When I posted the link yesterday to the NY Post article about the 300 sandwiches I didn’t include much explanation. The subtext most who read that article will miss is that when the author describes her boyfriend waking up and asking why she hasn’t made him a sandwich yet she is bragging. The article isn’t about a woman slavishly making sandwiches out of fear she won’t get a marriage proposal. She is bragging about how much fun it is to be with her boyfriend and how much she enjoys making sandwiches for him. Don’t picture her waking up each morning dreading her boyfriend asking why she hasn’t made him a sandwich yet; picture her waking up each morning and staying in bed in anticipation of her boyfriend waking up so the delightful game can begin all over again.
The first key to understanding how she can possibly be bragging is recognizing the lie of feminism when it comes to marriage (and other relationships). If feminism made women happy, we’d have a world of delighted women. It doesn’t, and we don’t.
The second key to this is understanding the proper delivery of the punchline. When I was first (formally) learning about Game I struggled to believe that women would actually respond positively to many of the examples offered. What I had to do was imagine a line not as I would assume an evil mean misogynistic gamer to deliver it, and not as my more beta self would deliver it. I started to imagine how my player roommate in college would deliver these lines. If he said it it would be funny. It wouldn’t come off as mean, it would come off as loving. This doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t also mean the embedded request, but that the delivery of the message would almost certainly be enjoyable to the woman.
Game in this sense is very much like humor. If you hadn’t ever heard a particular style of humor and simply read a transcript of someone telling jokes, it very likely wouldn’t be funny. Verbal and written communication are very different, and much can be lost in the translation going either direction. If you’ve never witnessed a couple where the man was playfully teasing his wife (or girlfriend) and she was clearly loving it, it is very difficult to imagine such a thing. However, if you have witnessed this, imagine the husband of that couple delivering lines of Game that have you stumped. Don’t worry about keeping the exact wording, because spoken language isn’t like that. Imagine how this man would say the same thing you just read, only playful, fun, and loving.
Slight changes to wording can at times help a great deal, but understand that this has more to do with personal style than anything. The exchange I quoted is brilliant relationship game. I used the same line on my wife yesterday evening and she loved it, and she is the one who originally found the article. For me the key to delivering a line like this is to add the word “woman”. If I were saying the line in the same context (my wife writing about us waking up and us having the exchange), it would probably go more like:
Each morning, he would ask, “How long you have been awake woman?”
“About 15 minutes,” I’d reply.
“You’ve been up for 15 minutes and you haven’t made me a sandwich?”
I use “woman” all the time when being playful, and it works wonders. Its usefulness comes from the fact it is uncharacteristic from a serious conversation. If you’re on good terms with your boss, I can see this being the equivalent of inserting “dude” or “bro” in a sarcastic comment meant as a joke. It absolutely is all about the delivery.
It’s also a good reminder of what the manosphere has been saying for years: feminists have no sense of humor.
Yep. Running down this rabbit trail just a little further, it’s amazing how resentful some men are that they “have to” game women. Like it’s a terrible thing or something. What they call terrible should really be called fun, but I think they’re just doing it wrong….or not doing it at all.
It’s a surprisingly common reaction, though. Even Roosh, in his own way, has fallen prey to this mindset, though I think for different reasons than most other guys.
What I wonder, though, is whether she enjoys the game for its own sake, or whether just because she has her eye on the prize, securing more permanent commitment from him…
Women love to rub each other’s noses in it. It’s a show for the other jealous harpies and he is a prop in her show.
yes! Da proper delivery is ESSEINSTAINLZ!
Each morning, GBFM would ask, “How long u been awakezlzo womanlzlzozoz?”
“About 15 minutes,” I’d reply.
“15 min? wtf? no cockas 4u if no sandwhisnews zlzlzlzozo”
Exactly what I was thinking, Lena. 🙂
I’m reminded of an old Archie comic. Betty opens a jar. She then gets an idea. She closes the jar, then asks Archie, who has not seen this for help opening it. He opens it, flexes his bicep and gets a kiss from Betty, who then winks at the reader. It’s nice the other person gets to feel special in some way. The man in question profusely praised the first sandwich he got from her, so when she makes him a sandwich she gets to feel special and appreciated.
Lighten up, heheh:
http://www.today.com/video/today/53111834/#53111834
Interesting that all of the empowered womynz of the internet default to a presumption of dread,..hmm
it’s amazing how resentful some men are that they “have to” game women. Like it’s a terrible thing or something.
It’s just like wymyn who are resentful about wearing make-up or otherwise trying to look good. Or about making sammiches… For one reason or another, we’ve created a society with a lot of people who don’t give much of a damn about doing nice things for other people. Selfishness is on the rise.
Or, maybe, was on the rise, and this story chronicles part of the backlash. That’s what the optimist in me would like to believe.
Women love to rub each other’s noses in it. It’s a show for the other jealous harpies and he is a prop in her show.
Well yes, she is bragging since she probably knows there are plenty of women in her circle still looking for Mr. Right. She is celebrating that she is no longer a part of that group. Whether or not it’s a concious desire to make other women jealous is another question.
There are a lot of other things at play here, though. This seems like a career move as much as anything else. I wouldn’t be at all shocked if she and this dude don’t have a cookbook and Food Network Show at some point.
Interesting that all of the empowered womynz of the internet default to a presumption of dread,..hmm
Anything that implies -even jokingly- that a woman needs to bring something besides her vagina to the table is interpreted as dreadful behavior by the man, even when it’s clear that the woman is happy.
This ties in w/ so many of your posts. Having a committed man is -validation- for the woman making sandwiches. And I think Lena is right, she is (gently) taunting the other women out there who don’t have this validation.
What’s so telling is the author is explaining exactly how they to can obtain this validation…yet they refuse! Not just validation, but satisfaction from serving someone beyond yourself, and the affection and affirmation that comes from it.
Yes, feminism, a curse from the fall, truly twists women into such a way that they refuse to be happy or content…all based on principle. Satan is a liar who prowls like a lion to destroy. It’s sad.
@Elspeth
Absolutely. Note that she purchased a domain name before starting the blog, and that she is a writer for the Post. But the career angle only works if she has something the public wants, even if she doesn’t understand exactly why all of this is working.
I don’t see that she is trying to make other women jealous. I just think that they ARE jealous. And ultimately, they aren’t jealous specifically that they don’t have HER MAN in their life. This really has nothing to do with him and how he talks to her or treats her. They are jealous instead for two reasons:
#1) make me a sammich girl is very physically attractive (and they aren’t)
#2) because she IS attractive, her boyfriend or fiance or whatever he is (to her) is living with her (at the very least saving her many living expenses that she would be paying if she lived on her own, if not out-right paying for all her living expenses) and is contemplating getting married to her which is what she wants (what pretty much all women want, but many can’t get because they aren’t as pretty as sammich girl)
I think this is more about looks than anything else. It isn’t about how he is treating her. Its because she’s very pretty and feminists aren’t. If a woman was attractive, she wouldn’t need feminism.
The problem I have is that in order to get along with women today you MUST play games. You can call it “Game” and speak of your prowess at it but in reality it’s still just a game. In order for a woman to respect you you have to treat her with disrespect (in a joking way). In order for her to be nice to you you have to be mean to her (but in a funny way). Why does it have to be so complicated? It’s like in order to get a glass of water out of a faucet you have to first fill the sink with water, then put the glass in standing upright, then you have to fill the sink with sand until the water lever rises to fill the glass. All I want is a glass of water without all the games. If I do something nice for you I’m not expecting you to immediately turn around and do something nice in return, but if I’m nice to you for days, weeks, months, years I would expect at some point if you cared about me at all (and if not why the heck did you marry me?) you would at least be nice to me occasionally. Nope, not gonna happen. I haven’t been mean enough to you, haven’t dissed or negged you enough, haven’t treated you subserviently enough. I’m not looking for a servant or someone to mentally and emotionally abuse, even in jest. That’s not the kind of relationship I’m looking for. And if that’s all that women are looking for then I am destined to be alone and would prefer it that way.
And as Dalrock has said, words on a page can not adequately express emotion so my words may sound as a person who is bitter, who is resentful for not having skill at manipulating women to get what I want, but that is not the case. I just see all the effort people put into building relationships, each pretending to be what they are not, that leads only to frustration and disappointment. I accept that this is the way it is and recognize that by choosing to be a nice guy and not pretending to be something I’m not that I have virtually no chance of finding a woman who will respect me and be nice to me. It is what it is. But with all the unhappy and lonely people in the world it’s just sad.
IBB,
I think you give women the benefit of the doubt too much. You seem to think that men and women are the same. Just because you do not active (or passively) make people jealous, or this is not your main MO and realize that it is not the MO of most men does not mean that women think and respond in the same way.
There is a reason why a lot of people on this forum think you are either a woman (which i thought at first) or a white knight.
I used the word “son” or “kid” playfully in the same way men use “woman.” There are times when I have used this and it sounded as it was intended, as playful, and there were times I delivered it wrong and it came off as condescending. It’s all about delivery and context, just like a comedian. Sure there are people with no sense of humor but there are also those with intent who just aren’t using it properly.
It’s awesome that she enjoys making sandwiches. Let’s just hope she’ll say yes after he gains 300 lbs, yeah? 🙂
I don’t see that she is trying to make other women jealous. I just think that they ARE jealous. And ultimately, they aren’t jealous specifically that they don’t have HER MAN in their life. This really has nothing to do with him and how he talks to her or treats her.
I was responding to others who said that she was trying to rub other women’s nose in it. I don’t think she woke and said, “Let me make all the other women jealous.” I don’t think it’s conscious, but I do think it’s bragging. And no, it’s not about her man at all. It’s about the fact that she has one.
But still, Lena has a point. we women can easily deceive ourselves. I took a minute to ask my own husband: “Do you mind that I brag about you so much on my blog?” He said it’s fine so long as I don’t resort to being so obnoxious in real life, which isn’t necessary because his awesomeness is obvious. But I was concerned, so I asked. It is my sincere desire to inspire wives to view and respond to their own husband’s differently, but my delivery can be interpreted either way. I’m willing to give this woman the benefit of the doubt because as Dalrock and I discussed, this was a career move for her as well.
(what pretty much all women want, but many can’t get because they aren’t as pretty as sammich girl)
I think this is more about looks than anything else. It isn’t about how he is treating her. Its because she’s very pretty and feminists aren’t. If a woman was attractive, she wouldn’t need feminism.
Yes, this woman is pretty. And it is easier for pretty women to land a husband, but I see women who are far less attractive than she get married every year. Some of them I wonder how on earth they managed it.
I guess it’s because they were willing to make a sandwich.
What, you mean an online crusade of militant feminists hasn’t organized to petition this guy’s employer to fire him for “misogyny”?
Give it time.
Same here. Just the other day, I came into my office tired and with a headache, and there were two women here. I was annoyed about some things and made some darkly funny comments about people we all know, then sat down to do some work. After a while I realized that they just would not leave me alone. They kept coming to ask me things that could have waited, gigglingly apologizing all over themselves each time for disturbing me.
Because I really didn’t feel well, it didn’t occur to me to be anything but annoyed, but hours later I realized they were kinda tingling. There’s no romance there; they’re older married women, but they can still be turned on. Had I been feeling better and been polite, complimented them on something, and kept my comments to myself, they probably would have left me alone.
On the subject of teasing specifically, it’s strange that, even after I’d had a couple relationships and seen how much fun teasing a woman could be for both of us, I didn’t make the connection that new women coming into my life would like it too. I think there’s an assumption that goes something like, “Well, she’s sleeping with me, so she likes me enough that she’ll put up with my teasing and learn how much fun it is, but I couldn’t have gotten away with that on day one.” Now I know better: teasing pays off almost anytime, unless a woman simply has no sense of humor at all, and then she’s best avoided anyway.
Dalrock wrote:
I have been thinking about this same idea lately in terms of biblical submission. When we talk about it, we tend to make it seem like this horrible, miserable thing that must be tolerated with gritted teeth, with our husbands one step away from ordering us to rob a bank, but in truth, most of the time submission is fun. When I used the phrase “bossed around” in the last thread, I was talking about something playful and lighthearted, not something petty and tyrannical. I think that’s how the authoress of this post might possibly have felt about her boyfriend’s make-me-a-sandwich routine, though I couldn’t say for sure.
I wrote a post a while back on fitness testing (sh-t testing) and in the threads, we were all cluck-clucking over the Badness of Women and What-To-Do-ing, and Keoni Galt basically disagreed and said that passing fitness tests in a marriage that is generally properly ordered should be lighthearted and fun and not so serious as we were making it out to be.He wrote:
I wasn’t sure I agreed with him, but I do think he points out something important: we take a lot of this stuff and make it No Fun when in fact it can be lots of fun. Calling your wife “woman” doesn’t mean you are really a misogynistic prick, it’s more like playful teasing. I do the same with my husband if he asks me to get him something; I’ll respond with a laughing “Yes, Your Highness” and a curtsy. It’s not meant sarcastically and doesn’t mean I’m a doormat. It means marriage can actually be fun sometimes and not just a hellish drudgery.
@James Wolfe (emphasis mine)
Feminism hasn’t just confused women, it has confused men too. What he is doing in that example is neither mean nor disrespectful. It is loving.
Where I agree is that the husband’s Game shouldn’t be the foundation of the marriage. But if you love your wife (and you should), why wouldn’t you want to make it fun for her to be your wife? Why wouldn’t you want to make her feel loved?
James, I feel exactly the same way, and I can’t shake that feeling even though I KNOW that this is not the way things work in the Real World. I have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory time and time and time again because I would not play women’s games. Now, my life story is extremely peculiar, and involves, in sum, my mother taking action to self-ostracize our family from 3 social groups/cultures from the time I was 5 until 18, with my father just along for the ride, so my default setting is omega. There are many women that you seek out there, but they probably aren’t lookers and/or they have been with their current beaus since high school or early college.
One way to address your needs is a) be excellent at something, which requires a dedication of time and effort few know how to make anymore and b) look at your family narrative. When did your grandfather meet his wife? When did you father meet your mother? how about your siblings? You are probably 80% programmed genetically and socially to follow in the same path.
It is also important to understand that persistence pays off. Nearly every old movie, where everlasting love is sealed with a chaste kiss, has the female lead straight out say NO to the male lead but he does not give up, and often grabs her arm or prevents her from walking away. If you can’t communicate your passion to her, you don’t have a chance. If a woman can’t sense that you are struggling to hold back the wild stallions of passion in your interaction with her, she will never consent to unbridle hers.
RPP,
I don’t know where you could have gotten that idea. I have gone on the record to repeatedly say that I do not believe that women are moral agents. Does that sound like someone who thinks that men and women are the same? More to the point, does that sound to you like someone who is a White Knight?
I agree with Elspeth that she is bragging. I don’t think she is doing that to make other women feel jealous. I am saying that they ARE jealous. They took one look at her picture at the NYPost (a picture that would never have been taken for an article that would never heve been written had she not been so pretty) and were instantly jealous of her, but they manifest that jealousy in some inane screed directed towards HIM. I might be giving sammich girl some beneit of the doubt. I am giving the feminists NO benefit of any doubt. In my mind their is NO DOUBT what they are doing or why they are doing it.
The comments on the article remind me of this paper: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41675382
[D: Hilarious. I didn’t know the Onion wrote academic papers.]
Elspeth,
Not trying to pedistal you here but you are doing so much more than that , perhaps unconsciously.
When you brag about your husband in the way you do it, you are not only inspiring wives to view their husbands differently but you are inspiring unmarried women to view men differently. You are taking power AWAY from feminism. That is what I admire most about you.
No one’s suggesting that you pretend to be someone you’re not. I’d say the guy who never speaks harshly to a woman, who is always careful not to say anything that might offend her, who makes sure to remember her birthday better than his own, is the one who is pretending — even if he’s a genuinely nice guy. No nice guy is that nice, which is why women — perhaps correctly — tend to see constant nice-guy-ness as manipulation.
Doesn’t your real self ever want to tease a woman? Isn’t there a part of you that wants to make her blush and then punch your shoulder? Don’t you wish you could be honest with a woman about your intentions without running them through an appropriateness filter first? Doesn’t your real self want to grab her once in a while and say, “Gimme some sugar, baby”?
I’m far more my real self since learning about Game and giving myself permission to stop treating women with kid gloves. Maybe my examples aren’t you; maybe you’re not the teasing type. But there are probably other ways that you’re holding back your real self in order to be nice. Stop it and see what happens.
If you have any little sisters, how do you talk to them, especially if they’re being vain or silly? Try treating other women that way.
@Will
I really dislike the perspective that doing good can’t be personally rewarding without being suspect.
You shall not muzzle the ox as it treads out the sammiches, Will.
@James Wolfe
It was never any different, James. Getting along has always been about getting along. I know: Crazy talk!
Based on the title of the post, I thought you were going to be talking about something else entirely.
When I hear someone say they like something (chocolate, or whatever) better than sex I always say “you’re doing something wrong.”
Surprisingly, yes, it could. I’m not saying that’s true in your case, but I’ve seen the logic go like this: women are not moral agents, therefore they aren’t responsible for their own actions, therefore their actions must be someone else’s (men’s) fault, therefore they need White Knights to defend them from accusations and protect them from these insidious influences.
If that’s not how you see it, at what point in that chain of logic do you diverge? Who is responsible for the actions of someone with no moral agency?
Cail,
I’ll answer your questions shortly. I need to think very carefully how I respond to make sure I communicate what I’m saying and why I am saying it.
@James Wolfe —
I hear you. I feel much the same way.
From birth I was raised to desire are relationship with an equal. I was taught to shun and ridicule “male chauvinist pig” behavior. I was was trained to restrain and apologize for my natural masculine tendencies. I dumped a girl that was head over heals to me because I felt like I was “taking advantage of her.” And when I did get married, the church had me all geared up to “Fireproof” her when the honeymoon ended.
Ugh. What a mess.
When you get down to it, I have been programmed to believe that… if I am acting assertively and dominantly towards my wife/girlfriend… then it cannot be “true love.” In fact… I was taught that this romantic notion could only be legitimately fulfilled if it “just happened” without any tricks or effort or management.
IBB,
This inst about rather or not woman are moral agents (I believe they are but they are poor at it, or rather, they will be held accountable to God for their own actions one day).
Here is the white knight angle. I think it is both that she is making people jealous (active/passive/bragging) and the audience is jealous. When you write that the audience is jealous (I would tend to agree with this assessment) you are also dismissive of the author making the audience jealous (rather she does it actively or passively) and hence, a sly way of making it seem that women’s nature are better than what they really are.
It is a way of giving women a free pass. Ignoring/glossing over their nature, hence my statement of you giving women the benefit of the doubt, which the conclusion of that is white knightery.
Dalorck,
I was wondering if you had anything interesting to say about the relationship of George Zimmerman and his soon to be ex-wife who was apparently on the Today show being cagey about whether or not she thought he was innocent.
On the one she obviously wants to get the best deal out of a divorce, but given the irrational hate and the extreme risk at being associated with him going forward it also seems like a bit of self preservation.
Some guy- wow, that story sounds familiar! Wonder how much damage the church has done in peoples’ lives teaching this nonsense.
When you brag about your husband in the way you do it, you are not only inspiring wives to view their husbands differently but you are inspiring unmarried women to view men differently. You are taking power AWAY from feminism. That is what I admire most about you.
Yes, indeed. It’s just too bad that Elspeth is one of only about a dozen women bloggers (I’m probably being generous with that number) who BRAG about their husbands in their blogs. Truth be told, before visiting the androsphere and becoming acquainted with the women who contribute to it on a regular basis, I had NEVER encountered a married woman blogger who had anything generally positive to say about her husband on line. Indeed, most of them do the opposite: there is nothing so negative about their husbands that they won’t gladly share, in graphic and profane detail, with millions of complete strangers, things they wouldn’t dare dream of ever saying to their husbands’ faces.
I was taught to shun and ridicule “male chauvinist pig” behavior. I was was trained to restrain and apologize for my natural masculine tendencies. I dumped a girl that was head over heals to me because I felt like I was “taking advantage of her.”
In other words, you were taught NOT to be your self? That sounds like hard work to me. How then does the practice of what many men call here *game* mean that it is now too much work to be in a relationship?
It would be so much more work for my husband to tip toe around his thoughts and suppress his feelings about what he really wants from me. That’s not who he is, and the freedom he enjoys to be himself while helping me be my best self increases the love rather than diminishing it.
@IBB said: I have gone on the record to repeatedly say that I do not believe that women are moral agents. …does that sound to you like someone who is a White Knight?
Yes.
If women have no moral agency, then they are incapable of making moral decisions. You can’t hold someone responsible for not doing something they are incapable of doing. So it is the responsibility of the MORAL person (the white-knight male) to step in and save the woman from her immoral behavior (which she isn’t responsible for, because she is incapable of moral decisions). Your premise is the foundation of the white-knight mindset.
This is exactly what churchians teach (ironically, while simultaneously teaching that women are the more angelic gender).
Women (as well as men) will be judged by God AS INDIVIDUALS at the white throne judgement and cast into the lake of fire (hell) AS INDIVIDUALS. If woman have no moral agency, then God would be wrong to judge them on their moral decisions. Yet, that is exactly what God does. And since we know God isn’t wrong, it’s logical to assume women do have the ability to make moral judgements.
Play with HER, and play WITH her.
Ironic that the same tenets of Game (C&F, Amused Mastery, Dread, etc.) that get PUAs run up the flagpole are the encouraged foundations of a healthy marriage.
If woman have no moral agency, then God would be wrong to judge them on their moral decisions. Yet, that is exactly what God does. And since we know God isn’t wrong, it’s logical to assume women do have the ability to make moral judgements.
Yes, exactly. I once again ask the question of Christians: if God and His Son do not believe that women are moral agents, would they have ever trusted ANY woman with ANY role or task of any level of importance to the sustenance and upholding of the faith? Would the Bible contain a single mention of any woman doing something at God’s direction if she had no moral agency? (Would Mary have been chosen as the mother of Jesus by virtue of her faith and purity if she was without moral agency? Would Jesus have told the adulterous woman on the verge of being stoned to “go forth and sin no more” if she lacked the moral agency to atone for her sins?)
Once again, if women appear to have no moral agency, it is because of male pedestalization of them (i.e., the first stage of white knighting), NOT because of their innate moral and psychological construction.
Dalrock,
I don’t want ot threadjack your forum. Please forgive me, I am just answering questions on this matter as they were asked directly of me.
Cail,
Not ALL women are this way but….
…women are not moral agents, therefore they aren’t responsible for their own actions, therfore they need men in positions of authority (their husband perhaps? their fathers if they have no husband?) to correct them for their behavior that while it may not necessarily be immoral, it most certainly is amoral. To me, moral agency separates the moral from the amoral (not the moral from the immoral.)
Men and women are not the same. Society may tolerate amoral behavior from both men and women but it generally only accepts that behavior from women. That is because we (in society) do not regard women are moral agents. I’ll give you an example.
If a woman takes taxpayer money in the form of federal aid (grants and the like) to attend a university of higher learning NOT to better herself or to increase her earning power, but instead to husband hunt and earn her MRS degree, that is a woman not acting as a moral agent. What she is doing is amoral (a perfectly rational decision to better her lifestyle at the expense of other women who would not or could not do this even if it means stealing from taxpayers and taking advantage of her intelligence and higher cognitive ability that got her the acceptance letter at that university.) Not to mention, that slot at that school could have gone to someone who wanted to use that education to benefit society, not just their own personal life through marriage. A man that acts in this manner (digging for gold among educated women whom he feels should support him while he sits at home) would not only be shamed among women, he would be shamed among men. What he is doing may not be immoral (not harming anyone), but it is certainly amoral (not helping anyone other than himself.) And as men, we know this. We hold him to a higher level of accountability, to act in a moral manner.
Here is another one, maybe even more common that the amorality of the MRS degree. A woman graduates college and gets a professional job. At age 23, she is earning $38,000 a year, good entry-level salary in a tough economic environment for job seekers. After 5 years of working in an office and leaving jobs only to get another job with more pay and responsibility, her salary (at age 28) is now almost $60,000. Well done. She’s not married (yet) and she’s not hurting anyone. But is she doing okay? Well, she still lives in an apartment with a roommate, she still has all her student loan debt, she has no 401K, not IRA, no savings of anykind, she goes out for sushi lunch every day, leases a 5 Series BMW and is way over on the miles, she owes $29,000 on 6 different Visa Gold cards, and she has 150 pairs of shoes in her closet. This amoral behavior I’ve found to be par for the course among women who don’t have a man in their life to set up moral boundaries, no a boyfriend who is chasing her for sex doesn’t count. As a society, we tend to “expect” this type of behavior of women. She is not “looked down upon” for living this way becaue society understands that she is not a moral agent. She gets a house ONLY when she marries a man who will then give her one. A man (at age 28) with the same salary increases and student loan debt, by the time he is 28 would typically own his own condo/townhome, would have at least $10K in the 401K, might have some credit card debt (but it would be 4 figures, not five) because he would rarely eat out at work, would won 2 pairs of shoes, and might still be driving the same crappy paid-off-car he’s had since high school. He knows what is expected of him. Would soceity tolerate him living the way she does? Yes. Would society accept that behavior and not be judgemental of him? No. He hold him to a higher level of accountability because he is supposed to act morally.
Sean Hannity went on the record to “shame” a 38-year-old-woman whom he found out was complaining that her $42,000 weekly alimony check that she got from her frivorced husband wasn’t enough to live on and keep the lifestyle that she was accustomed to in Manhattan. I wish I could find the link but I can’t. Sean said (and I quote) “…I think this girl’s father needs to have a little talk with her.” Sean was right and he caught hell for what he said. He caught hell from the White Knights and the feminists. And yet I’ve seen people on this blog (and similar blogs in the manosphere) refer to Sean Hannity as a White Knight.
I could go on and on describing where your logic diverges from mine, but I think you get the point.
Ultimately, it is the individual who is entirely responsible for their actions. That is why we incarcerated (and will eventually put to death) one Jodi Arias. But remember, we have to discriminate amoral behavior from immoral behavior. Jodi acted immorally and will face the ultimate punishment. Suzy-Q dating Joe Blow carpenter (who really loves her) her 5 years at state university (because she likes that he takes her out every weekend on his own hard-earned-dime) and then promptly dumps him the day of her college commencement because he is a simple-guy and she wants to trade-up to an educated man that could make more money, that is a rational decision that is absent of morality (given Joe’s feelings.) SuzyQ is acting in an amoral manner, and soceity expects this of women. A man does this, and he would receive a shit-storm of criticism, and not just from White Knights, Manginas, and feminists.
The entirety of the paper I linked above can be read here (depending on one’s mood): http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HN16VCoI6KMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&ots=HAqt27_L8W&sig=6SjbzZTdw4n8zdfhqB4WAXOFTKo
Suzy-Q dating Joe Blow carpenter (who really loves her) her 5 years at state university (because she likes that he takes her out every weekend on his own hard-earned-dime) and then promptly dumps him the day of her college commencement because he is a simple-guy and she wants to trade-up to an educated man that could make more money, that is a rational decision that is absent of morality (given Joe’s feelings.) SuzyQ is acting in an amoral manner, and soceity expects this of women.
The fact that society expects Princess Suzy Q to act in this way does NOT mean that she has no moral agency. It merely means that “society” (oh, how I HATE this meaningless, empty, abstract term with real passion!) has gotten into the habit of telling her that she does not have to exercise it, that she gets a pussy pass because she’s a special, delicate little snowflake.
While MOST women have, unfortunately, not only readily swallowed this moral and spiritual poison whole, but gobbled it up like a rare delicacy, there still exist women have rejected the idea that they are children in adult bodies. Maybe such exceptions are aberrations, but If women were biologically and psychologically incapable of moral agency, then NO such women would exist or ever have existed.
When you brag about your husband in the way you do it, you are not only inspiring wives to view their husbands differently but you are inspiring unmarried women to view men differently. You are taking power AWAY from feminism. That is what I admire most about you.
Thank you. That is my hope. I have a closing thought on this in response to the assertion that those of us who do this do it solely for the purposes of showing up other women.
One of my favorite women to converse with in the entire world (second only to my grandmother-in-law) is SAM’s brother’s wife. It is quite common for an exchange to occur in our conversations where she says something to the effect of, “One of the things I love about [Oldest Agent Man] is the way he….”
I don’t feel jealous at all, nor do I interpret that as her intent. I am genuinely happy for her that she respects and admires her husband after 24 years, especially since she married when she 17, was far too young to have any clue what she was getting into. That’s admirable!
She’s the only woman I encounter in real life who consistently has something good to say about her husband.
That the only other women I have encountered who do this consistently is on the Internet is a sad commentary on marriage and Christian marriage included.
But I will say this: If the cost of getting more women who claim to be Christians to submit to and respect their husbands is the possibile jealousy of a few miserable women, then I’ll take that risk so long as I know my motives are pure.
The article is about a woman who has been making the transformation expressing how happy she is. Its not bragging; she’s reveling! If you can’t take delight in another’s innocent happiness, you’re a killjoy.
The key quotation is this: “Though I still want to get engaged and get married and live happily ever after, I’ve also put less pressure on the race to the 300th sandwich and I’m enjoying the cooking experience with Eric.” He’s not only taught her to cook and enjoy her real role as a woman, but she’s learned to truly experience the here and now. My bet is he proposes before the 300th sandwich.
Um, no. You are being a bit too absolute here.
I hate to get all President Obama but “…let me be clear…” when I say that women are not moral agents, what I’m really saying is that most women (almost all) are not moral agents. You will find the diamond in the rough, the woman who chooses to make moral decisions not because she must but because she may. And in most cases, she is doing this because she has been guided by a man to make these correct decisions.
See?
As much as men need women (for love, for sex, for long life, etc) women need men (for moral direction.) Is it possible for men and women to get by without the other in their life and live a productive, healthy, Christian, moral life? Sure. Is it likely? Maybe not.
If women have moral agency why have all successful societies put such restrictions on women? & why have women gone so feral so fast since those restrictions have been lifted?
Abortion is the only proof you need to disprove female moral agency.
I shared the sandwich article with some women from work.
Those who I feel have a sense of themselves.
One early 30’s divorcee seemed to take great offence at the article.
Her initial response:
“Apparently she doesn’t notice that she is way hotter than him…she should sing him a verse of “if you like it, then you shoulda put a ring on it” and mosey on.”
Her next response:
“I agree that “food is love”, I get that, but FORCRYINGOUTLOUD please don’t perpetuate the stigma of a desperate 30 something female ‘earning her ring’…”
PURE GOLD!!!
I kind of expected an acidic response from her on this article. She didn’t disappoint.
I’ve been watching with some amusement as she plays out “Eat, Pray, Love” to a ‘T’ to earn her feminist merit badge.
If she is not careful, she will be another spinster.
Dalrock, the paper MarcusD linked to appears to have been written by this faculty member:
http://journalism.utexas.edu/faculty/robert-jensen
If only it was the Onion. Jensen likely has tenure…
If women cannot resist what society dictates, does not that imply they are deficient in moral agency?
It’s not about the sammiches a woman makes before she gets the ring, it’s about the quality, consistency and frequency of the sammiches after she gets the ring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader
The inner woman is strong in IBB. It’s like he has his own 300 pound hamster.
IBB said Um, no. You are being a bit too absolute here.
I hate to get all President Obama but “…let me be clear…” when I say that women are not moral agents, what I’m really saying is that most women (almost all) are not moral agents.
How convenient. Nice try at reframe, but sorry. Fail.
Ton, the question of female moral agency is not a binary, “yes or no” proposition. It is simply another example of the differences between women and men. They are more prone to certain corruptions than men — especially social or peer pressures. Groupthink is very potent in their world. Therefore, it makes good sense to help them avoid unnecessary temptation.
Women are characterized as a “weaker vessel” not a “defective vessel.” They are built to carry out different functions than men. Big surprise that they don’t function in exactly the same way as men?
Ton,
I’ve never said that a woman’s lack or moral agency is right or good. It just is. I don’t like that certain people look at moral issues (such as abortion) amorally, but there is nothing I can do force the amoral being to be moral.
There seems something off hearing bragging and Christian in same sentence. If Christians are to suppose to brag, that is news to me. How does “love does not boast” come into play? Maybe there is a better word than “brag” that we should be using.
All of this handwringing about women possessing moral agency is entertaining. Of course women have moral agency, why else would the Feminine Imperative go to such lengths to insaturate itself so thoroughly into traditional religious consciousness if not to modify moral expectations to make them better comply with its primacy. Why feminize the church if not to rewrite the rules to better fit feminine primacy and make men the ‘immoral’
culprits of their new religion and leave the feminine the blameless arbiters of their own morality?
Women are moral agents. Rational agents? That’s another matter,..
@DrTorch: “… a curse from the fall, truly twists women into such a way that they refuse to be happy or content…”
I’m genuinely curious: did “the fall” happen
a.) before Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and so she looked at the forbidden to see that it was pleasant to look at because she was already fallen?
b.) after Eve ate the forbidden fruit – that is, the eating / disobeying God caused the fall?
I think most folks agree that “b.)” is the correct answer. If b.) IS the answer, then we could rightly propose that Eve’s inability to be happy or content – before the fall – is what caused the fall. It is not correct to say that the fall caused Eve (and her daughters) to become unhappy and discontent. We need to acknowledge that the desire and ability to disobey God was built into Adam and Eve, it was their natural state of being. We know this because they exhibited both a desire and ability to disobey God prior to the fall. Therefore, we know that the fall is not what caused this innate desire and ability. DrTorch, I know you said feminism (a curse from the fall) is what causes women to be unhappy and discontent, not the fall, but I trust you get the point I am making here.
———
Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8); (however), Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7). (both NIV)
Satan pretends to be a roaring lion, but he is not. He will flee when we resist him. We need to not give powers to Satan that the Bible doesn’t give him. (Note in Job that he couldn’t touch Job without getting permission from God. And what could Job do to deflect Satan’s attacks, once God had given Satan permission to attack Job? This lesson has implications for our own daily struggles.)
———
@8to12: “… and cast into the lake of fire (hell) …”
For those who may not know, “… And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire …” Revelation 20:14 (KJV)
Hell = hades = greek word for “grave”. Death and the grave will be cast into the lake of fire – that fire that burns so completely that everything in it is destroyed. Death and the grave will be destroyed in the end times. Most of the words translated as “hell” in the New Testament are actually the Hebrew word “Gehenna”. Check that out in Wikipedia – Gehenna was a dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where at one point a fire burned that was never put out. It destroyed completely anything thrown into it. That is an image of what God will do to those who do not put their trust in him. Most of the New Testament verses that deal with the end times have the word “destruction” as the fate of those who do not put their trust in God. Can’t cite them all here due to being off topic and no space.
———
From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:48; NIV)
I think anyone is on fragile ground who presumes to say what God will hold any given individual
accountable for. God made man and women different. God says (in the Verse just quoted) that accountablity will vary, based on what a person has been given. We have no proof that God will not hold the genders accountable for different things. We do have evidence that might lend itself to thinking God WILL hold the genders accountable for different things Some early church fathers made the argument that women did not have souls, and so the judgement seat had no bearing on them. This is not a new line of thinking.
“Feminism hasn’t just confused women, it has confused men too.”
It gets back to the basic premise.
The curses we each got after the fall.
Wives will desire their husbands.
Men have to toil in the fields in order to eat.
Now while these are hard…these were imposed by God so if you follow them then you wouldn’t be considered a failure.
Feminism made it to where women should desire toiling and hate men…and men should desire women on top of the toiling. No wonder nobody is happy.
Rollo,
Well, Rollo, all of the following….
…is entirely rational given a woman’s lack of moral agency.
If you must win the game, and it is impossible to win the game according to the rules, then change the rules.
There seems something off hearing bragging and Christian in same sentence. If Christians are to suppose to brag, that is news to me. How does “love does not boast” come into play? Maybe there is a better word than “brag” that we should be using.
Yes, maybe “brag” is the wrong word. I have been inspired so I hope soon to post something that will elaborate my thoughts.
But I need clarification on something, Laura. Honest question: Is extolling the virtues of another person considered “bragging” in the same way as it would be if one were speaking of his or her self?
No, it is not. Like I said, just needs a better word. Praising? Its a fine balance. And what does the whole “love does not boast” line mean anyway?
Inspired! That is the word. You are inspired and you want all women to share in the happiness that you have.
Sadly Elspeth, all the feminist will probably think of your inspiration is “…oh sure, easy for you to find a devoted husband for you to submit to since you are beautiful, for the rest of us plain looking women, not so easy….”
But is that morality Rollo or immorality?
You’re position only makes sense if there is no absolute right and wrong
@Ton, lets put it this way, as a collective, and as indicated by its actions the Feminine Imperative operates on the assumption that women have the accountability of moral agency.
Women have a moral agency.
But they are restricted in society…because more times than not…they’ll choose an evil for the benefit of themselves over the common good for others.
And yes…NAWALT. But there are more Margaret Sangers and less Mother Teresas out there.
Correction: I was typing too quickly
I said: ” Most of the words translated as “hell” in the New Testament are actually the Hebrew word “Gehenna”. ”
I should have said: Jesus uses the term Gehenna in the New Testament, although the King James Version translates that word as “hell” .
Both men and women have moral agency, but the success rate in both cases is far from perfect. Persistent and dramatic failure on anyone’s part does not preclude agency.
IBB, thanks for the response. I’d answer with two things:
1. That many, maybe a very large majority, of women are making immoral choices today doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of making moral choices. If, as you say, some women are capable of making moral choices, then it follows that the others are capable of it too but aren’t doing so for various reasons. That would make them moral agents, but bad ones.
2. Some moral choices are easier to make than others, depending on the circumstances. The time for me to make a moral choice about my diet isn’t when I’m standing in the snack aisle seeing that there’s a sale on Doritos. I agree that the career girl you describe is making all sorts of terrible moral choices. But could she make good ones; could she stay independent through her 20s without getting on the carousel or becoming a consumerist wastrel? Yes, she could, because a few do. So she is a moral agent, but she’s very likely to make the wrong choices because living that way stacks the deck against her, because she’s not designed to be in charge of all the choices of her day-to-day life. She’s designed to use her moral agency to choose a husband (or religious vocation) and then to back up that choice with loyalty and support. When that’s what women used their moral agency for, as in my grandparents’ time and earlier, it worked pretty well.
To shift to an analogy involving men: If you take a bunch of young men and send them to a foreign land to kill and risk being killed, and give them a paycheck and send them into town for R&R, and there are prostitutes hanging out along the street offering their wares, an awful large percentage of those men will commit fornication or adultery at least once — a far higher percentage than would have considered it at home. Does that mean they had no moral agency, or they left it at home? No, it just means they failed because the temptations were so great that few could resist them. Women today are failing because, for them, being told over and over how strong and independent they are and being sent out in the world to make all their own choices about things like jobs and money with little guidance is the equivalent of sending a 20-year-old man past a row of $10 hookers with a hundred bucks in his pocket.
Bragging..
I think saying praises of another person is good. It is a good thing to be able to recognize the virtues in another and praise them. Because we give glory to God for that virtue. That’s not bragging.. I think bragging is when someone is proud and vain and speaking of oneself.
Cail Corishev, I agree absolutely with your point 2, you said it very well
Was anyone here raised by a feminist? Well, I was. Marriage, men and babies were NOT valued. When I told Mom -with much trepidation – that I was engaged, her reaction was Profound Disappointment. When I was pregnant (after marriage), I asked my sister to tell Mom because I knew that Mom would be Profoundly Disappointed. So, I think, this is the kind of attitude you are dealing with in many, many females.
They are not jealous that she had a man. They are Profoundly Disappointed in her for subjugating herself to one. Just my opinion.
Cail, I dig the stereo effect. Your response and mine have identical time stamps and say the very same thing. You used more words, though, so you win.
Cail,
Please go back and re-read what I posted. You missed my point entirely.
I made this critical distinction as to why women aren’t moral agents.
http://grammarist.com/usage/amoral-immoral/
You aren’t making this distinction.
@lgrobins & Elspeth
Bragging on someone else is called “praise”, and it’s very Christian. It can be perverted into bragging on oneself if the context is more about your choice than their actions, but there’s no problem with Christians praising their spouses.
Let another praise you, and not your own mouth ; A stranger, and not your own lips.
Proverbs 27:2
“I made this critical distinction as to why women aren’t moral agents.”
Wrong…They can be, but only to other woman.
Titus 2:3-5
Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
Women can behave with moral agency but moral agency is not normal for women. As long as moral agency fits with hypergamy and the noble quest for toasted ice fine. But let that “oppress” the feminine imperative and the child is aborted. “women should have a right to choose but I could never do that to my baby” In a sane society women are moral and virtuous and are seen as the definition of moral agency. In the feral world of the feminine imperative they have the church redo Christianity to churchianship to be seen and thought of as moral agents and any body that says otherwise will be dealt with by the government . As far as women see it that is good to go. If morality and chaste is something women think will bring them closer to toasted ice they are moral and chase.
@Jen: I can relate. My mother was originally “Profoundly Disappointed” in my profession (teaching) as she thought I could have done something better with my talents.
That is really not what I’m talking about when I say that women are not moral agents.
Let me simplify it:
Men who are married look at most of the important decisions they make in their lives as acting in a moral or immoral way. Their wives love their husbands all the more when they act in a moral manner. In someways, she takes pride that her husband cares enough to be moral.
Men who are not married look at most (albeit less than married men) of the important decisions they make in their lives as acting in a moral or immoral way. Society smiles or frowns upon unmarried men specifically when they choose to act morally or immorally.
Women who are married quite often defer to their husbands for their approval to make important decisions. This is because the woman has a hamster wheel. If she starts running on the wheel, spinning it faster and faster, she can almost justify any behavior (like needlessly spending that $350 on the bathing suit) if the end result gives her some kind of a gain. The fact that it may create an even greater loss is not important at that time. It is not a matter of right vs wrong. Right and wrogn are removed when you look at something amorally.
Women who are not married (who do not honor their father’s guidance) quite often live their lives for the day. What is important is what gives them happiness. Each decision to give them happiness is almost entirely amoral. It is rarely a matter of should I be doing this? It is instead, can I do this? If the answer is yes, she needn’t spend all that time on the hamster wheel rationalizing it. The decision is made. Cause and effect play no part in a life where everything is amoral.
In closing….
…when you are not a moral agent, you needn’t concern yourself with doing what is right. If you never did an immoral thing and yet, never did a moral thing, you are not a moral agent. Ayn Rand may have been brilliant and right about almost everything she said, but she was amoral. If a decision isn’t explicitly right vs wrong (do I steal from you because you have something I want? no because that is wrong) that doesn’t mean there isn’t some morality attached to your choices.
I’ve found the recent manospheran idea of “women have no moral agency” to be pretty fascinating. It might even be coming “full circle,” considering past argumentation surrounding classical antifeminism. Although Christians often fall prey to it, there is no real Scriptural justification for it… is it solely a reactionary response to bad choices by women?
Geneva 1599 Bible, Genesis 3:9-14:
“9 – But the Lord God called to the man, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 – Who said, I heard thy voice in the garden and was afraid: because I was naked, therefore I hid myself.
11 – And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 – Then the man said, The woman which thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 – [b]And the Lord God said to the woman[/b], Why hast thou done this? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 – [b]Then the Lord God said to the serpent[/b], …”
So, IBB and Ton, you can see from the very first book of the Bible that the lord confronted each of the perpetrators of the first sins recorded. Following this, each one received their own curse, as other people have noted. If women had no moral agency, then one should expect Adam to receive Eve’s share of the blame for his failure to control her.
It really is true that women make terrible choices in general, there’s no doubting that. I would plead for you to not go overboard and misrepresent our message from Christ.
IBB, I didn’t miss the point; I disagree. A moral agent is someone who has the capability of choosing between good and evil. He may choose evil most of the time, even all the time, but if he’s choosing it, he’s a moral agent. You can’t say women aren’t moral agents and then talk about the bad moral choices they make; that makes no sense. It doesn’t matter whether you think they’re acting immorally or amorally; if they’re choosing a path, they’re moral agents.
You admitted that you think some women are moral agents. So what’s wrong with the others? If they aren’t moral agents, then they’re simply animals responding to stimuli, with no twinges of conscience or guilt when they choose badly. Really?
Babies, the completely senile, and the badly retarded are not moral agents because they are incapable of seeing the difference between good and evil and choosing one over the other. It’s not that they choose the bad; it’s that they don’t know bad exists. That’s not the case with career girls and carousel riders.
Women are moral agents. Rational agents? That’s another matter,..
Correct.
Listing off examples of the immoral things women do and knowing as we do the manner in which they rationalize them, there should be zero question that this comment by Rollo is correct
Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. When she decided to commit adultery with her #1 student, that was a moral choice. She may have wrapped it up in a big ball of rationalizations like she did with Dagny’s hypergamy, but that doesn’t make it any less of a choice. She was morally wrong; only moral agents can choose the moral wrong (or right).
When you say “almost always” and “rarely,” you make it clear that they ARE capable of moral agency, but aren’t engaging it most of the time. That’s not the same thing as being incapable of it. My dog is not a moral agent. If someone bites her, she bites back; she can’t choose to turn the other cheek. She’s not immoral or amoral; she’s incapable of understanding morality at all. A woman can choose to be virtuous, even against great temptation. Even if 99.99% of them don’t, that doesn’t mean they can’t.
IBB:
So? I see no proof in your statements that precludes moral agency in women. Instead, I see several false (or at least dubious) assumptions followed by an odd philosophical conclusion, based mainly on popular trends.
At least from a Christian perspective, we are all (individually) responsible for repenting and accepting Christ—along with everything else that follows in daily life. Responsibility holds, as does morality; we can’t pass it off on another claiming a convenient lack of agency.
I really don’t know what you’re trying to define as a woman’s true nature. It’s foreign to me.
That is not how I look at moral agency. That is not what I am saying when I say women aren’t moral agents.
When I say that women aren’t moral agents, what I’m saying is that women do not look at all issues that men regards as right vs wrong in the same light. In these instances, there is no right or wrong, just can I or can’t I.
Amoral.
@ Cane Caldo:
This is a worldly couple; they’re already shacked up together; they don’t hold to a Christian concept of virtue, so why shouldn’t one be wary, at the very least, if not outright skeptical, that her motives for ‘doing good’ are not suspect? She already has him in her bed; she obviously wants to secure the relationship, make it more permanent, and even if she’s having fun doing so, hard to tell whether merely because she’s looking forward to that ‘big day’ (and knowing modern worldly women, that big day that ostensibly is ‘her day’ and will cost $10K plus, all for her, she’s likely to feel, given how the culture has made us treat weddings as being such), or whether in part, she loves showing off, just like an engaged woman showing off her giant rock, while the other hens coo, same as they do at a new mother’s newborn… Even the jealousy of the haters can no doubt be delicious…
I am skeptical that she’s truly altruistic in her motives, esp. given that she’s not going about it quietly, keeping it to herself, but sharing it with the planet via the article, and I don’t care whether you dislike the perspective. That’s your privilege, of course. And this is mine, to not care if you think I’m being unfair. Oh well!
@ IBB,
You make a fair point, within your own definition. I think your presentation of marriage is flawed, still. To say that men consciously make moral actions and women respond favorably to good is somewhat delusional. I will operate from the premise that an economic choice is a moral choice, and that everyone has that innate sense of right-or-wrong that the Bible describes.
In terms of the philosophic question, I think you can argue that even the worst woman has some flawed idea of good and evil. Truthfully, I think it largely falls to “if it feels good, it is good,” but she is still operating according to a standard. I think this idea of moral agency could go a lot further than this discussion, because of the current malaise of culture. A lot of what we are witnessing are the final stages of moral depravity, with the individual in such a deep state of repression and denial that the worst symptoms of sin become readily apparent.
Your posts have given me something fresh to think about, but I do think you can at the very least argue that men or women’s _rejection_ of the past Christian standard to be a moral choice. Within the old moral standard, it is evil, depraved, and this is something they aware of, but which they have come to reject through burning their conscience. That the modern degenerates strike so effectively at the old morality shows just how much they aware of what they threw away.
Rollo, I get what you are saying, however the FI operates under a whole lot of assumptions but that doesn’t make those assumptions reality.
I’ll concede it is more accurate to say women. have limited moral agency on par with a young child, but certain conclusions about women and moral agency are inescapable if you take a long view of history, what has and has not worked on a societal level regarding the status of women etc etc.
In the Old Testament, a woman’s vow to God was not considered valid unless her vow had the approval of her father or husband. That in no way speaks to women having full moral agency. Neither does the Bibical concept of women being the property of men
Cail
It is not nonsense. You are thinking like a man, right vs wrong. If you think like a woman (specifically, an atheist woman like Ayn Rand) it isn’t right vs wrong. It is merely can I or can’t I? I just got that credit card in the mail with a $9000 limit. I have a week of vacation in two weeks. Can I book a first class ticket to Barbados, rent a suite in a hotel on the beach, and f-ck all the natives stupid? Yes. Should I? No. But the “should I” part is not often addressed for women (particularly ones who do not have to defer to a man.)
@IBB: you’re using “moral agent” in a very strained way. You seem to think, basically, that the “moral” part here is an adjective describing what sort of an “agent” a woman is. If most/nearly all women regularly make poor moral decisions, that means they are not “moral” agents.
What a “moral agent” is, is a sentient being who has a will and makes choices that pertain to Right and Wrong. Are you a determinist? Do you believe that men have free will and women are automata who do not? If not, then you are committed to the belief that women are “moral agents”. Even uniformly poor moral decisions do not make one NOT a “moral agent”. Hitler or Caligula or Act Five Macbeth can get up every morning and crucify kittens without flinching at the thought, but every new kittie crucified by their command means the tyrant has made yet another (awful) exercise of his “moral agency”.
As for this “amoral” vs. “immoral” distinction you’re laboring to establish, it just won’t do. Ayn Rand could, for argument’s sake, even be WRONG about “almost everything she said”, but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t a “moral agent”. What a strange sort of robot she must be, to go on and on about free will and “The Virtue of Selfishness”, and yet have no consciousness of her own moral agency!
For a dictionary definition of “amoral”, the Oxford Concise American offers: “lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something: [example:] ‘an amoral attitude to sex.'”
While “lacking a moral sense” literally describes a cat’s behavior toward a mouse, “unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something” may well describe a great many people’s real attitudes and behavior, but does not thereby mean that they are not “moral agents”.
I think you keep trying to take the sense after the semicolon and imbue it with the sense before– change bad decisionmaking into lack of moral free will. And then you take this sort of Bimboification psychology and defend it as some sort of “just the facts, ma’am” common sense realism. But this does not do.
IBB: “When I say that women aren’t moral agents, what I’m saying is that women do not look at all issues that men regards as right vs wrong in the same light. In these instances, there is no right or wrong, just can I or can’t I.”
A Utilitarian, a Kantian, and a Confucian are going to look at right vs. wrong in very different lights, but it’s absurdly strained to make that out to mean that one or all of them therefore lack “moral agency”, which is what a “moral agent” possesses.
And you keep harping on this sub-Nietzschean formula about “can I or can’t I”. I’m no Ayn Randian, but even by the lights of something that harps itself under a title like “The Virtue of Selfishness”, this is a Straw Man conception. What Marquise de Merteuil-type woman really thinks in such stark terms? Well, they do exist, I grant you. But most often they have a host of self-exculpating rationalizations that put them in the “right”, and alas, trying to think yourself into being “in the right” is yet another (perverse) effect of being a moral agent. Your conception, in effect, turns all women into nine year-old versions of Lady Macbeth.
@Ton
On the issue of a woman’s vows in the OT, I believe you are referring to Numbers 30. Cane Caldo explained this in an excellent post a year ago. What the OT says is her vows aren’t binding if her husband or father negates them the same day he hears of it. But the woman’s vows are otherwise binding. She is responsible for keeping her vows, but if she accepts the authority of a man he can offer limited protection to her in the form of his veto power. As Cane explained:
I’m not sure what passage(s) you are referring to when you refer to the concept of women as property, so I won’t comment there.
Cail Corishev
Your comment at 6:54 about moral agency being the choice between the two moralities was interesting. From the comments and my own thoughts women have the moral agency of children. Moral agency is something a man has part of who he is as a man. Moral agency for a woman is unnatural learned behavior as agency in a child is learned. As a male child matures and becomes a man his learned agency becomes a part of his normal being. Where as agency in a woman is not apart of being a women it is always a conscious thought that requires supervision such as a father or husband or in the case of the feminine imperative the government. A child.
@Dalrock
Thanks for the recommendation!
@Greyghost
This is the feminist view, and an error. The lines of agency are split among masters and servants; not so much adult and child, or male and female; though each of those has their place within the master/servant paradigm.
James Wolfe wins this thread.
Women’s nature is so perverse and childish that that’s a key reason why their rights were restricted in better times past. Women are all about bullshit and that’s why this country has become a giant ponzi scheme in all aspects.
The whole OT and civilizations of the time regarded women as property, father’s had control of who they married, men had to be paid to take a woman as a wife, women had no legal say so in political arrangements, had to have sons to inherit land and the like. That is not a system of organization that speaks to woman having full moral agency.
I find it difficult to comprehend that Ann Rand found two men who would have sex with her
Women as 9 year old Lady McBeths seems about right. All the philosophical and theological hair splitting on the topic doesn’t stand up to real world observations regarding female behavior.
Fakeemail, given your derisive manner, I expect that women think poorly of you, too. You’re free to think as you will, but you sound just like a feminist—only in reverse. You express your opinion; I express mine.
Dalrock, this is the part that tripped me up. For a long time, I believed that my wife was offended by my natural male aggression, humor and passions. I accepted the false premise that she was fragile and cold; unable to accommodate my whole personality and nature. I didn’t even test the assumption, thanks to my own obsessive self-discipline and a ton of social conditioning.
I wasn’t doing it right.
Finally, I took off the blinders and started experimenting. She lit up like the fourth of July. I still haven’t found a masculine behavior that offends her. Not even a little.
Now, it is fun.
Keep spreading the good word.
Alan K says:
September 26, 2013 at 8:37 pm
Your comment essentially translates as “you can’t get laid.” This is called shaming language, and is so 90’s.
Sigh.
My cat does not have moral agency.
My cat does make choices – which means it does have a modicum of agency, just not “moral” agency.
For example, USUALLY it chooses to use its extraordinary faculties of agility to ***not*** scratch my hands when it plays with my shoelaces while I tie them. Yet on rare occasion it becomes so entranced in the game it forgets boundaries and scratches and I immediately correct it with a sharp “hey!” and pointed finger and it responds with body language that suggests a kind of cold-water-splash to reality that it understands it crossed a boundary that it otherwise has learned a rote respect for (a long way of saying that it gives me an “oh sh*t did I do that?!” look).
So my cat, a mammal, possessed of some manner of consciousness however weaker its spark than that of a human, can be said to have agency, because it makes choices and on some level, it understands its choices. But it has no ***moral*** agency. My cat is incapable of acting in a way that is moral, or not. People close to non-human mammals will notice other mammals DO have priorities that work themselves out in choices and animals’ relative level of intelligence demonstrates itself in their management of those choices. They are simply not human priorities.
If my cat ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil … my cat would remain in Eden.
You will notice if you review the text: Eve was lectured by the Lord, and banished.
… and even this is something that if I got Thomistic about I could argue the other way, that is: I could argue the other side and say for example that I notice that one cat will come to get me when the other cat gets itself in trouble. The other cat … not so much. I have a higher view of the cat who comes to get me, a much lower view of the cat who doesn’t give rip.
So verdict: cats – agency, just not “moral” agency.
Lets go up a number of notches …
My children absolutely have moral agency. Do they have the same level of moral agency I have, where I am trusted by all manner of people with all manner of things that assume of me a substantial well of integrity … of course not … they are children.
But moral agency? Of course. Just kids we’re talking about here, not even teenagers … and yes they have moral agency.
Seriously: does *any*single*person*on*this*thread*question*that?
And moreover: fostering and promoting and cultivating that moral agency is my God-given duty as a parent. Arguably it is my most important charge as a parent.
End Story. Period. End of debate.
And notice we didn’t even have to say whether my children are male or female? Their gender is utterly besides the point.
A Utilitarian, a Kantian, and a Confucian
…walk into Hertz. The counterman looks at them and shakes his head.
“Nope. Can’t help you, not here. This is a rental car agency….”
>> Even Roosh, in his own way, has fallen prey to this mindset, though I think for different reasons than most other guys
no – Roosh got BORED with it because he realized how predictable female humans are.
how many dozen times can you overcome “last minute resistance” getting the panties down-and-off, before you can no longer pretend that this snowflake is a special one? That you might as well have just used the previous vagina a few more times.
If women can’t be moral agents…then why are there female saints.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/female.php
A lot of their stories revolve around the fact they were either submissive wives (some of them to men who were very sinful) and/or devoted their life to God. In other words…they made a decision to be this way.
In fact some stories have it to where the women were set on their path of righteousness…they died for it.
Today it is much easier for the evil woman to be celebrated.
Anon71:
Shaming language? Funny.
A lot of talk about moral agency and amorality. My view is different because I live in Mexico. Politicians and others subject to corruption have a thing called impunity. It’s not just immorality. It is a slow and steady change in any person who faces no negative feedback for misconduct, in the case of Mexico, corruption.
The basic concept is criminals ALWAYS escalate their crimes until they are inevitably arrested. They may start out small, with a minor crime, such as shoplifting. They are successful, so they continue shoplifting.
Then, as they become accustomed to successful stealing, they began to believe there are no limits to their crimes. And, eventually also believe what they are doing isn’t really wrong, because nothing ever happens to them. Impunity has changed their whole attitude.
And, since people usually associate with people like themselves, they associate with other criminals. And, began to believe that what they are doing is merely what everyone else would do if only they were smart enough.
Politicians in Mexico suffer from impunity because they assume they will never be punished. Their political opponents suffer from it, because they assume if they win the election, they too will get away with it.
Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton suffered from impunity, because nothing happened to them when they screwed around. And, listening to them, they felt picked on, because they believe their sexual misbehavior is actually normal, that most men do the same thing. So, terrible husbands as they were, they push laws to protect women from most men, who are of course much worse then they are.
Women 150 years ago had moral agency. I have read diaries from ordinary married women from the pioneer days. There were direct and immediate consequences to misconduct by women, so they seldom engaged in serious misconduct. Period. They had very moral lives. They reported praying for moral guidance in all things.
In the 20th Century as penalties for female misconduct disappeared, and rewards for misconduct became common, more women engaged in misconduct. By now, the 21st Century most women believe their is no penalty no matter what they do.
That murderer, Arias, well into her trial, still believed no jury would convict her. That is a real bad case of impunity that failed. Why wouldn’t Arias think she’d walk? Mary Walker walked. Lorena became Feminist Woman of the year. There were other well publicized cases as well. Arias was so screwed up by impunity she could not tell the difference between her conduct and that of Walker and others. All the same to her. Kill a man is kill a man. What difference does it make exactly how or why?
Women in rural Mexico do not suffer from impunity.
Women under Sharia law do not suffer from impunity.
Both groups of women live much more moral lives than AW.
Bluedog (or is it, Moses the Lawgiver?),
Your daughter BlueDog, grows up, is not yet married, but moves out of your house. She’s buys a XJ8 Jaguar. She makes the first six or seven $895 monthly payments. She soon grows tired of this self-imposed nightmare because the car does not make her as happy as she was the day she bought it. She tries to sell it but she’s $20K upside down on the loan. What can’t she do? Sell it. What can she do? Welch on it, drive the car to the bank and turn in the keys.
That decision (your daughter’s strategic default) is an amoral one. That moral agency you cultivated in her as your God-given duty didn’t stop her from doing what she did, (something you and I both know that young men do but with much less frequency than women.)
End Story. Period. End of Debate.
Ton and Somesuch,
You are damn straight they do exist. Thank you Somesuch for granting me that. And thank you Ton for echoing what I was about to say.
This is the best post on Game I’ve ever read.
@Rollo:
“Women are moral agents. Rational agents? That’s another matter,..”
Agreed. Rollo and Rmax and others like you understand better than any white-knight/woman-excuser ever can.
You suggest that women can learn to be better, and that gives me hope that perhaps they can be taught to choose to.
Elspeth your praise of your husband shows deep admiration, respect and gratitude towards him.
You esteeming him shows honour and provides a wonderful example to other women of how to speak of their own husbands. Good for you.
If my husband and I were in this dialogue it might go a little like this:
Each morning, he would ask, “How long you have been awake woman?”
“About 15 minutes,” I’d reply.
“You’ve been up for 15 minutes and you haven’t made me a sandwich?”
“Eek no! But will you forgive me if I say I’ve prepared blueberry pancakes instead?!”
“Good girl, you can make the sandwich later. Now come here.”
@Hannah – well said….very well said. You have truly discovered “Shalom in the Home” !
Meta-view here:
The women who are most angry about this situation ACTUALLY KNOW that it is just game.
They are hiding the insane jealousy they have by posing as aggrieved feminists. I see nothing but sour grapes in their words.
Great commentators like Hannah, Ton, AR, & Greyghost, Boxer, suck me back into compulsively commenting on Dalrock
AR & Greyghost are one of the main reasons why I commenced commenting on here … Im not sure how Dalrock appreciates that fact lol
Unfortunately the christosphere, orthosphere & catholosphere has failed men
Dalrock’s inability to ban trolls like IBB, & the bullshit of reformed sluts like Sunshine Mary has pretty much destroyed their readers
Which is why I dont comment here any longer
It’s important to realise monogamy has always harmed & destroyed men
Men are biologically designed to impregnate multiple women
As a result men are turned into nothing more then a slave to privileged whores who call themselves wives
While dolts & retarded fucks like Rollo excuse women for their hypergamy & their bullshit morals
Game if it doesnt have mens rights at its core, a passion for mens rights, is of no use to men
Deep Peace indeed… Thanks and Shabbat Shalom 🙂
Anon 71
Your comment was a perfect example to me of what guidance and leadership does for agency.
The comments below the New York Post article beautifully demonstrate why the kind of men that women wish to marry will not put a ring on it. Sandwiches are not appealing to me, but in the post, apparently he equates sandwiches with sex as if we’re dealing with that sick “The Five Love Languages” book by one of the marriage destroyers Gary Chapman. The post is written by a woman. She does not write as someone that’s in misery. Regardless, the attitude of the ones making comments here explain so much about popular attitudes about marriage. A man would be insane to choose to marry the ones with such negative assumptions about men.
Was anyone here raised by a feminist?
Was anyone here NOT raised by a feminist? I’m not being facetious here, Jen. You were raised by a rabid feminist, one so extreme that she would deny herself the pleasure of grandchildren and a genetic legacy because of her beliefs.
But I know very few (none really) wives who are the mothers of many children or are homemakers whose mothers haven’t expressed some amount of disapproval of their choice at one point or another. Including mine.
Elspeth my mother was/is a homemaker and raised me as such. My father is the most anti-feminist person I’ve ever had contact with. We didn’t go to church because of my father’s conviction. Safe to say I was NOT raised in a feminist home!
I have never feared my parent’s disapproval for choices in line with being a keeper at home.
Something I am truly grateful for!
Women did not have full moral agency 150 years ago. They were sufficiently controlled 150 years ago. If women had full moral agency feminism would have worked and women would have behaved after legal ans social controls were lifted.
Ton
Right on the money. With women’s liberation we should be double wealthy. Any woman the spoke with high morals 150 years ago was on the same plain today as a woman getting a tramp stamp and breast implants. Both were/are still on the quest for toasted ice. The only difference is a sane society that worships god and a society in madness in pussy worship.
I have never feared my parent’s disapproval for choices in line with being a keeper at home.
Something I am truly grateful for!
You were very blessed Hannah. My father has always been very supportive of my being a homemaker. He is of the generation that believes a man’s home is his castle. My stepmother is tolerant, but always hoped I’d do “more.”
LiveFearless, indeed! I am always telling women to not get married to men. They must save themselves from the subjugation and torment of a man. All women spinsters and all men bachelors!
What marriage needs is moar feminism!
Why do people keep equating “moral agency” with “usually does the right thing”? Being a moral agent means you have the ability or faculty to choose the good, not that you always will, or even that you ever will. The choosing process and the influences that test our moral agency are different between men and women, but the meaning is the same.
I’m a moral agent when I help an old lady cross the street, and I’m still one if I sleep with my neighbor’s wife. A woman is a moral agent when she presents herself as a virgin to her husband on their wedding night or when she buys her 125th pair of shoes. Evil choices are still choices.
But now I think I’m repeating myself, so I guess I’ll stop there.
lol, since the subject of womens moral agency came up again
Ok, I’ll repeat myself one last time: that’s just not what the term means. It’s not up to you or me to define it; that’s already been done. Agency in this context means faculty or ability, regardless of whether it’s used for good or ill.
Now, if you want to say that women are less virtuous than men, that they have a stronger inclination to evil, or even that their moral agency is weaker, then we can talk about that and I might even be with you. Then we could also talk about why it seems to have increased in our day and how we can hold them responsible and get them to shape up. But before we can do any of that we have to agree that they have the agency to make moral choices. Otherwise they’re just robots carrying out programming in response to their environment, and you can’t blame a robot for its actions — you can only blame the Programmer.
Women have moral agency, they’re just bad at making choices because as Anon71 and others have said, there are no consequences for bad choices in the current sociatal climate.
I think IBB in his mangina white knight way is basically saying the same thing. Isn’t he that Liberty, Masculinity (etc) guy?
Women are moral agents. Rational agents? That’s another matter,..
The fact that someone is prone to rationalizing doesn’t mean they don’t comprehend the underlying morality.
Women that want to divorce often say “it’s OK if I get divorced, because God wants me to be haaaaaappy.” My pastor has given several sermons on this subject. He notes that often the first thing they have to do in marriage counseling is walk women back from this rationalization to reality. And when they do, they find that they understood all along that divorce was wrong, but they were trying to find some excuse to make it seem as if it was OK for that particular woman to do what she knew was wrong (pretty much the definition of rationalizing).
Men, on the other hand, tend to say “I know it’s wrong, but I’m going to do it anyway.” They seem to follow Luther’s admonition to “sin boldly.”
The fact that women have a greater tendency to rationalize doesn’t mean they don’t understand the underlying moral hazard or are unable to make moral judgements. It just means that they are more likely to cover their morally bad choices with a patina of excuses.
Both men and women are moral agents, and both men and women deliberately make bad moral choices. It may appear that women have less moral agency, because they have more of a tendency to rationalize away their choices, but that’s just appearance–not the underlying reality.
When I said a few days ago that women do not have moral agency… what I really mean is that the narratives that women, marriage counselors, and pastors make regarding women typically assume that women do not have it.
I find that it is impossible to pierce this narrative. Any attempt to do so triggers a subject change or a counterattack. If I actually get close to the mark, then I am courting nuclear level shaming.
What this means is… that the ideological environment that I find myself in does not allow me to treat women (and my wife especially) as an equal capable of compromising and reciprocating.
I think the irony here is that… when I was taught by our culture to suppress my “male chauvinist pig” tendencies, “man up and marry the slut”, and everything else… I was stongly influenced to not “date down” because that would be to “take advantage” of the girls that I would most likely be attractive to. So I would dump those girls in hopes of meeting my soul-mate/counterpart… and when I thought I had found the latter, I find out that this whole “equal relationship” thing is actually impossible on the basis of the reigning feminist ideology!
To top it off… *I* am the male chauvinist pig now because I expect to be able to treat with my wife on equal terms. How dare me!
Talk about bait and switch….
As far as Ayn Rand, she was one of the most preachy moralist persons that ever lived.
Did she live by conventional/traditional moral standards? Heck no, but the underlying theme of her books is the creation of a new moral standards. One based on property rights and the individual.
If she was alive today and found out copies of her books were being distributed for free over the internet, she’d be on her soapbox screaming that it’s morally wrong for others to be distributing her books, because she created them and thus only she has the right to determine how and when they should be distributed.
She would also be out front in fighting government attempts to redistribute wealth via taxation. Not because she was greedy, but because she believed it was a moral wrong for the government to take money from a productive citizen to support a non-productive citizen.
Ayn Rand was an atheist, but she was not amoral. She had a very definite sense of morality.
Men, on the other hand, tend to say “I know it’s wrong, but I’m going to do it anyway.” They seem to follow Luther’s admonition to “sin boldly.”
And if it is grave enough…it is known as a mortal sin.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm
Women do this too…but like you said they have a better agent to rationalize their excuses when they do it anyway. Whereas men make the decision and their hamster isn’t as good at rationalizing their behavior. But make no mistake…women will make the decision in their head and carry it out as much as a man does.
And IBB…I suggest you watch this video.
@Some Guy says: When I said a few days ago that women do not have moral agency… what I really mean is that the narratives that women, marriage counselors, and pastors make regarding women typically assume that women do not have it.
Modern Christianity teaches that women are the “weaker vessels” (and thus not responsible for their actions) while simultaneously teaching that women are men’s “better half” (better able to make moral judgements).
They can’t both be true, but that is exactly the way society is arranged.
@Elspeth – Good point! I don’t know if most men understand that many (maybe most) young women have to overcome not only societal but parental disapproval in order to marry young/have children/stay home.
@Feminist Hater – amend your statement slightly to “All women spinsters and all men GAY bachelors”, and you just might be a feminist.
I know the term Cial, I disagree that women can differentiate right from wrong to the same degree a mature man. Sort of like we punish children to a lesser degree as men because we as a society don’t believe children have the same capacity to determine right from wrong.
I’m not the greatest scholars on ancient thinking but my position seems to be the world wide norm until relatively recently
@Elspeth: Was anyone here NOT raised by a feminist?
My mother was born in 1918. She did not understand the word feminist. But, when I was a boy, she used to sigh, and say, “Son, it’s so hard to be a woman.” Like most small boys, I believed her.
Only when I became an adult did I understand she was a mentally disturbed person who told the most outrageous lies about her own children to attempt to control and punish them. The day of her funeral we met at her house, and shared the lies she had told about different siblings, for reasons understood only by herself.
For most of her life, she mostly laid around the house doing virtually nothing at all, but tell lies about her kids on the telephone to anyone who would listen.
@Ton says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:52 am
>>Women did not have full moral agency 150 years ago.
I have been wrong before and expect to be wrong again. But, my best guess is you have not read the diaries from that era, and are guessing, based on an opinion you wish to support.
@Cail
From one CC to another: I think you’re wasting your time.
I am going to post something here that probably should be on an older thread, but that thread is dead.
IBB was offended at the statement that one should not marry a child of an unmarried woman — because she will not know how to be married and how to be a wife. He thought it wasn’t fair.
Well, sometimes I think slowly. So, it just came over me what his problem is, and it is indeed a problem.
He imagines that he is a clever fellow, and unlike the other hundreds of millions of unmarried men in the world, he can sort out which women will make good wives, by whatever method he believes will work.
I do not remember if he has ever been married or divorced, but his attitude (ala Earl in his early days on this blog telling from his experience as a 30 year old virgin how we should be as married men) seems to correlate very closely with a man who has never married, and can only imagine what happens in marriage.
I have never known a man who married while not thinking he had met MS. Right, and expected to live in paradise for ever and ever, Amen.
Women will marry with the knowledge they are not marrying the right man, because the laws give them impunity if they make a serious mistake. Many a young woman has told her friends, if it doesn’t work out I know a good divorce lawyer.
So, IBB, and others who agree with him that fairness is an issue, and we must not prejudge anyone based on their status category of any kind, but look at the person herself:
If we have learned nothing else from this three generations of evil, man-destroying society, we have learned that men simply cannot EVER tell which woman will make a good wife. All men when they marry think they have married the right woman, even though 40% of all first marriages end up in divorce, and many more men live lives of total desperation so they do not lose everything.
IBB’s view of bastards as wives, is totally based on his bogus belief he can tell from knowing a woman, if she will be a good wife. Hahaha heeheehee hohoho.
That is why men who learned the hard way over the last 50 years have developed the best system to date. Statistical systems which measure certain issues in a woman’s life that link closely to bad marriages and divorce disasters. Child of unmarried or divorced mother: much higher divorce rate. Divorced or unmarried mother; much higher divorce rate. Women with large college debt, and no employability, especially anything even smelling of Woman’s Studies or other unemployable degree; much higher divorce rate. Women with any N count at all: much higher divorce rate.
Women with college degree in a usable field: Much lower divorce rate.
No statistical system will guarantee no divorce or marriage problems. But, over the years, the man’s personal guess as to the suitability of a specific woman has proved to be the worst system of all in selecting a wife.
The men who think THEY can do it, are typical of the male arrogance which has destroyed any attempt at a MRM. I describe it this way: “Unlike all other men, I am special and different.”
That view is pretty much the same view that makes the statistically undesirable women so dangerous. They know nothing about marriage, but imagine they do.
Anon71,
To your list of statistical indicators of increased divorce risk I would add women with “some college” (women who attended college but did not receive a bachelors degree). The NCFMR published data on this here.
rmax,
(shaking head in disbelief)
You are a piece of work, you know that?
Let me give you a hint, although I do not post at SSM’s and I’m not going to, I do know what a slut is and what a slut was. Mary isn’t and wasn’t. Now if you want to call me a “White Knight” for my remark correcting your (hopefully temporary) insanity, be my guest. But you sir are NOT doing the manosphere any good if you keep thinking this way. You hurt our cause sir, you are not helping it. Clearly you have NO IDEA what a slut truly is.
Mary hates feminism. We both know exactly how old she is, about how long she’s been married, and we can both do math. She was married much too young in life to be riding any cock carrosels, thats for damn sure.
That’s all I’m going to say about that.
As far as your labels of me are concerned, it appears you don’t know what a troll or a White Knight is either. I don’t believe that women are moral agents. Were they (at one time, a time long before feminism?) Possibly, depends if you believe women in the 19th century made choices based on what is wrong or right. But not now, not in the world in which you and I live. In today’s world, women need male headship over their decisions more than ever. They didn’t know what the rationalization hamster wheel was in 1880 but we sure do today. When I say that women are not moral agents I am not making an excuse for their amoral behavior because I am a WHite Knight. I am instead trying to SHAME women into looking at things the way men do, right vs wrong instead of can I or can’t I.
My comment is in the Patriarical sense, not the White Knight sense. Do we understand each other?
No I never said that. I am not all knowing or all seeing. I can’t see the future and don’t know for sure what women will make good wives vs bad wives based solely on their upbringing. I need more data points. And even if I had ALL he data points, I still wouldn’t know for sure.
For the record, I am married. I have been happily married for 11 years.
@Manlyman – by definition, if there are no consequences (and possibly even incentives) for “bad choices”, then they are not “bad choices” for that individual. You may deem the “bad choices” immoral, but that individual is acting rationally in their own self-interest, are they not? So, the Single Mom and Sperm Donor Dad are the most rational actors in our amoral society.
Cail Corishev said Why do people keep equating “moral agency” with “usually does the right thing”? Being a moral agent means you have the ability or faculty to choose the good, not that you always will, or even that you ever will. The choosing process and the influences that test our moral agency are different between men and women, but the meaning is the same.
Thank you, Cail! This sums up the point PERFECTLY for those who are still confused.
I wish someone had told me the stats before I married. No one said anything about the unmarried mom, the not being a virgin, the divorced grandma, and the not having a useful degree.
What gets me though was that the religious shepherd types happily edited out “love, honor, and obey” from her vows… and in one of the sermons (the opener) actually looked straight at me and cautioned me to not just lasciviously use my wife’s body to sate my burning desires. (Not the exact words, but something like that.)
What in the world?!
That last bit was my first clue that conservative religious people were perfectly happy to sell out on me… that it was all a sham when it came to protecting anything at all in my interests. It wasn’t until later that I realized the significance of the shell game that was done with the vows.
Exactly. Well said Jen.
Manlyman, are you getting it? Does this explaination of moral agency make sense to you? It better, because if you can’t get this part you really are never going to understand today’s women.
When I am at the wedding ceremony, I listen very closely to the vows. If I don’t hear “….for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health…” not necessarily in that order those three phrases, but all of them need to be there, or (IMHO) it isn’t a marriage.
As far as Ayn Rand, she was one of the most preachy moralist persons that ever lived.
Yes, indeed, and I’ve NEVER understood how the insipid Objectivist cult that sprang up around her ever took root. I do consider her two seminal works (The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) to be anarcho-capitalist classics, flawed as they might be in the execution of their concepts (especially Atlas). But for anyone to have conflated the power of Rand’s literary works, especially the characters contained in them, with the personality of the author herself is just plain bizarre. I can’t think of any antecedent or predecessor like it anywhere in literary history. A LOT of prominent and well-educated people who definitely should have known better got sucked in, often to their everlasting detriment.
@rmaxgenactivepua
Promise?
Just a few weeks ago you asked me to take you out of moderated status. Now you return the favor by using my blog to call bloggers on my blogroll sluts and retards, while complaining that I’m not strict enough in my moderation.
You object to my Christian world view? Then don’t read, and don’t comment. Problem solved.
How can an irrational person (female) be a moral agent?
When I am at the wedding ceremony, I listen very closely to the vows. If I don’t hear “….for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health…” not necessarily in that order those three phrases, but all of them need to be there, or (IMHO) it isn’t a marriage.
Quite honestly, it doesn’t really matter what wording is used in the wedding vows. No one, churchian or secular, takes them seriously anymore anyway. A preacher or JoP marrying a couple today might as well be reading the Hippocratic Oath, the Oath of Enlistment/Commissioning for Armed Forces of the United States, or a passage out of Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary* for all the attention anyone is paying.
(*How about this appropriate little truism from this font of wisdom: “Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.”)
Moral agency means you have the ability to see consequences and to make a choice.
One aspect that I haven’t seen discussed is that men’s and women’s morals may differ; if only in time projection of the consequences.
The apparent moral outcome of a specific decision may appear different to a man and to a woman. Women tend to look at the short term and self-centered consequences whereas men will often look at the longer term effects and effect on those surrounding him.
An example is the moral choice of frivorce. Fewer men frivorce because they can see the long term consequences 15 to 20 years down the road, including reduced wealth, long term damage to their children, lessened association with grandchildren etc. As such, men will sacrifice and stay in a quasi-unhappy marriage to maintain those long term benefits. That is a good moral choice for themselves and those around them. It is also a rational choice.
Women tend to frivorce because of ILYBINILWY, they feel they missed out on something, and based on some belief that there is a better life out there. They do it to find happiness and believe/rationalize that it will be better for everyone involved. They don’t look 5 years down the road to see where their actions may take them. They are caught up in their emotions and in the moment. They have still made a moral choice, and I would argue that it may be a good moral choice FROM THEIR VIEWPOINT (if you believe in solipsism and the feminine imperative), although I would disagree it is a good moral choice for society. They see their moral choice as leave and be happy (good), or stay and be miserable (evil).
With that said, I believe that women have moral agency, but their emotions control their choices, rather than rational thought, so their moral agency is not as valuable as a man’s.
I’ve never read dairies, I certainly would never read one written by woman. Seems utterly pointless to me given that women are specialist in self deception
I never realized before I got married just how much time an energy women spend on narrative control and spin doctoring.
It does to me.
When a couple decides that they are going to write their own vows that sounds all cute and all, and at first glace, seems harmless (even creative, SPECIAL even!) But if you really think about it for a moment, the main reason why they are writing their own vows is because they can’t say the traditional ones because those are promises they could never keep. The traditional vows are mostly restrictions that YOU (of your own free will) are imposing NOT on the person you are marrying, but on YOURSELF. So for people who are self-focsed, they MUST reinvent the wheel, because the wheel that was already created was done so with the intention of protecting the sacredness of the sacarment of marriage. That wheel is not about you.
Yeah, to me the wording matters. Damn straight.
I do. I don’t know about anyone else.
“I never realized before I got married just how much time an energy women spend on narrative control and spin doctoring.”
When you don’t have to work hard to make a living…you have a lot of free time to do that stuff.
“No one, churchian or secular, takes them seriously anymore anyway.”
God still does. Just because people change their minds about it doesn’t mean God has too.
@Some Guy
A more accurate (and troublesome) read is how effortless it is. This is true for men as well. What takes energy is avoiding rationalizing bad choices.
Someone sez:
No one, churchian or secular, takes them seriously anymore anyway.
To which IBB replies:
I do. I don’t know about anyone else.
With respect, brother, you are an outlier. The official culture and the opinions of most people consider marriage a quaint, silly, outdated and meaningless institution.
This is why I believe men and women of honor ought to simply marry one another without “official” sanction, since a marriage license is essentially a rubber stamp by a (paradoxically) anti-marriage society.
Call your family members and best friends for a discreet gathering (or, just as good, perform your own hermetic “self marriage” without witnesses), say the vows, and live as a married couple. Consulting with an attorney beforehand will probably be a good idea, but in many (if not most) areas this will free you from things like divorce courts and alimony, should things go wrong.
Your marriage will be as valid as any other, and more valid than most.
Regards, Boxer
Call your family members and best friends for a discreet gathering (or, just as good, perform your own hermetic “self marriage” without witnesses), say the vows, and live as a married couple.
This is what I meant to imply in my previous post. It is not that marriage vows don’t matter; they certainly do, especially in the eyes of God, as Earl and IBB both pointed out. That they matter is, however, a completely different point than the one I made that the clear majority of people today don’t take them seriously anymore or give them any more thought at the altar than they give to the expression “have a nice day” when they toss it at some random stranger.
To most married people today, especially married women, the marriage vows are merely a symbolic chant, a meaningless ritual that is merely a holdover tradition of the marriage ceremony – NOT a verbal expression of a permanent covenant made between husband and wife before God and man. Again, that does not make the vows any LESS of covenant before God; I merely restate the FACT that almost no one views them as such anymore – even those married in “Christian” (read: churchian) marriage ceremonies.
@rmax, ohh, better
bloggerscommenters than you have called the women in my family sluts.Pingback: The Evangelical Adoption Scam | Occam's Razor
Oh, for Pete’s sake. You know perfectly well that I didn’t do that intentionally, but rather by poorly wording my comment. But in any event:
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/pseudonyms-and-the-overton-window/#comment-15836
Cane – “On the subject of teasing specifically, it’s strange that, even after I’d had a couple relationships and seen how much fun teasing a woman could be for both of us, I didn’t make the connection that new women coming into my life would like it too. I think there’s an assumption that goes something like, “Well, she’s sleeping with me, so she likes me enough that she’ll put up with my teasing and learn how much fun it is, but I couldn’t have gotten away with that on day one.” Now I know better: teasing pays off almost anytime, unless a woman simply has no sense of humor at all, and then she’s best avoided anyway.”
Perhaps we are most naturally alpha when we are around 5-6. I remember distinctly running up and punching Nancy Johnson in grade one, BECAUSE I liked her! Of course she chased me all over the school yard while both of us laughed hysterically.
Sorry, Cale!
My Bad.
Hey Calrock!
Your favorite White Knight actor from Fireproof is at it again!
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/kirk-cameron-doc-unstoppable-grosses-2-million-one-050000749.html
I am almost certain we’ll have to see it at our church.
Yes Jen, what we need is moar feminism!
Hehe, Calrock! I’m storing that one for later.
just a typo…. 🙂
RMax – multiple partners is a biological advantage for men. Single partner is a biological advantage for children. It has been argued that this advantage is among the big three of why humans have come to dominate this planet.
Amen, DeNihilist. All the conjecture about men needing to procreate with many women sounds great to some men, but as one with several half-siblings, I can tell you it’s not an optimal situation for the children, or for the men either.
Even in the Bible, sactioned polygamy doesn’t look all that neat and pretty.
@rmax
I’ll buy the biological advantage for men…when they stop having sex for fun with girls and are impregnating them instead.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/if-it-isnt-fun-you-probably-arent-doing-it-right/#comment-94650
This post really hits home for me. I was definitely one of those men who ‘knew’ he had found someone with whom he could share a lifelong Christian marriage as I understood it from my upbringing from parents who were already safely adults by the time I was born in the summer of love (1968).
In hindsight it is easy to see the red flags that should have prompted me to choose a different path, but I’d second the notion that there simply is no foolproof way to properly vet a wife, especially in light of the lopsided advantages she has to force a do-over with less comparative damage to herself. Mine was indeed a life of quiet desperation as I tried unsuccessfully to tolerate what came to be intolerable.
I’d add that the pervasiveness of the advantage to women I mention above is such that the exact benefits of the ‘lopsidedness’ do not have to be articulated or illustrated (nor could they be thusly demostrated to them); they are a universal constant, like gravitational pull, working to their benefit. Conversely, the disadvantage to men seems so unbelievable that no one who has not been throught the wringer can really truly appreciate it.
I do not envision there will be sizable numbers of women who do not carry the markers denoted in the post when my teenage sons get to marrying age. That is sad.
I suppose when it comes to vetting a wife…you do the best you can with the knowledge you have getting to know her, make sure you get married with God being part of the process, and have faith that anything that is thrown at you will not tear you apart because God is involved.
It is sad when the linchpin of marriage now is the whims of a woman…instead of God.
@Ton,
The whole OT and civilizations of the time regarded women as property, father’s had control of who they married, men had to be paid to take a woman as a wife, women had no legal say so in political arrangements, had to have sons to inherit land and the like. That is not a system of organization that speaks to woman having full moral agency.
No. They were not property. This wasn’t even the beginnings of pan-civilizational. See how the Greeks felt about the Etruscan women.
1.) Father’s did not have universal control of marriage. As with the OT they usually had some veto power. See the Shulamite maiden in Song of Songs or many of the pagan goddesses.
2.) “Men had to paid”…where do you get this stuff? Might it be an investment by the woman’s family in the success of a marriage where she is not going to be able to contribute at the same level as a man? Also this is not universal.
3.) “political say so” -> How does the administration of government translate into individual moral responsibility?
4.) Your understand of inheritance is also not universal. They could in the OT own property in their own right.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/if-it-isnt-fun-you-probably-arent-doing-it-right/#comment-94693
Earl,
You have to maintain faith that all will be well even if your marriage blows up. That is a tall order for us fisheaters.
@Elsbeth,
But I know very few (none really) wives who are the mothers of many children or are homemakers whose mothers haven’t expressed some amount of disapproval of their choice at one point or another. Including mine
I remember my not too feminist Great Aunt suggesting that my mother cut off my father’s dick (“you know you can cut it off!) when she became pregnant with her fifth child. She wouldn’t have described herself as feminist and she was submissive to my great uncle and loyal to him till he died. She was however awash with feminism.
@Ton,
If women had full moral agency feminism would have worked and women would have
Is not the same as “no moral”. Pick one or admit you were wrong. These are the choices.
@Jen and IBWhiteKnight;
Don’t agree. They’re moral agents all right, and they know their choices are bad, but the lack of consequences and The Hamster make all those nasty thoughts go away.
Well, as Novaseeker once said, women believe in so-called contextual morality.
dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/do-not-be-alarmed/#comment-31081
Needless to say, “contextual morality” is just a fancy phrase for “lack of morality”. To create a moral code is a fundamentally male concept.
So it looks like women actually do have agency with some half ass selfish situational morality thrown in there. It does explain why women shouldn’t be voting. It also explains why some one would think women have no agency but it is so normal for it to be dominated by selfish interest without serious thought it would be assumed agency does not exist. Damn bitches had me fooled for a while. Even selfish interest isn’t really based on anything that is in reality in the best overall self interest. (see western society collapse).
I find it very laughable that I am accused by IBB of being a white knight in another comment thread while he is roasted here for the same. Good for chuckle when I am up far too late.
I would largely agree with what I have seen Cail and others post here.
I would reinforce that the root problem is sin and that began in the Garden of Eden. I wonder how many arguing really believe that.
BradA, if you’re having fun you’re probably doing something right 🙂
Sit back and enjoy roasting some marshmallows…
Remember – attraction is not a logical decision. You have to FEEEEEEEL it.
Remember – cheating on you after you have been a good husband is not a logical decision. She has to FEEEEEEEL it.
Remember – divorcing and raping your ass in court after you gave her all she wanted is not a logical decision. You has to FEEEEEEEL it.
“Don’t agree. They’re moral agents all right, and they know their choices are bad, but the lack of consequences and The Hamster make all those nasty thoughts go away.”
Poverty, single motherhood, STDs, cat shelters, aging quickly, obesity, and having an acidic personality tell me they have plenty of consequences…but the Hamster never tells them that what they are doing is causing them harm. It is always someone or something else.
Hamster to me is just the mouthpiece of Satan…telling them (and men as well) pretty little lies. Instead of the listening to the Truth which will hurt their feelings but protect them from harm.
So women are moral agents with consequences but no accountability.
By comparison, men are held accountable on all sides… well perhaps not the sports pros/actors/politicians. Hmmm….
Meanwhile, back to women…. poverty, single motherhood, STDs etc…. all these things are not clearly cause and effect enough to point back to the woman in question. There’s a thread, but she can blame anyone but herself for the consequences. It’s not like burning your finger on the fire, so there’s a lifetime of excuses to distance herself from the truth.
Self-examining is ugly. Women like bright shiny pretty things. Which is why Ton has a point… society has to constrain women or they’ll sink to whatever level is accepted.
Pride prevents women honestly looking in the mirror.
She might be able to blame anyone else for her consequences….
But she consciously gave her body to whichever guy gave her tingles…it didn’t matter if he was marriage material or a criminal. She didn’t have to or she could have certainly waited to act on her passions once she secured his marriage commitment.
So for women…having sex with lots of guys is like repeatedly putting your hand on a hot stove.
And I can’t honestly think of any other sin a woman can do that damages herself entirely as much as the sexual ones. It seems all of her worst flaws would come from that well.
@Hannah”Which is why Ton has a point… society has to constrain women or they’ll sink to whatever level is accepted.”
Very keen observation however it is rather difficult to legislate constraint on a specific gender once the ball is in motion – the inertia is far too great.
However, in line with what you mentioned, I think this is where the Church has failed. It has sunken to the same “acceptable level” as society rather than being a light on a hill ( it has lost its light and fervency).
The call is to a few holy men and women (YHVH always works with individuals) to bring the main body church back to repentance and relight the fire (testimony) so rest of society can see ( I hope I am making sense)
Keep the shalom in the home going…
innocentbystanderboston says:
September 27, 2013 at 11:06 am
>>IBB says, well, I didn’t say that I can tell which woman will be a good wife. (My translation.)
When a man says we must take a chance, in the name of fairness, on a woman whose category indicates a much higher normal chance of divorce, then it is implicit that you must judge the individual woman on her own individual merit, and not count her actual divorce risk based on her background. There is no other possible interpretation of that viewpoint.
And, this is what is very obvious that one cannot do. I repeat, it cannot be done. Men simply cannot effectively judge women based on their personal characteristics.
Thus, the negative view of simply rejecting such women falls totally apart. His argument they should not be categorically rejected ends up with no base whatsoever. It’s a very simple concept, IBB. Sorry you can’t get it.
My definition of White Knight is not the same that others have. It can be parsed several very slightly different ways. But, it comes down to men who defend the honor of women who have none. Or, perhaps we might say they defend women who should not be defended. In the case at hand, he defends women who simply do not know how to be married, because they have no personal experience with successful marriages. Defending such women means to encourage men to marry them, and this should never happen. I did it myself because I did not know better, and in those days there was no manosphere to teach us. Now, there is a manosphere to teach young men. “Avoid the following categories of women, no matter how wonderful they appear to be as a person…”
There is something else really Freudian in what IBB writes. He says he is happily married 11 years. So, why is he here? If my second marriage had not gone through a “Hell” stage, I probably would have abandoned the MRM and never looked back.
@Ton says:
September 27, 2013 at 11:58 am
>>I’ve never read dairies, I certainly would never read one written by woman. Seems utterly pointless to me given that women are specialist in self deception
The really funny part of that statement is, you are serious. Women were not so far into self deception 150 years ago. But, not having read anything which shows the difference, yet you KNOW they weren’t different, so there is no point in reading anything. Hee, hee.
The call is to a few holy men and women (YHVH always works with individuals) to bring the main body church back to repentance and relight the fire (testimony) so rest of society can see ( I hope I am making sense) Keep the shalom in the home going…
Ever read Herbert Marcuse? He’s the American member of the Frankfurt School who wrote about protest in the 1960s (and inspired the intellectual wing of the “new left” movement as a result). You Christian guys ought to read him, because he gave great advice about how to change social institutions.
You can’t “call the church to repentance”. If you try (as an individual or small group) then what will happen is that you’ll lose your jobs or otherwise be blackballed. If you persist, you’ll be offered a sort of countercultural position by the dominant culture, which will end up strengthening the culture you’re trying to fight against.
Example: As someone who lost his job due to political incorrectness, the dissident will be offered a “men’s rights” position in the church or government, where he’ll be told he can “make a real difference”. I’m surprised these positions haven’t shown up yet, and I’m sure they will. When they do, I’m sure whatever sellout takes the jobs will be well paid. That position will be meaningless and will actually discourage future dissent and confuse those who fight against the dominant culture.
This is what happens in an advanced industrial society. The illusion of subversive content is actually appropriated and used to reinforce what one fights against.
If you really want to strike a blow against these hateful anti-family institutions, then one needs to *drop out* of them completely and start something new. There’s no law (at least in North America) from holding bible study or prayer meetings in one’s home, for example. Even in places where this is illegal, one can now use the internet to subvert social controls, and hold services online. Quit your mangina church and start one on your own, and start attracting solid people to worship with you.
That’s a tall order. Most people won’t do it, because they’d rather keep themselves running the system’s treadmill, but some will, and when they do, the status quo will be in trouble.
Whatever you do, you shouldn’t give any of these establishment churches (temples, synagogues, etc.) any of your money. Don’t shout down the preacher or otherwise give them your energy either. That just calls more attention to them and makes their message more effective. Do your own thing, and encourage others to join you — then laugh as the system falls to pieces for lack of money/attention/support.
Regards, Boxer
antipas4yahshua (@antipas4yahshua)
In this current environment checks on female behavior cannot be “checks” per say. They can be a path to toasted ice. MGTOW, PUA and players are a form of check They starve the woman of what she wants. Even when no body tells her no. A male birth control pill is the next step and that is available now. Even with the vote those three and any others combined can be used to channel women to better behavior with the woman being her own selfish self. Good behavior is the path to toasted ice. On the fringe we see an article just posted on about a woman making sandwiches for a man, she has a man and she braggingly happy to do so. That is a case of good behavior happiness. Look at Hannah’s and Elsbeth’s posts they are happy as hell you can tell they are still women and can almost here the laughter in their post about how miserable women as a whole are choosing rebellion and empowerment over a husband. With the male pill women with bad behavior are booty calls (spinster’s and childless due to birth control) and well behaved women are wives and maybe mothers. If it is too much to be kind to a man it is too much to be the father of your child but I can still stick this dick you because right now you still look good enough for the dick even through you are not good enough for a ring. Be kind and pleasant ladies and come get you some toasted ice.
Some thoughts – points taken from the longer discussion on the nature of realty:
1. We don’t respond to “what is”. We can only respond to “what is perceived”.
2. There is not moral agency. There is only choice. (see Point 5)
3. Whether you can choose is entirely dependent upon whether you can perceive the
alternative.
4. It matters not that there is an alternative. It matters only whether you can perceive that
alternative. (If you can’t perceive that there is an alternative, you cannot know that there is a choice to be made.)
* “Where there is no law, sin [exists, but] is not imputed (Romans 5:13) speaks to this fact.
I suspect that “where the law is not perceived, sin is not imputed” also holds.
(e.g., infants, the mentally feeble, etc.)
* The concept of accountability speaks to this fact: “Those younger than twenty years of age
were spared, because they had no knowledge between good and evil.” Numbers 14:26-30;
Numbers 32:10-13; Deuteronomy 1:34-39. I suppose there are those older than twenty
that God does not hold accountable either, because of deffective thinking ability caused by
brain damage or other factors, or because they do not perceive the law (it is available only
in English, and they don’t understand English, etc.).
5. Again, there is not moral agency. There is only choice. (Point 2)
Whether a choice is moral or not depends upon which particular set of ethics are accepted
as governing.
6. Which set of ethics you accept as governing – or whether you accept any set of ethics as
governing – is entirely dependent upon your ability to perceive that such sets of ethics exists. It matters not whether the sets of ethics actually exist. It only matters whether you can perceive them.
7. We learn what we pay attention to.
What determines what we pay attention to?
(For starters, we can’t pay attention to what we can’t perceive).
Research has demonstrated that, at a minimum, hormones play a role in what we pay
attention to.
At a minimum, men and women pay attention to different things.
This implies that men and women perceive different things.
7a. Men and women are not the same. This discussion of moral agency seems to be
assuming that they are.
7b. Men and women each perceive different things.
7c. Because men and women perceive different things, they do not share the entire same sets
of ethics.
8. Evidence suggests that the ethics of men generally revolve around justice; the ethics of women generally revolve around caring. As in a Venn Diagram, the male and female circles may intersect so that they share some ethics and morals in common. But there seems to be a far larger area of ethics and morals for each gender that they do not share with each other. Recent comments have hinted at this disparity: men understand honor; women don’t. Women strive for group consensus while men are more individualistic.
9. Women are agents in that they make choices. There can be no denying that. The problem is not that women don’t make moral choices. The problem is that men, because they are men, generally cannot perceive the sets of ethics that women accept as governing. And where you might catch a glimpse of those ethics, you say they are not valid, because they don’t apply to you. A man.
Well, they don’t apply to you. But they do apply to women, because they are the ethics that women perceive, and accept as governing.
Question is, which set of ethics leads to a more stable society? The fact that God made two genders, and made it so that each gender thinks differently from the other, suggests that both are needed.
10. All can see what the Bible says. Not all agree on what the Bible means. Men tend to interpret what the Bible says from the standpoint of justice; women tend to interpret it from the standpoint of caring and social welfare. This leads to different interpretations of what behavior is moral vs. immoral.
Men don’t perceive many of the moral choices women make, because they don’t /can’t perceive the ethics or morals upon which the choices are based. Unfortunately, women have the same problem with men that men have with women. They don’t or can’t perceive the ethics or morals upon which mens choices are based.
11. A man cannot make a woman perceive what he perceives, just by commanding her to. Because of this, I expect that the display of ethics and morals is going to be different between men and women for a long time.
@Greyghost – I suspect that the Male Pill will not make any difference in the illegitimacy rates. There are too many irresponsible men (and women, but this is about the Male Pill). A responsible man would take his pill, as directed, but the responsible men never are the problem, are they?
@jen
my pills arrive in 10 days 🙂 the difference the pill makes is that woman as a whole (herd) will be put on notice that they no longer control reproduction with alpha males. trust me, this will change society much like the womans pill did. now women will be pumped and dumped by most alphas without a even a chance of getting pregnant. they are going to have to try EXTREMELY hard to temper their bad behavior if they want alpha seed. 🙂 the top 20% of desireable men will change the game. now women will be looked at as “what u couldnt get a REAL man to knock u up?” it will also change marriage because women are gonna REALLY have to try harder for a man to commit to a child. I would be willing to bet that 30% of pregnancys are from women who LIE to get pregnant.
@Brad A “I would reinforce that the root problem is sin and that began in the Garden of Eden. ”
Allow me to address this according to the scripture.
Sin did NOT begin in the garden of Eden. It begin right around the Throne of YHVH will a rather rebellious cherub resulting in a rebellion against YHVH.
Mankind is YHVH’s response to the rebellion.
Mankind joined in the rebellion against YHVH.
Sin entered into the creation through Eve and then Adam. Adam was not deceived – Eve was.
There are some very specific reason regarding why Eve should submit to her husband.
If she does not then “remembers Lots wife” and the outcome of Lots family – not very pretty.
Every person is a individual moral agent and judged on their behavior and women do not “get a hall pass”
~Shalom
Jen
You have stated that a responsible man will take his pill as direct and that is true and those men are the target audience. The problem is women and there bastard kids. The power of the male pill in not necessarily from his own birth control but his ability to make himself immune to cuckoldry (he knows it’s not his and can just tell the women will the baby arrives we will get a blood test. No getting mad simple confidence) A PUA or player will use his pill as part of his tool kit. With immunity from lies he will have airtight game. Even a beta chump will have alpha power with out the training or red pill when he controls his fertility with out any need to trust a woman and most importantly she will never know what he is doing and doesn’t need her to know.
Be a pleasant person or else young lady. The men available to be knocked up by in a word of male birth control are going to be some characters. Low life’s like you have never seen. With the ability to pick a cuckold gone it should be fun. Having a man and a father should be a status marker for a woman. I would love to see how the churchians incorporate that into the feminized
preaching. Driscoll: “How dare you! how dare you not knock these ho’s up they made you made you sandwiches. (he fails to mention the ho’s waited until they were childless at thirty five before they decided to get into the kitchen)
@greyghost/oblivion – One thing I have noticed is that the worst female sexual behavior is attributed to ALL women. Which is fine – as long as one remains consistent. However, when the worst male sexual behavior is mentioned, it is dismissed as a segment of the male population that is irrelevant. Can we call this “NAMALT”? The irresponsible men and women are the problem. Their numbers are growing due to a lack of consequences for their behavior; not a lack of birth control.
@Oblivion,
Because messing with your hormones isn’t surrender. Sure thing.
OT, but Bridget Jones has gone the way of the hypergamous female, and after bearing two children has given up the beta bucks of Mark Darcy for a return to the carousel at the age of 51. In order to keep her books romantically correct, author Helen Fielding killed Darcy rather than divorcing him.
“Fielding, who has always denied that the books are autobiographical, is herself a 55-year-old single mother-of-two who ended her relationship with television executive Kevin Curran in 2009.”
You go, grrrl!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2437165/Bridget-Jones-single-Author-Helen-Fielding-reveals-killed-Mark-Darcy.html
Jen
female behavior that is driven by selfish hypergamy is normal. Men with that behavior are defective. What separates women is the path to toasted ice they take submission/helper/biblical or rebellious feminist slut the quest for happiness is there in both and is normal. The average 80% man is a boring chump that follows the rules and will listen to women. They are basically invisible. The other 20% of men are the ones we see the high betas , criminals, PUA and players, and the straight up alpha males that are useless to society as a whole but women just tingle for. These are the men that are seen and heard. These are the men when women talk about men and women these are the men they are talking about. All I care about mostly are the 80% that want to be husbands and fathers. By law that is now a criminal offense unless you are a member of the tingle team. By definition of those men no toasted ice so women pass more laws to criminalize the 80% with gleeful participation from those same men to make you (women) “happy”
You wanna see hell on earth? This is what it looks like and why the west is dying. http://www.youtube.com/user/sotomayortv2 Check out this guys channel and look up everything he has and see what liberalism, feminism will do. Throw in racial politics and you have cruel slow death of the soul.
NAWALT is not all women choose rebellion as a path to a peace. Bet you ass they are still women and are not to be worshipped for good behavior. Make a sandwich and be pleasant to be around.
GKChesteron
It is nonhormonal. That is what makes it good (gandarusa, study that forwards and backwards)
Well, there are a lot of options for the male pill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_contraceptive), but as we saw just a few weeks ago (and throughout the past year), things don’t always work out: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/health-canada-announces-another-birth-control-recall-of-esme-28/article14120836/. As for acceptance, it seems that a male pill would be widely accepted: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/3/646.full.
Background (and amusement): http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/msoc1-1202.html
[D: For some reason this was in the spam filter.]
Forgot to mention hearing this in church recently:
For woman and man, a place at the table,
revising the roles, deciding the share,
with wisdom and grace, dividing the power,
for woman and man, a system that’s fair,
Lyrics: http://www.hopepublishing.com/html/main.isx?sitesec=40.2.1.0&hymnID=342
Sarcasm and contradiction are probably good things to keep in mind… however, it seems you’ve trouble on your hands if the other person doesn’t understand that you’re playing, that you’re being complementary. You can blame feminism for teaching women to think they’re being insulted. My question is, how does game scale that wall? That is, if the answer isn’t, ‘you don’t want to scale that wall, son.’
Lol at teh ‘Optional Verse’ Marcus!!
I was surprised at how blatant it was (that’s excluding the optional verse).
Those kinds of songs make activism in churches that much easier to undertake. The whole dynamic between music and congregational views is quite interesting.
greyghost,
(shrugs)
Jen probably doesn’t disagree with any of that. But that has nothing to do with her point regarding the male birth control pill.
Her point is responsibility. That is it. That is the whole point. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what segment of society you want to put a man into based on whether or not he makes her vagina or anus tingle for his hard cock. If he is responsible, he’ll put a condom on that cock and catch all the baby batter. He will NOT trust her to take her own birth control pill (not unless he’s married.) He should NEVER trust a woman he isn’t married to (and sadly, there are some men who shouldn’t even trust their wives), to take that pill, (even if she says she’s doing it) mostly because she is a woman and (by her very nature of being a woman) she isn’t a moral agent. 🙂
I think a male birth control pill is great! Do not get me wrong for one second, this is great. A man can have sex without a condom and can confidently know that there is no chance he is going to get pregnant. All the fun, almost no risk. I hate condoms. And if a man can pop a pill that prevents his little swimmers from making it into his prostate, all the better.
But that doesn’t make Jen’s point any less valid. If he is already irresponsible enough to NOT wear then condom, then what makes anyone believe that he will be responsible enough to pop a pill each day? By his very nature, the men who breed bastards, they are already irresponsible.
When guys start talking about how awesome male birth control pills, I hear: “Hold my beer and watch this!”
There is a difference, though. Like Greyghost said, we’re talking about the responsible beta 80% here. So far, they can be coaxed into not wearing a condom by their wife/girlfriend because to do otherwise would be to not “trust” them. As known, betas are more of a exit strategy for irresponsible or unforethought behaviour. Thus, to save betas from an eventual frivorcing fate to aging spinsters would be quite altruistic and perhaps may turn a few things around.
tl:dr; you ever try wearing a condom and saying you’re not wearing one? Won’t get the same situation with this pill.
Family tale. Today, my own daughter linked on Facebook to that horrid video, the one where a White Knight applauds all women. 3:36, starts YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL, and works his way through YOU ARE THE DAUGHTER OF THE LIVING GOD.. Etc, for 3:36. Comments were what you would expect from Churchian women.
I suppose they weill be after my Facebook account, because some woman whined that two men she named did not respect women. I essentially told her that not ALL women deserve respect simply for being women, any more than men deserve respect for being men. That women must earn respect. There is little change she will understand.
Though I don’t remember exactly what she said, at least one woman made negative remarks about the worshipping of women.
Yes, I did indeed take my daughter to task. I told her I doubted there were 3 women in First Baptist McAllen who deserved to hear those words. And, I was guessing about 2 of the three.
She responded, that her point was she wants to be such a woman. I love my daughter, she is thed best thing that happened to me my whole life. But, though her heart may be beautiful, when she had a child 7 years ago, she gained 50 or more pounds, and she is not at all beautiful any more. I will love her until I die, but I will never again tell her she is beautiful or pretty, unless she becomes pretty or beautifull.
I know what Greek letter pops into my head for the males who are fans of chemical castration.
The most important thing those sandwiches sound delicious.
Pretty much Earl.
Yeah,to keep her in check neg her often and harshly.
Later she tells anyone who listens that ‘he belittles and subjugates me,”
But at least she will be around.
The alternative is divorce.
1.A complaining nagging wife.
2.Divorce.
3.Never married.
#3 for the win.
Mistress in condo across town=best deal ever.
Frequent sex,low maintenance,no nagging.
Just some $$,but if you want a wymyn that is a given anyhow,must have the $$$$.
To what (and to whom) are you referring here?
Greyghost:
I love Tommy Sotomayor and I’m glad he’s getting some publicity around these parts. As a white dude, I stumbled upon his commentary some time ago and it blew my mind.
Biggest potential problem with the male pill, in my opinion, is the prevalence of brothers who will be rawdogging it with various stinky hoes, feeling invincible. The invincibility fallacy is a specialty of the male rationalization hamster, after all. It wouldn’t surprise me to see a marked increase in the concentrations of brothers who pick up HSV, HPV, HIV, and every other nastiness these skanks are serving as a living reservoir of. Just something to think about.
Best, Boxer
The issue of only the responsible men taking the pill and the NAMALT from Jen needs a response. Men are held accountable when they get a woman pregnant. They are raked over the coals by society and held financially accountable 18+ years on the say so of a woman alone. Several states make paternaty tests illegal without the consent of the mother. Most states hold that any child born in wedlock is the financial responsibility of the husband regardless if the divorce was about the wife’s infidelity, and the child could not be his. Geneologists have held that “casual” bastardry has been about 10% historically. Several blood studies have shown it to be 2 to 3 times higher than that in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Women have the pill, the morning after pill, the plan B pill, abortion, adoption, and abandonment within their say so alone. Men have no say so on anything to do with reproduction . The often stated social basis for this is the men should have kept it in their pants. There is no social condemnation for women telling them they should have kept their legs closed.
So, the men who will take the pill are the ones that have assets and/or income to protect. The irresponsible men that do not take the pill are generally irresponsible in many ways and have no assets and no income, so they are immune to the wealth transfer that is child support in this country. Women will have to face the elimination of the largest weapon in their arsenal, the oops pregnancy. NOW has faught tooth and nail against any male birth control pill for years. They want women and only women to be in control of reproduction. i
Let me add that Gandarusa acts non-hormonally to turn off a protien in the sperm that results in the sperm not being able to penitrate and fertilize the egg. So far it has show to be 100% reversable after 30 to 60 days of stopping the pill. If women could ever be convinced to trust the man they are with to take the pill (think in long term relationships or marriage) then we could eliminate the hormonal BC pill that is driving women in the west crazy. Else we could at least avoid the ones made crazy from becoming part of our lives.
NOW has faught tooth and nail against any male birth control pill for years. They want women and only women to be in control of reproduction.
My post above (September 29, 2013 at 10:56 am) has a link to a study that shows that the vast majority of women would be happy to have a male pill. I imagine that the minority not in favour are interested in women being in sole control.
I guess it’s just money.
If NOW has a problem with the male pill its because women (who use their wombs to make money either from a man she get pregnant from or government because he has no money) will less likely be able to get pregnant and (thus) get money.
It is more than just money it is leverage against a man (the father) Women enjoy having a man tip toe around them with his child as hostage. You can bet your ass on that one. This is where the murder suicides DV comes from. Especially if the father is emotionally attached to his child. Best for a man not to love his child too much these days of misandry.
From the declining birth rate statistics of white females, it appears that the idea women are trying to have an “oops pregnancy” is inaccurate. So, the “oops pregnancy”, for unmarried white females, is generally ending in the death of the baby.
I can say from experience that some of us do not take the birth control pill, not to be devious and secure an “oops” pregnancy, but because of the side effects of the pill. Extreme daily nausea is one of the “milder” side effects. Would you take a Male Pill on a daily basis if nausea/vomiting was a daily side effect? I distrust the safety of the female pill. If I were a man, I would be very cautious of the male pill, too.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/08/02 | Free Northerner
I think there’s reason to distrust the female pill…sure some of the higher occurrence of breast cancer diagnoses is from fear of litigation… but no doubt the pill’s a part in it. They’ve shown abortions have contributed to cervical cancer… because of the interruption of the whole body change process of pregnancy. No doubt the pill pushes some of the same wrong buttons in the biochemistry.
Boxer:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/Gonorrhea/arg/default.htm
Note that some 40% of cases of the clap are asymptomatic in women. There’s basically one (1) treatment left, that requires injecting the antibiotic over the full course of time.
Complications from gonorrhea can be quite ugly, with sterility the least of concerns. Although not as bad as syphilis was prior to the discovery of penicillin, to be sure. But still ugly.
If this disease breaks out into the general population, then the implications are very large.
Rawdogging for whatever reason is going to be more dangerous in the future, not less, regardless of the male pill.
@Freebird,
Yeah,to keep her in check neg her often and harshly.
Did you even READ the OP?
@Jen,
I’m going to have to agree with you on this one point. We’re facing a dearth of births and not the opposite problem. Population world wide will likely start declining in about 20 years. The idea that the male pill is some sort of get out of jail free card is just astoundingly stupid.
Declining birth rates is not a problem. Unless you’re a Corporate Jocky. No one to sell your useless products to, oh gosh! Hopefully the world’s population declines 50-80% in the next 100 years and thus makes it actually worthwhile to have children again.
FH, and GKC,
Declining births are a problem for governments because so many of their entitlement systems are predicatded on ponzi schemes having an ever increasing number of young people to pay for a smaller percentage of older people. To NOT have that is… well.. a paradox… that could never-EVER be accepted by government people who believe in group responsiblity and the “social contract.” Math simply does not exist for these people. Laws trump math (that is why we have situations like what we have in Detroit.) 😦
Well exactly, starve the beast. Do not have children who will serve as nothing but future slaves for a corrupted and broken system. A full reduction in the number of humans will inevitably lend itself to a situation where it becomes both logical and fruitful to multiply.
Well exactly, starve the beast. Do not have children who will serve as nothing but future slaves for a corrupted and broken system.
Government will just keep stealing/siezing assets from the responsible to prop up the system as it stands because people vote. Just one week ago, members of President Obama’s cabinet arrived in Detorit with $300,000,000 of our federal tax dollars to prop up a city that refuses to live in the world of basic math. Remember FH:
Detroit needs a King. They are not responsible enough for Democracy. But you have a city with so many fatherless families with no headship, as long as there is a greater government to financially prop them up, they will continue as they are.
@Anonymous Reader
That’s generally why people shouldn’t marry non-virgins – the STD risk is fairly high (and I mean the ones that slip by tests and ones received after marriage due to the higher risk of infidelity).
@MarcusD
Trying to prevent a situation similar to what happens in this film? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258854/
Christians debating birth rates.
If you do not understand why that is bizarre (the point is not the ready one about multiplying, I would not make that point), for some, I’m surprised.
@Hopeful
Well, from what I’ve read of the synopsis, it appears that that is one situation that people would be preventing by only marrying a virgin (and as a virgin themselves).
The infertility question is still present, as well. For secular men who don’t want kids, a woman’s STD-caused infertility probably won’t matter much (they might be happy about it). For religious men, that probably isn’t going to go over well. What’s worse is that those men can only find out after they’ve married the woman that she is infertile due to STDs (assuming they were never-marrieds with no children).
“Hopefully the world’s population declines 50-80% in the next 100 years and thus makes it actually worthwhile to have children again.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
Not if our overlords…”guide reproduction wisely”.
You have inferior sperm according to some elitist because you don’t follow whatever set of corrupt rules they implement…forget about having children.
Slightly off-topic: http://imgur.com/XjsmGHI
Or, in the words of Marshall McLuhan: “casting my perils before swains.”
MarcusD
That guy with the Spanks looked like a slim cat any way. I don’t think that is going to be a big seller. Unless the guy is a child of a single mother.
As someone who “hates to game,” here’s how I see it:
We’re taught that there is someone for us. Which implies that it’s God’s Will. Which further implies that we don’t have to do anything, not only to get with the person, but to ensure that the relationship stays solvent, because obviously if we have to put any effort into it, how can we say it’s all God’s will?
Yet, stepping back from the theistic mindset, one can see that it’s logistically impossible for ‘God’ to pair off everyone one by one. So that’s one strike against the concept.
Yet even with that, one does not want to face the harsh realities that go against the “happily ever after” narrative that guarantees unconditional love/like from a woman, without effort or hardship. After all, life’s tough enough from society, coworkers, etc without not being assured eternally of that ‘happily ever after,’ right?
So now you have a bunch of lost young men, who want the ‘happily ever after’ but don’t see how it could materialize…since having to put any effort into it at all would mean that it’s not true unconditional love on her part, as well as not being able to guarantee it will come to a good end anyway.
The discussion of submission and rationalization reminds me of this comment:
“And the irony is the very people-pleasing nature that leads women to lose their virginity also makes them the kind of submissive wife most men want.”
This. Luckily, most men understand that. That understanding is, in fact, what Chels alluded to with her “deterrent” comment.
Most men assume that if a woman has been deeply in love before (which is generally the case with an attractive woman in her 20s), that her man would want her to sleep with him and that a woman following her natural feminine impulses would give in to it.
From: http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/are-men-sexual-hypocrites/
Submission comes after marriage not before. That idea Marcus is easily dismissed with the ever warning of ‘no sex before marriage’. No one wants an easy slut to be their wife. Seems like most women confuse submission with being an easy lay…
I didn’t really notice what they were trying to do at first (in making those comments), but now it seems quite apparent that it is a simple reversal – “what you don’t want is actually what you really want.” I think there’s some confusion between submissiveness and being weak-willed.
The rationalization part is now obvious: “I failed, but look at it in a different way – and, oh, yes, I meant to do that.” If at first you don’t succeed, redefine success.
Yea, pretty much. The hamster tried to come to the rescue again… it’s awfully boring now though.
Pingback: Transforming my mind as a Christian wife. | Loving in the Ruins
I have to agree with the “Woman” word in this. I’m not really a “Gamer” however, I also have to qualify that by saying that back in highschool and my first years of college I spent countless hours of time over at the old MASF Forums before they were hacked. What a shame, lots of good stuff there. Anyway, since then I’ve sort of shoved game to the pariphery of my consciousness relying on it sort of while not actually thinking about it.
Anyway, to the “Woman” thing. I’ve been with a girl for a while and I often call her “Woman” she loves it a lot. I usually don’t ask for a sanwedge but I do ask her to make me dinner, lol.
Anyway, a week ago I was with her and some of her friends I had not yet met. One of her firends is engage to be married and this friend’s fiance was there with us. Anyway, it was late we were all a little tipsy and my woman “got all finish your drink” (I’m not a big drinker, I’ll have a few but that’s it) whiny on me and I said in a crouded room in front of her friends “Woman, I’ll finish my drink when I damn well please!” not as rude as it must sound reading this of course. Her reaction was not supprising what I was supprise at was a comment that the fiance of the other friend made. He said I paraphrase “Saying something like that would get me slapped in the face around here” or something to that effect. I didn’t really respond to it as much as make a mental note of it.
I guess I’m making two points here, the first being that calling your woman “Woman” seems to have a great effect and second that a lot of men probabily don’t think that it would work at all. Indeed it was supprisng to me and yet in retrospect I think his reaction would be quite common.
After that we all went to sleep (we were out of town staying the night at her firend’s house) the friend and fiance went off to the other room to sleep and me mine and a few other people all got out air mattresses. Needless to say in a room full of people I got a nice handjob under tha blanket somehow I doubt the fiance even got a kiss in his own damnd bedroom. Ha!
As strange as it sounds I think there’s something kind of weirdly primordial that happens in a woman’s phsyce when you call her “Woman” saying in commanding yet playfull “Woman, ….” when she get’s uppity never seems to fail to totally diffuse the situation, and lead her to arousal. For all the feminist equality bullshit
… I don’t know why that got cut off!
For all the feminist equality bullshit women don’t really seem to want respect, or equality in a relationship.
Pingback: If it Hurts, You’re Doing it Wrong
It also shocks me to hear comments on a “Christian” website about people who are single living ungodly lifestyles and going along with “game”. “Game” is nothing more but whoremongering (being a slut- male or female slut). Real dedicated Christians (Christ followers) do not commit fornication nor commit adultery. For those who don’t understand the difference between fornication and adultery here is what they mean. Fornication is when a single person commits sexual acts with another single person. Adultery occurs when a single man commits sexual acts with a married woman. Also adultery can also mean when two married people (married man and woman) have sex with other people they are not married too. Such people are sinning. If you are unmarried you are to be celibate according to the Bible until you marry. If you are married the only person with whom you are allowed to have sex with is your spouse and nobody else. I’m not sure how that could be anymore clear than that.
I Corinthians 6:19 says, “The Body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit
I copied this from the NIV Bible- the message in this passage is very clear-
13. The body is not meant for sexual sins. The body is meant for the Lord. And the Lord is meant for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead. He will also raise us up.
15 Don’t you know that your bodies belong to the body of Christ? Should I take what belongs to Christ and join it to a prostitute? Never! 16 Don’t you know that when you join yourself to a prostitute, you become one with her in body? Scripture says, “The two will become one.” (Genesis 2:24) 17 But anyone who is joined to the Lord becomes one with him in spirit.
18 Keep far away from sexual sins. All the other sins a person commits are outside his body. But sexual sins are sins against one’s own body.
19 Don’t you know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit? The Spirit is in you. You have received him from God. You do not belong to yourselves. 20 Christ has paid the price for you. So use your bodies in a way that honors God.
I Corinthians 7:2- Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
After reading the above scripture passage a true believer should know what God requires of you concerning your “love life.”
Zenu,
You obviously are ignorant of the situation, so allow me to enlighten you. There are quite a few websites on how to use Christian game in your marriage. Dalrock was one of the first, but there are more, and getting to be more every day.
Women can no more resist game than a man can resist a pretty face, and a hot body. (You may not bang said body, but it most certainly WILL get your attention.)
If being “Christian” made women’s panties wet, why are legions of Christian men decrying that they are all of those things, and yet women aren’t interested in them? Here’s a hint: because they have no game.
Hell, one of the best known guys who are helping “Christian men” attract and keep their wives is a self-avowed ATHEIST. (marriedmansexlife)
Ignorance can be cured with education. Educate yourself.
Sir Chencealot- I understand exactly what Dalrock means here. But you misunderstand my point. Many people who comment here are single- that is not married- and their talk degenerates in sex talk and how they use “game” to get into another persons pants. As if you haven’t read those comments on here. Are you married or single yourself bud? If your married feel free to use game to spice up your sex life if you so desire. As a single person you can entice the ladies with your suave and debonair persona all you want as long as you don’t bed the lady. Obviously bedding the lady is what happens and I’ve even read comments by certain people here bragging about how they have a certain # of notches on their bedpost. Don’t deny that is the case even here.
Pingback: How Christians can take credit for Game. | Dalrock
I know that this is a very old discussion, but what RichardP says: September 28, 2013 at 5:36 pm makes a lot of sense to me and it seems to me like he understands women pretty well. I think that we women are certainly moral agents and that God holds us accountable for our sins, and that we have the moral responsibility to choose right over wrong, good over evil, God over sin. But I also agree with those here who say that women don’t see the big picture as well as men do, or have as good of an ability to forsee long-term consequences, or sufficiently consider long term consequences. For me this has been one of the biggest problems in my life and one of the biggest problems in my spiritual life as well. My husband has a very admirable fear of Hell, wheras I have a difficult time worrying about something that (hopefully) far-off. I say a lot of prayers actually that God will give me more of a fear of Hell.
And I think that this is a reflection of something that RichardP perceived, he wrote “the ethics of men generally revolve around justice; the ethics of women generally revolve around caring” – my husband, a man, has a strong sense of justice, and so he is highly aware of Eternal Hell being the just consequence to sin. With my female focus on caring, I have a strong tendency to lose focus on the reality of Hell, and instead have a tendency to overemphasize God’s mercy. I chose my husband for lots of reasons but first and foremost because I could tell that he would help me get into Heaven. I knew that I would have little chance of that on my own. Yes, this is selfish behavior but I hope it’s at least selfish behavior that’s moving in the right direction.
Pingback: Married Game in a picture. | Dalrock
Pingback: Carrying on like teenagers. | Dalrock
Pingback: How to creep out your wife. | Dalrock