor/gestational surrogate route with NO wife, IMO that’s their business. Likewise, if they accept that the marriage outlet for sex is gone, and sadly act upon that (with noncohabitating, nonfecund “relationships”) as their best choice for a fundamental need, that IMO is their choice as well. Just as no one could reasonably shame a man for not attending college in a region and time in which there were none, so the same now applies to shaming a man who does not marry before having sex (or children, if without sex)..
Pingback: Taken 3 And The Idiot Father « Calculated Bravery
Every man on here who claims to be a Christian……………………………..I urge you to read your bibles and pray that God give you the heart that he has. All this shaming, anger, judging is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught and not at all they way God has asked us to treat each other. Judging all women and all single mothers so negatively does not demonstrate the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control that is the fruit of the spirit we have. I sense some serious bitterness from many of the men on this forum which is only natural living on earth but i urge you to go to God about your feelings and read his word and not listen to this crap and hate speech being pandered as truth. Many single moms are good godly women and labeling them as whores and the likes is just ignorant. Many men are at fault in many of these situations ad well as women being at fault but pointing blame, or deflecting blame to the “evil” women wont make things better for anyone. It actuality, it makes the men on this forum seem like sad hurt pre teens who haven’t dealt their issues. Treating a human being like trash because of what you perceive to be the truth is the weakest thing any man could do. Obviously noone is perfect, but niether sex is perfect or blameless and blaming single mom’s on their poor choices while ignoring the choices of the man makes me question the choices and mindset of anyone on here. it takes two to make a baby if parents decide to have a baby, and then the father runs out….. how is that the womens fault? because she couldnt read the mind of the child father to be? because she coudnt tell the future? How is that logical or sound doctrine for anyone to hold true too? In any case if a man run out on the women, and the women is raising her kid alone, and doing it well— she is a hero. kids are not meant to be raised alone. so kudos to whoever takes that on but more so if they expected to not be doing it alone and their trust was betrayed as it soo often is by immature men who think the grass is greener. Stop judging start loving. help single parents and mentor their children for the glory of God and the future success of our country. and continue to teach and preach the utmost benefits and beauty of a fully intact family. that is was God wants. not this hate that most of you are spreading. This is disgusting.
Why should men “man up” and take under his wing a woman with no sense of morality? women who bed-hop constantly and recklessly, sleep around and end up having multiple children from different men….now that is a sin.
2 Years ago i nearly fell into a trap set by a single mother. In my minds eye she was beautiful, even better how much i had in common with her was beyond belief, i throught we where a match made by god. Then as im about to get her phone number she tells me she has got two kids. (i was 33 and she was almost 25) she had never been married.
That was the end of the topic, conversation and any association i had with her for me. I later learnt that she had a very dark and shady past. Including Class A Drug habits, chain-smoking, Theft and Dishonesty,Multiple Tattoos over her body, Secretively with-holding details about where she works and what she does for a job, Alcoholism, Mental Health Issues and a habit of seeking jailbirds, criminals and gang-bangers (Nazi skinheads included) as Boyfriends, many of whom violently beat her up and treated her like trash.
It was a friend who introduced me to her and attempted to set me up with her (formally as i had twice met her very briefly some years and 30 miles previously – she followed me up to the town i am now living in). It was other friends who told me the cold hard truth about her. Now im happy to know that this “soul-mate” of mine is not worth wasting my time, energy, sanity and safety on.
Wow. I literally am totally left breathless and in shock. That a Christian brother could spew vitriol like this is utterly astounding. Your statement regarding women leaving marriages to steal the most precious ‘commodity’ from the marriage, children, is mind-boggling. This statement alone reveals such a twisted, blatant anti-female bias that it actually denigrates the totality of your post. Have you actually spent time in women’s shelters, or courtrooms, or police stations? Because if you haven’t, then quite frankly, you have nothing to say on this subject. Do you know ANY statistical information gleaned from scientific research conducted over the course of many years by various educational institutes (Christian and otherwise). If you have a bone to pick with women, by all means, pick away, but at least be factual and real, not emotional and irrational.
Have you ever considered there is a reason that women file for divorce? The general consensus is that women are fed up. Fed up with doing everything–cleaning the house, taking care of children, planning everything, having to be the perfect sexual partner, pay the bills, and work outside the home. And no, these are not made up examples to drive a point home. The vast majority of the women that I have known and know, and have read about, etc care deeply for their husbands, are trying to do the right thing, and just cannot take anymore. Or, another big one is the man having an affair on his wife. Did you happen to do any research on a case by case basis of the root cause of each divorce initiated by women? And then there is the vastly pervasive reality of abuse. Physical, sexual, emotional, spiritual, and financial. 1 in 4 girls are sexually assaulted (I actually think the number is higher); of that number 70% are assaulted by their Dads. Why wouldn’t a woman leave a man like that?? These numbers account strictly for reported incidents as well, btw, which means the actual number is probably astronomical.
Now, I will say this: I am in complete agreement with you regarding the blatant decision to have children out of wedlock as sinful, but let’s be honest, it takes two to tango, honey. This is a sin that sits squarely at the feet of both parties, apart from the presence of rape. The point,however, is this: if you are seeing a single Mum then you are (likely) seeing a person who has chosen to take responsibility instead of flaking out, which at the very least is commendable. And if that person is seeking to make things right, and is living her life to please the Lord, who on this earth are you or anyone of us to cast a stone?
I agree, fornication is sin,no matter who you are, male or female. Females are not inherently sinless. But some of things you have stated are simply exaggerations to garner support, and this is not right.
” 1 in 4 girls are sexually assaulted (I actually think the number is higher)”
This is flatly wrong and has been soundly debunked. Even the Obama administration says it’s “only” 1 in 5, and that too has been soundly debunked.
This:
“of that number 70% are assaulted by their Dads”
is so preposterous I have to assume you made it up. It comports with no study I have ever seen or even heard of. Even the shoddiest, most alarmist anti-male feminist “research” doesn’t claim anything like that.
Billy Jean
Single moms are not for marriage they are for booty calls and affairs sex on the side. Just the way it is. If you don’t like talk to your husband about it. The days of women good men bad are over for ever.
There needs to be an automatic redirect feature for these. The entire emotion-based narrative has been refuted elsewhere.
A safe place for those suffering the vapors?
I’m pretty sure it is Billie Jean holding the checkered flag in the pic at the top of the page.
Dear TFH:
Hard to believe that such a “red pill” tune was floating around on the radio, for so many years, without anyone seeming the wiser.
Listen to the lyrics here and you’ll get some hardcore truths.
Boxer
Billie Jean says:
April 22, 2015 at 7:11 pm
Wow. I literally am totally left breathless and in shock. That a Christian brother could spew vitriol like this is utterly astounding.
That is the usual reaction after one’s first view outside of the bubble. As a Christian sister, can you direct a reader exactly where in the essay is this vitriol of which you speak?
Your statement regarding women leaving marriages to steal the most precious ‘commodity’ from the marriage, children, is mind-boggling.
As to the why I guess one can always claim otherwise, but the fact that women are indeed leaving marriages and taking the most precious commodity from the marriage is indisputable. Equally indisputable is the fact that the state makes a bundle in the process of helping women destroy their families and fleece the very one’s they swore to remain faithful to – for better or worse, til death do they part.
This statement alone reveals such a twisted, blatant anti-female bias that it actually denigrates the totality of your post.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the truth described as anti female bias (usually described in much harsher terms).
Have you actually spent time in women’s shelters, or courtrooms, or police stations? Because if you haven’t, then quite frankly, you have nothing to say on this subject.
The woman in the video below has been in a few. She started one of the first women’s refuges in the modern world. You could learn a thing or two by listening to what she has to say about feminism, women’s shelters, and domestic violence:
For additional information (of which you are seriously lacking) google “Friend of the Court, enemy of the Family” and learn that women are given custody of children around 96% of the time, and how corrupt and biased the family court system really is.
Do you know ANY statistical information gleaned from scientific research conducted over the course of many years by various educational institutes (Christian and otherwise).
Here is a page with links to statistics for an assortment of topics (rape, domestic violence, ect…) htat refute your assumrtions:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/about/
Where are your stats?
If you have a bone to pick with women, by all means, pick away, but at least be factual and real, not emotional and irrational.
Pot meet kettle.
Food for though:
Billy Jean’s not my lover
She’s just a girl that claims that I am the one
But the kid is not my son
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10269122/Billie-Jean-King-win-in-Battle-of-the-Sexes-was-fixed.html
Blast it TFH, you beat me to it.
Pingback: Why won’t he hurry up and die already? | Dalrock
Here’s the thing…….many people….women and men are not raised in church with biblical knowledge. They are miseducated, mislead, brainwashed and mind controlled by media and the higher educational system. Satan has had a grand time as of late. Women, especially lower class women are taught sexuality is your main tool for success. Brained washed by Disney movies since we were old enough to watch tv, we think if we are pretty enough Prince Charming will come and rescue us from our horrible life. And the Prince of Darkness plays upon those illusions and offers a beautiful apple…love, acceptance, validation…..but these ungodly boys who don’t have the Holy Spirit don’t know how to really love, be strong, support and be a rock for their family and so they crumble and they run. And then these poor, lost girls keep looking for Prince Charming cause they don’t know about God and don’t know how Jesus can make them strong enough to raise Holy children. They don’t need judgment or condemnation. Yes, they need biblical teaching but they also need unconditional love…..And yes many women need repent for selfishness, sexual sin, idolatry and so on….as do many men……..but wait a minute aren’t we living in a fallen world? What did Jesus teach? Teach the truth……with LOVE. “If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Matthew 6:14-15 “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles.” Proverbs 24:17 “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.” Colossians 3:12-13 AND “Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.”
@Selina:
You do realize your entire comment is a rationalization for not taking responsibility for your actions? We’re quite aware of “How we got here”, but you seem to lack any understanding that taking responsibility for your Sins and Repentance is how one secures their Salvation.
Oh, and the “[t]hey don’t need judgment or condemnation” has extremely (and clearly) not worked. Though condemnation isn’t the place of the Church, but proper Judgment is the place of the Church. Evil is to be corrected, where possible, and ejected, where not possible. You can’t forgive someone that doesn’t come in repentance. Necessary pre-condition, that.
Also, Condemnation and Shame are the natural results of Sin. There is actually little reason to talk about them, seeing as they are self-evident. Unless you’re willfully blind.
[Note: I know she’s likely a drive-by, but you’ve still got to leave a “check” against this stuff if someone else reads this.]
Pingback: Dereliction of duty | Dalrock
I am a nearly 30 year old woman. I have a Master’s degree and four learning disabilities and two autoimmune diseases, one of which would make regular sexual behavior nigh on impossible (not that I’ve ever had it, because I’m also an Aspie.) Given that I live in a small town where everyone is pretty much related to me/I’ve known them for ages, there is one eligible bachelor in my age group at church. I’ve known him since we were three. He hasn’t stepped up to the plate and asked me out; I’m socially upside-down and backwards and couldn’t work up the courage if I tried. I know that getting a sperm donor is the wrong thing to do; I’ve been Lutheran since I was born. But what am I to do? Wait ten years for adoption to maybe work out? I made the decision this week that if things don’t improve in the next year for me, I’m going the donor route and I’ll admit to my sin when I commit it and own up to it, and that will be that. I’ll raise the kid in the church as I was, and when he/she asks, I’ll admit that I sinned but that I love them and wouldn’t change what I’d done for the world. I’ve had to do things myself my whole life; my father is present but not the best example. I’ve seen too much of what men do to women in my family; I don’t want the same for my child.
So you’re going to deliberately bring a child into this world and deprive that kid of any relationship with a loving father? What kind of love is that?
Bec Le Koshak says:
December 23, 2015 at 1:51 pm
I’ve seen too much of what men do to women in my family
If I were you I’d be more concerned what growing up without a father will do to the child then with what you think a man will do.
https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/
@ANO:
Most of me wants to think the comment isn’t real, but part of me has a bad feeling it is. She can claim whatever she likes, but her Vanity is her God and nothing stands in the way of that.
I have plenty of love to give; would it be any different if I adopted by myself? And to JDG, the men in my family are arrogant, lazy buggers who don’t lift a finger to help with housework or anything else. My father has been a source of income and that’s about it. My mother always says she raised us three girls by herself
.
And to Looking Glass, I have self-esteem issues, mostly because of my learning disabilities and illnesses, and I am not vain. I have regularly been told by my extended family on both sides that I am not worth anything and it’s taken me years to work beyond that and begin to see my own value.
I have plenty of love to give; would it be any different if I adopted by myself?
The first thing to acknowledge is that it isn’t about you – it’s about the child and what’s best for them. And a primary need children have is for both their parents. As such, its selfish to deliberately bring a child into this world and deprive it of one of its parents because “I have so much love to give.” No “amount” of love can substitute for a father.
Would it make a difference if you adopt? Absolutely – you’d take in a child that has neither mother nor father and be their parental figure.
I’d suggest considering foster care. This’ll expose you to the responsibilities of caring for children and you’ll get a sense of the challenges involved. If the fit is right, you may be able to adopt the child.
@ Bec Le Koshak
There are single mothers who bring children in the world because they can’t be bothered to think what kind of father will my children have with this man. This kind of self-centered neglect is disgusting and is all too common today and they are a cancer in Western culture.
Then there are single working women, MGTOWs seeking surrogacy and homosexuals who intentionally bring children into the world without the benefit of a mother and a father and that is on another depth of evil. Do you hear me? That would make you worse than a ghetto queen. How dare you place your emotional needs ahead of your own would-be children. For you to consider doing this and say, “I’ll admit that I sinned but that I love them and wouldn’t change what I’d done for the world” tells me you may call yourself Lutheran, but you don’t know Jesus.
One thing you have made clear is that this is all about you. Repent before it’s too late. Don’t do this to another generation of innocent children.
Men aren’t the only ones to blame here.
First of all, women don’t just file for, but are morally responsible for more divorces than men are, thereby making themselves single mothers. Furthermore, many women who are single mothers become such because they are immature and have one-night-stands, get pregnant, but don’t get married, and thus are as much to blame as the men are in those situations.
Which segues into my second point: women have free-wills of their own, and need to stop abusing it; a big problem is that women are not held accountable enough when they do. They get away with too much crap in many other aspects of life, too. Although Christian men do need to stand up and challenge this gynocracy of a society America has become, it is not our duty to exercise their free-will and self control for them. Nor is it our job to protect them from their own self-destructive behavior (at least not any more so than for other men). Women need to step up themselves and perform their rightful role in the preservation of society.
Men do cause a lot of things that are wrong with our society and need to be called out on it – and they do get called out on it. Just about all you see or hear with regards to gender issues in modern evangelical Christianity (and in media) are things like what men owe women, what we need to start doing and/or put a stop to, how men need to be aggressive in protecting women, etc.. But I think we’re beating a dead horse here with all of these “man up” messages and sermons. It’s high time we start examining both sides of the coin equally. At the very least, that will enable us to accurately determine where men really are falling short on their responsibilities, and how much we actually do need to step up our game.
Single mothers are single for various reasons. Point blank. Sometimes it is the mans fault. Deadbeat dads are a real thing, you know. But other times, it’s the womans fault. It depends on the individual situation. The problem with this article is the same problem that many Christians have with various aspects of their lives: they refuse to acknowledge that there’s more than one way of looking at things and not every situation can be resolved by one single blanket answer and approach. Another thing is that you cannot control women (or men for that matter), but according to the way you interpret your Bible you think it is your god given right to control them, and you’ll use New Testament scripture to do so and then get upset when women let you know they don’t like being treated like property. Oh how that must drive you insane! hahaha. Not all Christian men think like this, i know, but this issue of single parenting is not a one size fits all.
@Benjamin Forbes:
False equivalency, shaming language, no understanding of the Bible and outright heresy. *Yawn* You don’t even have the skills of a proper troll.
Benjamin,
I used to buy that “deadbeat dads” were the main problem. Someone keeps picking those dads to pair with. You should look more into that part of the problem.
You will never fix a stray cat population by fixing the males. You only fix it by fixing the females.
a last time I checked it takes two to tango and you make your bed you sleep in it. If you had a child on your time and not his you need to find a man with a kid of his own and blend or find a guy who that that doesn’t bother. But don’t for one second talk about my Christian duty and how I should step up and raise someone else’s child…let me go get laid and raise my child
Pingback: No Prescriptions | The Rational Male
Pingback: No Prescriptions – PushUP24
If that’s new age Christianity, I’d rather embrace Satanism.
At least they’re honest.