I was poking around the FamilyLife site and saw that they have a section for staying married/commitment. In the first post on the list titled 5 Ways to Keep Your Marriage Covenant, Rainey gets the question of divorce right. He focuses on the fact that divorce is not an option and marriage vows are sacred. Interestingly this is a post he wrote after considering the issue for his daughter’s wedding sixteen years ago.
It is striking how differently he describes teaching his daughter on the topic of marriage than FamilyLife has taught so many other men’s daughters. When it came to his daughter’s wedding he doesn’t describe focusing on fighting for their marriage to ward off mysterious spirits of unhappiness, only fighting against the acceptance of divorce:
Finally, urge others to keep their covenant. In the Christian community we need to band together to fight divorce. We serve a God who has gone on record on this topic: “I hate divorce” (Malachi 2:16). We need to combat divorce in the most positive way—by honoring our covenants and encouraging others to do the same. Together we can become known in our culture as the keepers and protectors of the marriage covenant.
In the article he doesn’t describe teaching his daughter how to give her husband a wakeup call by throwing crazed fits or packing up the car and threatening to break up the family. For a wedding gift he doesn’t tell us he offered them one of FamilyLife’s weekend marriage conferences (perhaps with Sheila Gregoire), what he elsewhere calls marriage insurance:
I have to believe, Bob, this weekend conference really is the finest marriage insurance that you could ever buy to be able to, not guarantee your marriage is going to go the distance, but certainly to equip it to go the distance.
No, he tells us he gave them a plaque with their marriage vows, and an unmistakable message that he expected them to honor those vows:
With Ashley’s wedding coming up, I wondered how we could incorporate the concept of covenant in the ceremony. Then I had an inspiration. We took Ashley and Michael’s wedding vows to a calligrapher who inscribed them on a sheet of pure cotton paper.
During their wedding ceremony, after stating their vows verbally, the couple turned and signed their marriage covenant. There was space at the bottom of the covenant for others to sign, and the pastor asked if anyone in the audience wanted to witness the marriage covenant. By doing so people would pledge to pray for Michael and Ashley and promise to hold them accountable for keeping their covenant. A line formed quickly.
…
Ashley and Michael’s covenant now hangs in their home, a constant reminder of their promise of fidelity to each other and of the promise of God to guard and sustain their marriage. It also reminds the rest of us to pray for them and hold them accountable to their vows.
Rainey’s gift stressing the permanence of marriage vows to his daughter and son in law was both loving and wise. If only he carried this loving wisdom into his daily ministry, he would be a powerful force protecting millions of children from the divorce meat-grinder. Moreover, if this was the message consistently coming from FamilyLife, Christians would be much more likely to (in his words):
become known in our culture as the keepers and protectors of the marriage covenant.
Moderator’s note: I will remove any comments which are disrespectful of Rainey’s daughter.
I like that gift idea. Might have to use that in the future.
Too bad about Rainey, but that is the nature of Christian leadership today. They are so quickly warped by the environment, or give into to temptation in order to keep the pews filled and the money flowing, that in less than a generation they can abandon everything they used to support and believe in.
Okay okay, no hyena comments from me. Speaking of the Rainey’s Empath recently posted “The Interview” (on dating “innocence”) to be given to daughters prospective dates:
Point #5: I’m challenging you to purity. I want you to guard her innocence, not just her virginity.
Which begs the question: “Sir, is your daughter a feminist?”
I think anybody claiming to be a protector of the marriage covenant who refuses to address that question head on has missed the boat.
This seems like good advice: marry a nice young man just finishing med school, and stay at home and be a good wife and mother.
i love that wedding vows plaque idea.
Gives me just a glimmer of hope for the future. But others backslide at the same time – witness Matt Walsh’s post from today. Oy.
@ Dalrock
“If only he carried this loving wisdom into his daily ministry, he would be a powerful force protecting millions of children from the divorce meat-grinder.”
Ah, yes…….but that was his personal affairs, and his daily ministry is his BUSINESS.
A BUSINESS must sell something every day. Presumably, selling accountability to women in general is NOT a money maker.
It’s simple………he sold out his faith for profit.
@ jf12
Excellent pracitcal advice, and within the grasp of women to implement.
It is also precisely why it will NOT be implemented.
Men cannot compete with the daily blather from all sides supporting feminism.
I have little faith in any woman under the age of 30 to throw off the shackles of feminism. It has corrupted them since the cradle.
@ jf12
Make that age 40.
@peregrinejohn
Oh dear, Matt Walsh’s post is awful.
Some of the (single) Christian girls I know follow his blog and share his crappy articles on Facebook; it’s a major problem. Most of them are actually fairly submissive girls who are relatively less influenced by feminist propaganda than other girls their age, but the problem is they look at Matt Walsh and think “here’s a Christian guy who writes about relationships and my friends all post his links too, so he must be right”.
I have a fairly strict “don’t post opinions on FB” rule because it’s a waste of time and I’d rather people look at my rare posts and see signs of positive healthy habits and not arguing on the internet. That said, I do wish I could get the message out to those girls that Matt Walsh is actually poisoning their minds.
Does anyone have any advice about how to get some of these ideas across? Should I post a link to Matt Walsh’s blog along with a criticism (knowing that will certainly spark a debate, but just so people know there’s more opinions out there), or should I post a link to something entirely different which gives a more accurate and Biblical idea of Christian relationships? I would post links to every second article on Dalrock if I thought people wouldn’t just dismiss it because of manosphere associations.
I think Matt Walsh is OK for what it’s worth. However, I have only read like 3 articles from him.
The one from today caused him to drop down several points for me. He clearly has a blind spot on the whole dating/hook up thing. Too bad.
Has the use of “man up” even by a generally red-pill guy like Matt Walsh become the “third rail” in manoshere politics???
I read the article and basically agreed with Matt that if a man is interested in a woman, he should take charge and let his feelings be known rather than beating around the bush like a high-schooler. How is that objectionable? Is because he used the phrase “man up?” If so, does that mean a generally red-pill guy like Matt Walsh is persona-non-grata because he touched the “man up third rail” in manoshere politics???
Sorry. Please ignore the first paragraph. I intended to delete it after I wrote the other paragraph.
This reminds me of something I read about a while back (although I forget where).
There’s a region of Bosnia that literally hasn’t had a divorce for over 100 years. During the wedding ceremony, the couple holds between them a cross. At the point when during other ceremonies, the couple kiss each other, instead husband and wife both kiss the cross, and then each other.
This serves as a symbol to each of them that the marriage isn’t about either of them, it’s about Him.
And that cross is displayed in the home in a promient place.
Matt Walsh’s post today was a giant piece of white knighting. It’s sad seeing it from a guy that normally posts some pretty good stuff, and he has A LOT of readers. He is just the perfect example of a great Christian guy that is blue pill.
With that said, I do show chivalry to my girlfriend, holding doors etc. because she actually deserves an appreciates it. She is a virgin and even brought me a ham sandwich & meal to my work for lunch today.
Dalrock, I’d love to see a response from you on Matt’s post from today. One Christian man to another.
Another Christian White Knight:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/republican-congressman-says-woman-desperately-looking-for-hu
Matt Walsh makes a good point in that article, but he also gets other things wrong.
The good point he makes is that if a young man wants to find a quality young woman to marry, he has to be intentional and proactive about it. Being passive or reactive won’t work.
But then, that’s true of pretty much everything worth doing in life, and SHOULD be obvious (unfortunately, such common sense is no longer obvious to most people).
I won’t list the things he gets wrong because I’m sure others will do that very effectively.
Oscar-
I will volunteer!
One of the things that he does is the “I was a total screw up until the perfect woman came along and straightened me out” meme.
Please.
Stryker says:
June 19, 2014 at 1:23 pm
“With that said, I do show chivalry to my girlfriend, holding doors etc.”
That isn’t actually chivalry. It’s courtesy. It’s unfortunate that the word “chivalry” has been devalued to the level of common courtesy.
Scott says:
June 19, 2014 at 1:37 pm
“One of the things that he does is the “I was a total screw up until the perfect woman came along and straightened me out” meme.
Please.”
Good one!
“Good one!”
You are right though. He starts off with a reasonable sounding “the dating/hookup scene needs men to take charge and fix it” and then it goes all to hell.
@Oscar – true, it was the closest thing to it that I could type quickly without going into a lot of details.
I’ll second Stryker except calling Walsh a ‘great’ Christian.
You aren’t supposed to give advice when you are entirely ignorant of the subject of such advice. I almost evacuated my lunch a number of times reading his drivel today.
@Scott “He starts off with a reasonable sounding “the dating/hookup scene needs men to take charge and fix it” and then it goes all to hell.”
There’s nothing reasonable about this. It’s women who are responsible for chasing those players. Even if 90% of men refused to hook up with women, women will continue to chase the 10% who do.
There’s nothing reasonable about this. It’s women who are responsible for chasing those players. Even if 90% of men refused to hook up with women, women will continue to chase the 10% who do.
^^^This so many times. So so many times. Thanks KMan.
All said, there is at least some great comments being posted there (and for anyone who reads this later and doesn’t know to what article we’re referring: mattwalshblog dot com /2014/06/19/dear-single-men-time-man-figure/ )
Chance Boudreux said “…WOMEN are the drivers in this game. Women are the ones setting up pervese incentives for bad behavior for men, and between that and a legal system that rapes men when 70% of women initiate divorce, you can’t blame men from not jumping on that grenade.”
Thor said “Since we’re on the airplane analogies.. This is the equivalent of being on a plane with a bunch of people. Everyone get’s a parachute. 8 out of 10 of those parachutes are going to fail and Matt Walsh is standing at the rear of the plane telling men to man up and jump. Or rather, as he’s cartwheeling through the air, unsure at all if his chute will work, he yells back for everyone still in the plane to jump with him, so he doesn’t have to be confused about what title you chose for the people you spend time around. Or question whether jumping might have been a little bit risky. Or like Sarge said, whether they’re plenty happy in the plane and they’ll jump out of it if that changes…”
Kman-
Yes, I tend to agree. He seems to have the presupposition that the approach he is suggesting will be met with women swooning in a chorus of “finally a decent man!” It suggests the reason the hookup culture exists because all men are PUAs so there is nothing else for all the truly old-fashioned girls out there.
The vast majority of them will think you are “creepy” if you try what he is suggesting. I guess I kept reading thinking he would a twist or something.
Before this goes too off-topic, I wanted to thank you Dalrock for posting this about Rainey; it’s good to know he does have some good things to say.
I also like the idea of having framed and signed vows. On the topic of wedding vows though, have you guys heard some of the “modern” vows people use these days? Terrible.
A notable exception was a friend of mine, who when he got married, both he and his wife read different vows – he vowed to lead, protect and sacrifice, while she vowed to submit, follow and respect. This was in addition to the usual “in sickness and in health” stuff which is great if people actually followed it.
What good / bad vows have you heard at weddings? I’m not even sure when/where the practice originated…
“What good / bad vows have you heard at weddings? I’m not even sure when/where the practice originated…”
The RCC has them in their Sacrament of Matrimony book that the priest reads from. There are several variations and different passages of scripture in it. It’s sort of like one of those “choose your own adventure” books. (I am dating myself)
My wife and I specifically looked for vows about obedience, headship, etc. We were steered away from them, but told “I guess if you REALLY want those, that’s what I will read.”
Then he completely undermined the vows with his homily anyway.
@Scott, re: “He seems to have the presupposition that the approach he is suggesting will be met with women swooning in a chorus of “finally a decent man!””
Correct. That has always been the error of traditional conservatives, that womynz lurv them some white knightin’.
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/01/13/chivalry-is-out-of-style/
Nothing could be further from the truth nowadays.
KMan says:
June 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm
“On the topic of wedding vows though, have you guys heard some of the “modern” vows people use these days? Terrible.”
Every time I’ve heard people recite vows they wrote themselves I’ve wanted to vomit. The traditional ones cover the important stuff.
I do like the gift Rainey presented his daughter and son-in-law, and I agree that the purpose of witnesses at a wedding is to hold the couple accountable to their vows when the “richer… in health… for better” parts of life are (hopefully) temporarily interrupted by the “poorer… in sickness… for worse” parts of life. In fact, I made that point at my own wedding.
I think the guests were stunned that I’d speak so seriously at my own wedding.
Scott says:
June 19, 2014 at 2:00 pm
“It’s sort of like one of those “choose your own adventure” books. (I am dating myself)”
Dude! Those were freaking awesome!
Casey says:June 19, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Word, brother!
Man Up, part 22884720:
http://moelane.com/2014/06/19/tim-huelskamp-buzzfeed/
Matt Walsh is normally pretty good, actually. But as another commenter said, he has an unfortunate blind spot when it comes to dating and marriage, alas. He has some posts up on abortion that are superb, though.
@ feeriker
Thanks!
Ive had a couple of occasions to present both Dennis and Barbara Rainey in a positive light. I wonder if they are falling into the same mealy mouth language trap that seems to inform Christian marriage discussions generally. It allows them to FEEL what they want to feel when they say something, instead of saying what needs to be said succinctly.
Related to the subject of vows, the traditional Catholic nuptial Mass (from back before people starting choosing their own scripture passages and writing their own vows) uses Ephesians 5:22-23 for the reading. That’s right, it starts at 22, not 21, so it doesn’t create the confusion that people usually cause by running 21 (the last verse of the section about Christians in general, which talks about mutual subjection) into 22 (the first verse on husbands and wives).
Up next is something shocking even for FL. I have some things they put out that have them literally saying one thing in one article and saying the exact 180 degree opposite in another article. By this I do not mean that it is suggestive of contradiction. It is blatant contradiction, and it buttresses the argument that they write to FEEL something they desire to feel. The context of the articles can make it so that in one they say they love chocolate and in the next one they hate chocolate and it will kill you. If those statements are not core to the article but they need to be made to garner the feeling they want when they hit “Publish”….who cares
I actually don’t disagree with Huelskamp’s comments. Asking husbands to be the best husbands/fathers they can be is actually a good message. It comes up weak thought, as what he needed to ask husbands to LEAD their families.
A politician telling men to LEAD their wives & children is the 3rd rail of politics. That is what they may WANT to say, but they will commit political suicide in doing so.
What is missing is ANY dialogue whatsoever as to WHY single men are walking away from marriage.
As politicians, they still can’t name the problem (as Dalrock points out…….the problem without a name).
Until accountability within a marriage reverts to a more level playing field, fewer men will be willing to accept the risks that KMan points out in his airplane analogy.
Most men are willing to throw themselves upon their own sword for their families.
What men resent is a woman taking their sword, and telling them to ‘stand still’ while they run them through.
When we got married in one of the California missions, in a very hippie-lib town, my wife and I both said “please use the traditional scriptures and don’t substitute any ‘gender neutral’ pronouns or any of that nonsense.” The priest looked at us like we were aliens and spent 45 minutes trying to talk us out of it. He did what we asked for in the end, though.
“JF12 – “@Scott, re: “He seems to have the presupposition that the approach he is suggesting will be met with women swooning in a chorus of “finally a decent man!””
Correct. That has always been the error of traditional conservatives, that womynz lurv them some white knightin’.
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/01/13/chivalry-is-out-of-style/
Nothing could be further from the truth nowadays.”
If there is one thing I learned after becoming a Christian, it’s that most Christian girls need just as much if not more game than the secular girls. Really it is quite rediculous, it’s like these Christian girls are more susceptible to hyper gamy and solipsism due to never having experienced consequences from it.
I pissed off several Christian women friends earlier this year when I warned some men on FB not to date girls that watch the “The Bachelor”, after explaining why it is so popular among women and why it appeals the natural depraved nature they were born with. ( I know a group of 10 or so professing Christian women raised in solid families that hold bachelor viewing parties…)
I got a picture of their party and txt from one of them saying they love Jesus and the Bachelor. I responded with Matthew 6:24.
Fortunately I found a woman that requires much less game than the average Christian women of today. And white knighting would not have gotten me very far with her either, only leadership and true desire for taking headship and dominion.
Is there a dime’s worth of difference between a traditional conservative telling men to “Man up and stop just hanging out with harlots” and a traditional conservative telling men to “Man up and start marrying those harlots”?
On Matt Walsh’s current blog post, I addressed the same question in a previous post. There is an assumption that young men are in the driver’s seat with respect to the dating culture. But young men aren’t the ones in the power position in the SMP (see Rollo’s chart), young women are. It is young women who prefer ambiguity in the SMP, because this allows them maximum freedom. This is why even terms like “Hooking Up” are so vague. If young women wanted marriage that is what they would be pushing for, as they did in the past. This doesn’t change the fact that young Christian men should refuse to play the ambiguity game. He is right on that point. Stop being a celibate (or not) boyfriend, stop being a beta orbiter, etc. But ignoring the impulse of young women makes it harder for both men and women to understand what is really going on.
“Stop being a celibate (or not) boyfriend”
Care to clarify?
Casey says:
June 19, 2014 at 2:24 pm
“A politician telling men to LEAD their wives & children is the 3rd rail of politics. That is what they may WANT to say, but they will commit political suicide in doing so.”
It isn’t a politician’s place to say such things. That’s what pastors & priests are supposed to do. That’s their job. The problem is that the Church is largely abdicating its role in society to others (mostly the government) – from charity, to education, to defining marriage, etc.
If I may, I think what Dalrock means (and correct me if I am wrong Dalrock), after 3 or 4 months of dating (or whatever, some defined amount of time determined by the man) if the good Christian man is suggesting that the two of them should move towards engagement, and she signals that she is not ready for that (wants to remain girlfriend-boyfriend for an indefinite amount of time) then he should probably dump her. Right there. Goodbye.
From Matt Walsh’s latest post:
QUESTION
“When did men become so afraid to make a commitment, to take the lead, to say what they want, to make long term plans, to set goals, to pursue, to talk about the future?”
ANSWER
When women decided to push off serious relationships until well into their late 20’s early 30’s
STATEMENT
“And, yes, I get it. Our disastrous modern approach to dating (or whatever) isn’t all the fault of men. But there’s no point in parceling out the blame. All you can do, single dudes, is get your own selves together. Take the lead.”
REBUTTAL
When Matt Walsh says something like ‘there’s no point in parceling out the blame’ you can be pretty much guaranteed the substantial portion of the blame lands on women’s shoulders.
AIRLINE STORY
“Attention passengers This is your captain speaking. I just want to tell you that, like, I don’t want things to get weird or whatever, but I’m not really into being a captain right now. I mean, yeah, I chose to take a plane full of souls up 32 thousand feet in the air at crushing speeds of 600 miles per hour, but I don’t want you think that this is, like, official, you know? I’ve got your lives in my hands, but I don’t want this to get serious. In fact, actually, look, I’m just gonna bail now. I’ve got my parachute. You don’t but that’s your problem. I got what I wanted out of this. So, uh, yeah. Bye. Enjoy your fiery demise!”
REAL AIRLINE STORY
Substitute the words:
‘captain’ for ‘wife’
and
‘passengers’ for ‘family members’
in the above noted story, and you have the truth.
Yes, the idea that typical young women would jump at marriage if the young men they’re dating would just stop goofing off and propose to them is bizarre. I suppose women can believe that, because they only see the apex alphas for whom they would give up their independence. And maybe those alphas can believe it because they get young women hinting around about marriage. But for the vast majority of men — and thus for the vast majority of women, assuming monogamy — it’s just not the case.
Young women’s default position on marriage is NO. That might change if Brad Pitt (or whoever is today’s version of him) came up and proposed, but it’s not going to change because that decent-looking guy at the office with a good job does. Young men know this, so they don’t push marriage because A) they get the sex without it, and/or B) they know bringing up marriage with a young woman is a sure way to send her running.
@ Oscar
I agree with you……..the church is abdicating its role.
BUT
as long as politicians are also lawmakers; fools of all stripes will be looking to coerse them and silence them for their own purpose.
I would love to live in a world where politicians re-directed the GLBT marriage debate over to the church. In turn, the church could say……’Piss Off’.
We just don’t have such a world.
Young women’s default position on marriage is NO. That might change if Brad Pitt (or whoever is today’s version of him) came up and proposed, but it’s not going to change because that decent-looking guy at the office with a good job does. Young men know this, so they don’t push marriage because A) they get the sex without it, and/or B) they know bringing up marriage with a young woman is a sure way to send her running.
No way to better say it Cail.
26. Find female mentors/leaders. (i.e., Be subordinate to women.)
If you are seeking a mentor, or want to volunteer with an organization, go with a woman, or woman-led organization. Know that there’s a lot you can learn from women in positions of authority.
[Trigger warning: utter stupidity] http://www.xojane.com/issues/feminism-men-practical-steps
@Casey
You nailed it. If I had been drinking something I would have spilt it everywhere.
“If I may, I think what Dalrock means (and correct me if I am wrong Dalrock), after 3 or 4 months of dating (or whatever, some defined amount of time determined by the man) if the good Christian man is suggesting that the two of them should move towards engagement, and she signals that she is not ready for that (wants to remain girlfriend-boyfriend for an indefinite amount of time) then he should probably dump her. Right there. Goodbye.”
I’ve been reading Dalrock long enough to know that his prose is more articulate than to mean that. I appreciate your stab but cannot believe that’s what he means.
I’m in all honesty just waiting for Dalrock to take a stab at celibate men. This is what everyone does, including Christians and its freaking sickening.
they don’t push marriage because A) they get the sex without it
…and C) they have seen that with it you may well get neither sex nor recourse.
@ KB
The impression that I got from Dalrock’s statement is that men should stop being boyfriends (whether or not they are sleeping with their girlfriend), and push for marriage. If the woman accepts, great. If not, then move on.
@ Cail
Speaking from personal experience I can vouch for the fact that (nearly all) women don’t want to marry until they are good and ready. Which usually happens to be in their late 20s, sometimes early 30s.
@ Casey
Such stories/metaphors are always an invaluable tool. You can often trap someone with their own words using them, and force them to confront, if only for a little while, the harshness of logic.
I am not convinced that Rainey is saying on his show what he does merely for the money. I think he really believes what he says, he is just off target. He does market his conferences, but the that is true, of just about anyone who holds conferences and, has a communication platform.
KB, I for one will not. If anyone wants to go full-Paulean MGTOW, I can neither blame them nor cast aspersions. It’s not for me – I would, as Paul put it, “burn.” But if it’s your plan and you are of the state to be able to do so in holiness, by all means do!
Casey says:June 19, 2014 at 2:51 pm
I think a better analogy would be the co-pilot (read: wife) telling the pilot (read: husband):
“Yeah, look, I know it takes two of us to safely fly this Boeing 767 with a crew of 10 and 200 souls at 37,000 feet to get us all there in one piece. But y’know, I’ve decided that this piloting stuff just isn’t for me anymore. It’s time for me right now to “find myself,” so I’m gonna just grab the parachute I brought with me and bail out. I have no idea how you’re gonna land this plane by yourself, but hey, you’re the Captain, so that’s YOUR problem to figure out, not mine. Man up!
“Oh, by the way: even though I’m quitting in the middle of a flight, you and/or the airline still owe me, not just for this flight, but for every flight I ever would’ve flown till the day I die or would’ve decided to retire. If the airline doesn’t pay me, I’ll make sure YOU will, either out of your bank account or from whatever life insurance you have if you’re killed if this plane crashes. Oh, and I’ll sue you for wrongful death too if the plane crashes and any of the passengers are killed.”
@Casey –
“selling accountability to women in general is NOT a money maker.”
Bingo.
And you know what would be even worse for business (for Rainey specifically)?
If his daughter were to frivorce. That would unrecoverably damage his credibility by proxy.
Thus his cover-all-bases preventive measures and his bullheaded insistence that his daughter’s particular marriage must prevail, ’til death do them part, at all costs.
Thing is, this could work for an individual man, because there are some young women who are interested in marriage, or who would be if a desirable enough man came along. If a guy is in the top 20% or can work on himself to get there, and he makes a priority of finding one of those women and gaming her, he can make it happen. I know couples like that. So as counsel for individual marriage-minded men, it’s not bad advice to say, “Stop focusing on how screwed up girls are; focus on getting your own act together and then go find a good one.”
But as a community-wide solution, that fails, because all men can’t work themselves into the top 20% (reminiscent of George Bush’s desire that all school children be above average) where their position at the top of the heap appeals to a young woman’s hypergamy enough to overcome her desire to delay marriage and keep her options open. Hypergamy doesn’t work that way. Even if you got all men to improve themselves, today’s girls would still want the top guys, and still be unwilling to “settle” for the rest.
KB asks ““Stop being a celibate (or not) boyfriend” Care to clarify?”
Request for clarification seconded. Fine if you want to go down the “I kissed dating goodbye” route, not so good if you think the unicorn is going to sneak up on you and poke your rear.
@Cail, re: “But as a community-wide solution, that fails”
At j4g I’m disparaging the view that it *should* only work for the deserving few as the No True Mature Adult fallacy.
@ feeriker
I stand corrected sir.
Signed in just to post, hallo.
I’ve been arguing this one today, and the Good Christian Woman types are all claiming that the men out there are only interested in sleeping around, playing with women, and otherwise being cads. And that these men just don’t want marriage. Which is funny to me, because I know it’s gotta be maybe 10% of men who really have that level of game.
You can see women’s desire not to get married, but to get married to the right tingle inducing guy on display in the comments. They are clearly blind to all the men that aren’t in their top 10% bracket. But you can’t make them see that.
The context of his whole comment makes it clear: stop playing the ambiguity game and letting girls use you to delay marriage. Stop getting into open-ended relationships with girls who say they might want to get married “someday.” Stop providing them with emotional support and attention, stop helping them move furniture into their fabulous Apartments of Independence, and generally stop giving them what they should have to wear a man’s ring to get.
Again, for the reasons I gave above, this is not a solution to our society’s problem with delayed marriage. But for individual Christian men, it’s what they should be doing because it’s the right thing to do, and for their own masculine self-respect. If you’re providing a woman with husband-type services and not getting sex, you’re a chump. If you’re providing her with husband-type services and getting sex without being married to her, you’re fornicating. Neither one should be acceptable.
“There was space at the bottom of the covenant for others to sign, and the pastor asked if anyone in the audience wanted to witness the marriage covenant. By doing so people would pledge to pray for Michael and Ashley and promise to hold them accountable for keeping their covenant.”
Would this actually work in practice? Any divorce would probably happen years after the ceremony, when many of those signers would no longer be around. And how would the signers hold them accountable? Shaming, of course, but that’s inadequate compared to all the whispers a wife constantly hears. This sort of accountability is why marriages were held as public ceremonies in the first place… didn’t stop the ceremonies morphing into Bridezilla.
empathologism @ 2:17 pm:
“Ive had a couple of occasions to present both Dennis and Barbara Rainey in a positive light. I wonder if they are falling into the same mealy mouth language trap that seems to inform Christian marriage discussions generally. It allows them to FEEL what they want to feel when they say something, instead of saying what needs to be said succinctly.”
This is the most frustrating thing about our poor church leadership. From their beliefs and actions it’s obvious many of our leaders care about God, or at minimum the church, but on certain topics they inexplicably do an about-face. Are feelings what it’s really all about? It seems too simple– these educated guys end up lying about and outright rejecting the Bible– but I don’t have a different theory to propose.
One thing the manosphere has taught me is how not socially astute I am. Thank you, everybody, for explaining things to the slow class. We need you.
Willie Nelson moaned about women’s fickle nature in Crazy, written for a man to sing about giving up “I’m crazy for thinkin’ that my love could hold you, crazy for tryin’, crazy for cryin’ and I’m crazy for lovin’ you”.
In contrast, Amanda McBroom tried to womansplain’ to a given-up man “you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong” about women’s fickleness being cyclic, or something, in The Rose, written for a woman to sing.
re: “Stop letting girls use you to delay marriage”
I don’t know of ANY young Christian men like that. Women refuse to date them and refuse to have them as boyfriends *because* those young Christian men will erroneously think that means the women are open to marrying them.
@ MarcusD
Re: article link
http://www.xojane.com/issues/feminism-men-practical-steps
What utter hogwash.
Everyone please read this with the appropriate changes necessary to be a list of advice for men advising women how they should act.
How would a similar list (or directly transcribed gender reversed list) be received?
Oh, how the mighty have fallen: one day dude believes one thing, then all of a sudden he changes his mind. But I can’t really blame him – we all need money and to get money he needs more followers, hence preaching of populist ideas.
@Cail Corishev
Well put. I’ve expanded on the problems with the concept of boyfriend and celibate boyfriend in previous posts.
Just to clarify, what I’m not saying is to wear your heart on your sleeve in a foolish attempt to save women from the ambiguity of the SMP. A young woman looking for marriage and not a FWB, hookup, boyfriend, etc is well advised to make this very clear to her social circle. As she is in the power position in the SMP and especially if she walks the walk in her faith this won’t be perceived as desperation on her part. Other women will greatly resent her because another woman picking while the picking is good threatens their own plan to delay marriage, but even this reaffirms that she isn’t acting in desperation but from a strong position. By being clear about this she will reduce (but never eliminate) the number of offers of courting for sex that she would otherwise receive, but this is to her advantage if she is serious.
However, a young man needs to be very careful not to send a signal of desperation “Won’t somebody please marry me!” But this doesn’t mean he can’t accomplish the same kind of filtering while not taking an excessive hit preselection wise. To do this he will need to thread the needle, and there won’t be any one way to do this since it will depend on his environment, options, etc.
If he has learned enough game to attract women, he can use this attraction and his ability to direct social situations to ascertain how serious young women are about marriage without giving off a vibe of desperation. Part of this will involve being brutally clear in his own mind that casual conversation and even flirting don’t create any obligations (beyond simple courtesy) either to or from the woman. He can even use some aloof game by gently nexting the women he either finds he isn’t interested in or aren’t interested in him, or he determines aren’t seriously looking to marry (or aren’t looking for biblical marriage).
If pinned down directly for an answer as to why he doesn’t have a girlfriend (and/or why he has nexted so many women), he should explain that while getting a hookup/FWB/girlfriend would be trivially easy (and he really is flattered by the offers), finding a worthy wife takes a bit more time. In the meantime, he is quite happy to lead his fascinating and exciting life.
The primary problem with Walsh’s friend is the friend had imagined some sort of romantic connection with this woman where none really existed. If she wanted to push to be his girlfriend (or whatever), she would have made this clear. What Walsh’s friend should have done is recognized very quickly that this woman is flaky, and not said such foolish things to Matt. He doesn’t need to state intentions for the relationship because there is no relationship. They are acquaintances, nothing more. If it comes to a point where she is pushing for more and he isn’t interested, then he would need to deal with that out of simple courtesy.
@Casey: 35 Ways you Can Infantilize Women.
If you’re providing a woman with husband-type services and not getting sex, you’re a chump. If you’re providing her with husband-type services andgetting sex without being married to her, you’re fornicating. Neither one should be acceptable.
I’m sitting here trying to imagine successfully injecting this nugget of 24-karat gold advice into a “Dating and Marriage” seminar of the type typically conducted by a churchian franchise of the Protestant variety. IME, one would stand a better chance of successfully introducing raw pornography as a teaching aid.
JF12, you’re right, generally girls keep the men with marriage in their eyes as beta orbiters, not boyfriends. They can smell marriage intentions on a man and keep him at a distance. The point remains the same: don’t give a girl the benefits of a special relationship with you, giving her anything you wouldn’t give to a random acquaintance, in hopes that she’ll be enticed into marriage. That’s what many betas do, and it never, ever works, except in a few cases like Jenny Erickson (remember her?) where she decides to settle for one reason or another and then regrets it and punishes the man until she leaves.
A marriage-minded Christian man should have marriage as the goal at the start, and a woman shouldn’t get any of the benefits of marriage (emotional support, lifting things, etc.) unless she’s headed down the path to that goal with him. As they proceed, she should get more as marriage becomes more certain (and he should too; she should start to cook for him sometimes and things like that), but she shouldn’t get the whole package until they’re married — when he gets the most important part of the deal for him: sex.
Of course, if a Christian man isn’t marriage-minded, none of this applies. He should still refuse to be a beta orbiter, though, for his own self-respect and so that he’s not hurting other men by helping women to delay marriage.
**XoJane article re-written**
“How to be a classy, feminine, attractive woman of character”
1. Do 50% (or more) of housework.
You need to do your share of housework all the time, of your own accord, without procrastinating, without being asked, without making excuses. Recognize that our domestic habits are hugely gendered and hugely benefit women, and accept that it is your responsibility to fight against this.
2. Do 50% (or more) of emotional support work in your intimate relationships and friendships.
Recognize that men are disproportionately responsible for *real* labor and that being responsible for this takes away time and energy from things they find fulfilling.
3. Consume cultural products produced by men.
In whatever your interests are — French cinema, astrophysics, the WNBA, birdwatching — ensure that men’s voices and men’s cultural products are represented in what you are consuming. If they are not, make an effort to seek them out.
4. Give men space.
Many men walk around feeling stalked by creepy women. Being in close physical proximity to a former female lover can exacerbate this feeling. Recognize that this is not an unreasonable fear for men to have, given how many of us have experienced harassment or abuse or been made to feel creeped out by women when we are in public spaces. Also recognize that it doesn’t matter if you are the kind of woman who a man has any actual reason to be creeped out by, because a man on the street doesn’t have a way of knowing this about you or not.
Examples: If a seat is available on public transit next to a woman, take that seat rather than one next to a man. If you are walking outside in the dark close to a man walking alone, cross the street so that he doesn’t have to worry someone is following him. If a man is standing alone on a subway platform, stand some distance away from him.
5. … but insert yourself into spaces where you can use your femaleness to interrupt sexism.
Examples: challenge women who make sexist comments and jokes. If you see a male friend in a bar/at a party/on the subway/wherever looking uncomfortable as a woman is speaking to him, try to interject in a friendly way that offers him an opportunity for an “out” if he wants it. If you see a situation where a man looks like he may be in distress while in the company of a woman, stand nearby enough that you make yourself a physical presence, monitor the situation, and be in a position to call for help if needed.
Things like this can super difficult, awkward, and complicated to know how to do, but it’s worth trying anyway. Making yourself feel momentarily uncomfortable is a fair tradeoff for making a man feel more comfortable.
6. When a man tells you something is sexist, believe him.
7. Educate yourself about paternity rights and make sure there is clear, unambiguous assurance of the actual paternity of all the children you have borne.
8. Be responsible for contraception.
9. Get the HPV vaccine.
Especially if you plan on slutting it up. Don’t pass a venereal disease on to an innocent man.
10. Have traditional name policies.
If you and your male partner decide that the institution of marriage is something you want to be involved with, be willing to take his surname.
11. If you have children, be an equal parent.
Be willing to take maternity leave and to stay home and care for them when they are young. Even if a court of law grants you more than 50% custody, ensure that you and your partner both get to spend an equal amount of “play” time with your children too.
12. Pay attention to and challenge informal instances of feminist gender dogma.
For example, if you see feminists spewing nonsense, demurely communicate how full of shit they are, and how much happier you are than them, in comparison.
13. Be mindful of implicit and explicit post-feminist gendered power differentials in your intimate/domestic relationships with men…whether a partner or family members or roommates.
14. Make sure that honesty and respect guide your romantic and sexual relationships with men.
The way you treat men with whom you are in a relationship is a mirror of your values about men in general. It doesn’t work to espouse ‘feminist’ theory and then treat your partners like trash. Be upfront and open about your intentions, communicate openly so that men have the ability to make informed, autonomous decisions about what they want to do.
15. Don’t be an online bystander in the face of misandry.
Challenge people who make, say, or post misandrist things on the Internet, especially on social media.
16. Be responsible with money in domestic/romantic relationships.
Know that if you are irresponsible with money, this necessarily impacts your partner and since we are in the aftermath of a mostly-male job recession, this is of particular importance to men.
Example: Your credit card debt/money wastage problem impacts his economic livelihood and future. Share budget making, tax filing, and general personal finance duties and be open and honest about household money management.
17. Be responsible for your own health.
Don’t get fat. Just consume less calories than you burn. Exercise. Be thin. Look healthy.
18. Don’t ogle or make comments about men. (i.e., Keep your tongue in your mouth and comments to yourself.)
Even though men may be more biologically prone to staring at women’s figures than women are, don’t ogle them just because you want to and can. Though you may find someone attractive, there’s a line between noticing and being creepy/disrespectful. It makes the ogler feel uncomfortable, as well as any men who notice the ogling or are aware of the comments.
19. Pay attention to the sex of experts and key figures presenting information to you in the media.
When you are watching an expert on TV, reading articles, etc., notice how often this information will come from women and, at the very least, wonder how a male perspective might be different.
20. Ensure that some of your heroes and role models are men.
21. Praise the virtues and accomplishments of men in your life to others.
In everyday conversation and in communication in general, talk to others about men you know in a positive light. Suggest your male friends for projects, jobs, and collaborations with other people you know.
22. Have integrity with your female friends. (i.e., Don’t be a “ho.”)
When a female friend is doing something sexist (being a malevolent liar, down-talking men, ogling men, secretly spending shared money, lying to their partner, etc.) have integrity and say something to your friend. It’s not enough to think it’s wrong; let them know you think it’s wrong.
23. Don’t treat your spouse like a “lag.” If he is “lagging,” you are probably nagging.
24. Know that acknowledging your own sexist opinions and stereotypes you hold is not enough. Do something about them.
25. Befriend men.
If you don’t have any male friends, figure out why you don’t and then make some. Make sure they are authentic, meaningful relationships.The more we care about and relate to one anther, the better chance we stand of creating a more egalitarian society.
26. Find male mentors/leaders. (i.e., Be subordinate to men.)
If you are seeking a mentor, or want to volunteer with an organization, go with a man, or man-led organization. Know that there’s a lot you can learn from men in positions of authority.
27. When in a romantic relationship, be responsible for events and special dates associated with your side of the family.
Remember your family members’ birthdays, anniversaries and important events. Don’t rely on your spouse to send cards, make phone calls, organize reunions, etc. It is your family, and thus your responsibility to remember, care about, and contact them.
28. Don’t police men’s appearance.
That’s called nagging. Don’t do that.
29. Offer to accompany male friends to a happy hour or social event if you think that will help them meet a woman, thanks to the preselection inherent in your attending said event with him.
30. Inject positive comments about men into your daily conversations with other women.
If your mother doesn’t do his fair share of housework, talk to her about why this is important. If your friend cheats on her boyfriend or speaks negatively about him, talk to her candidly about respecting individual men with whom she is intimate is part of having respect for men in general. Have conversations with your younger sisters and daughters about sexual consent.
31. If you have a tendency to behave inappropriately toward men when you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, do not consume drugs or alcohol.
32. Be aware of the physical and emotional space you occupy, and don’t take up more space than you need.
Also, be thin. Don’t be fat. Take care of yourself. A lot of women are very obese these days.
33. Walk the walk about employment inequality.
Men have lost far more jobs in the last 10 years than have women. This ‘male recession’ has taken a toll on a great many men. Therefore, do your part and chip in where you can to make your male partner’s life a little bit easier.
34. Get in the habit of treating your femaleness as an unearned privilege that you have to actively work to cede rather than maleness being an unearned disadvantage that men have to work to overcome.
35. Self-identify as a woman who loves men.
Speak about men as being mostly decent human beings, because they are. Don’t hedge. Just be classy. You already know how to do this.
*THE END*
@Cail “A marriage-minded Christian man should have marriage as the goal at the start”
I completely agree. This does not mean that they *start* at the goal. Somewhere between the “starting line” and “fiancée” is quite a stretch of field. Is there a better term than boyfriend?
Dalrock @4:16 pm appears to mansplain that only a man who has gotten multiple offers from women should consider getting married to one of them.
I don’t know what to say except to mutely point to some version of No True Mature Adult being a fallacy.
@ jf12
Suitor.
@JF12
I’m not sure how you got that from my comment. What I’m describing is how a young man with an understanding of sexual dynamics can navigate his way through our profoundly dysfunctional SMP. On his way to finding what in truth is a fairly extraordinary woman, he will need to make enough contacts to determine what his options are. From there he needs to either fish or cut bait. If the woman is marriage minded and attracted to him (and he is also interested) then he would need to start them off on a more defined path of courtship. But before this point he needs to be subtle as he goes about his business of gathering intel. No woman is going to propose to him, let alone multiple women. But it is possible to learn a great deal without announcing you are searching for a wife, and even without going on any (or very many) dates. Look at the women who manage to marry young and you will find they did something very similar (even though being open about their plans wouldn’t have hurt them, they tend to assume it would because in their gut they know how they would see such a man). Young women casually mingle with scores of single young men in church, work, and school, and they suss a great deal out about their general prospects as well as specific men even without going on dates.
@Dalrock re: “I’m not sure how you got that from my comment”
“he should explain that while getting a hookup/FWB/girlfriend would be trivially easy (and he really is flattered by the offers),”
re: “Young women casually mingle with scores of single young men”
who are all, every single one, interested in the women. That’s the big difference. Most young men aren’t going to be generating interest in scores of singly young women.
I don’t think a typical young man’s subtlety and self-improvement are going to generate obvious interest in marriage from multiple young women these days, or even one. In fact, I don’t merely doubt it, I dispute it. *Especially* in such a rougher SMP, a typical young man has to work even harder than ever to sell himself to even one woman. And that is the reason so many young men give up: because they have to work so hard for so little guarantee.
@JF12
I don’t see the objection. Yes a man who wants to marry needs to be attractive to women. Yes it is hard for a young man to do (I’ll repeat my reference to Rollo’s curve). But if his goal is marriage this is what he needs to do. Note also that my advice works even for men who can’t generate attraction. If women aren’t interested in him, he shouldn’t be asking them on dates and/or professing his desire to wife them up. Nor should he become their beta orbiter offering as Cail points out what are the services of a husband. He should cheerfully get on with his fabulous and exciting life until such a point that his options are better. To do otherwise is a prescription for misery, and very likely will damage his SMP reputation later on when he would otherwise be in a stronger position.
“He should cheerfully get on with his fabulous and exciting life until such a point that his options are better.” + “he should explain that while getting a hookup/FWB/girlfriend would be trivially easy (and he really is flattered by the offers)” = “only a man who has gotten multiple offers from women should consider getting married to one of them.”
@donalgraeme, I agree suitor is a better word. That is the “kissed dating goodbye” version.
@Casey. Here is a guy breaking #32 very badly. This guys is clearly taking up too much space:
Here’s a practical example. There’s a girl at my church who showed a strong interest in me after my divorce. We did the dance for a while, finding safe ways to spend time together, discussing a lot of the hypotheticals of marriage, doing nice things for each other. Eventually things got too serious for her (she’s terrified of marriage for reasons I won’t get into here), so she sabotaged it and bailed out.
Okay, fine, no hard feelings. We gave it a try and it wasn’t there. When I’d see her at church, I’d still be friendly and say hello. If she made conversation, I’d make it back. But when she mentioned she was moving into her new house — obviously expecting me to offer to help — I wished her luck. When she later brought up projects she was working on around her house, asking for advice, I ignored the obvious subtext that she was giving me a chance to do them for her, gave minimal advice like “I think they’ll teach you how to do that at Home Depot,” and left it at that. After a while, she seemed completely confused and unable to figure out how to approach me at all. She’s attractive enough that I wouldn’t be surprised if no man has ever drawn a line with her like that.
Now, years ago, I would have pursued her, tried to talk her into continuing the relationship, and ramped up the favors and attention in an attempt to persuade her. That’s what we’re saying don’t do, when we talk about not being her open-ended boyfriend. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work to get that particular girl, and it inflates her ego and makes her that much harder for the next guy to deal with.
[D: Nailed it.]
Those are very good.
The caveat is that many of those only apply if the woman is single / unattached. If she is attached, then she wouldn’t have a lot of interaction with men unless they were also carefully vetted by her partner, and he was also involved in those interactions, unless they occurred in the workplace.
“She’s attractive enough that I wouldn’t be surprised if no man has ever drawn a line with her like that.”
Cail – bravo. You’re probably right. Think of what a positive representation of you that will yield wrt other women in her social circle. Well done.
Cail,
Yes but you see, if you say this to a woman (any woman really) they will say that you (by directing her to Home Depot instead of just doing it for her) just missed your window to win her back. If you were really into her (and really wanted her to be your wife, maybe, if she would ever re-evaluate her original position of dumping you) you missed an opportunity here to force her into loving you by doing all these honey-dos.
The majority of women are either so naïve about themselves and why they love certain men (either that or they think we are soooo stupid as to how much control a man really has over them) that men have the ultimate power here to make women fall in love with us by our actions.
re: “not being her open-ended boyfriend. It doesn’t work.”
Correct. But you were her *boyfriend* previously (“did the dance for a while”), just not her open-ended boyfriend.
@JF12
Either I’m doing a terrible job describing this or you are working very hard to misunderstand. The flattery comment was a throwaway, a bit of bragging. Best said with a twinkle in his eye. Realistically though a man who can generate attraction from women will tend to find himself faced with offers. Not offers for marriage, but for sex. As a moral man he should decline these, but there is no harm in stating that he was flattered. It is possible that a man will find a woman who is truly attracted to him, wants to marry him, and yet he hasn’t ever had an offer for illicit sex. So be it. I’m not saying he needs the one to get the other, or that he should pass up on marriage until he has had illicit offers. But nearly always a man who learns how to become attractive to women will be astounded at how forward women can become when they are attracted. She finds an excuse to maneuver him into a secluded space and her clothes start coming off, etc.
I’m sensing a strong theme of young Christian women thinking they can put former suitors, whom they have declined for the opportunity of marriage (the man DID make his intentions clear), into the beta-orbiter refrigerator, and the women thinking those former suitors will be there when the women finally decide they are ready. It’s the result of moving from a culture in which his desires are respected to where her desire to be able to choose is more respected.
But, again, I’m not seeing a whole lot of this. I see young suitors being turned down and then those men nexting the women. Do the women actually think they are guaranteed to take another chance at a man they turned down? From where did they get that idea?
@Dalrock, re: “I’m not saying he needs the one to get the other, or that he should pass up on marriage until he has had illicit offers.
Ok, I’m glad.
“But nearly always a man who learns how to become attractive to women will be astounded at how forward women can become when they are attracted. She finds an excuse to maneuver him into a secluded space and her clothes start coming off”
True. I’m amazed at how easy women are when sexually objectified; I had no clue earlier. But it is not easy for a young man who was raised right, i.e. to not sexually objectify women under penalty of certain pain and death and damnation, to think that he *could* treat women like that if he chose to.
“The flattery comment was a throwaway, a bit of bragging. Best said with a twinkle in his eye.”
Do we really want to raise our sons *knowing* that and knowing *how* they could get easy lays whenever they wanted to? I’ve been wrestling with this for a couple of years now.
And in case someone wants to ask, yeah somebody spit, or worse, in my soup today.
Do the women actually think they are guaranteed to take another chance at a man they turned down? From where did they get that idea?”
Yes. From this (which I’m sure you’ve probably seen before): https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/feminized_smv_curve.jpg
Thus, why wouldn’t she think she’ll get another shot – whenever in the future she may want to take that shot again?
@JF12
I would frame it differently. Our sons will be surrounded by harlots. They need to understand this both to avoid sin and to avoid marrying one. That this understanding will also make them more attractive to the kind of woman worthy of marriage is a bonus. I’m looking for the downside here (to teaching our sons about the reality of the world), and can’t see one.
@SteveH
A former girlfriend invited me to be her facebook friend some 25 years after last seeing me in person. When we split she had wanted to change the relationship into something I found unacceptable. First communication in years says “It’s cold and lonely here in XXX. I’ve been divorced for years” with hints that she would welcome me warmly. Even if I had not been married, I would have declined her offer.
But generally,it is not just the para-church organisations which ha
Right. I was her boyfriend only to the extent that she was my girlfriend and things were moving forward toward a goal. I didn’t give more than I got, hoping to buy her affections or walk her into a relationship without her knowing it. I said, “Here I am; I think this could be a good thing; if you think so too we can move forward.”
I didn’t handle it perfectly, because I didn’t understand some of these things yet then; so I let too much be unspoken. If I had it to do over, I’d be even more blunt about my intentions and expectations. But I did understand enough about Game to know that supplication and being more available to her than she was to me would kill the relationship in a hurry, so I didn’t let myself do that.
It didn’t “work” in the sense that I didn’t get her. But that means I wasn’t going to get her anyway, and I saved myself all the time and angst of chasing and trying to convince her, and came away with a lesson learned, more self-respect, and as Steve H., said, probably a boost in my social standing (or at least not the damage to it that chasing an uninterested woman causes).
But generally,it is not just para-church organisations which have these issues. The following is from the Report of the Faith and Order Committee of the Methodist Church in Britain
“Following a resolution from the 2010 Conference, the Faith and Order Committee undertook some work to assist the production of a resource exploring cohabitation. If a resource were to be produced which enables different age groups throughout the Methodist Church to engage with the issue of cohabitation, then further work would be required and resources would need to be allocated within the Connexional Team workplan. In the context of the work being proposed by the working party exploring the issues arising from recent legislative changes regarding marriage, the Faith and Order Committee would be willing to give further consideration to its consequences for the issue of cohabitation, and to work with those responsible should any appropriate resource be required.”
At times I wonder if this is part of the Church of God or a synagogue of satan.
I think they’ll be much better off for having grown up with this knowledge. For those of us who were raised on the feminine imperative and white-knighting, the red pill can be quite a blow and send a man reeling. Sometimes a guy will use his newfound knowledge to make up for lost time and “get back at” women by using them sexually the way he had been used emotionally. Unfortunate, but unsurprising. Sometimes you can even see guys going through the classic stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. We see them all here, because extremely strong beliefs are dying.
If your sons don’t grow up on the female imperative, or if you at least give them a taste of the red pill so they aren’t completely taken by the myths, they won’t have that same reaction. They’ll be able to see girls much more realistically from the start, so they won’t be knocked off a pedestal later.
From the fact that, ever since she got breasts, she’s had an abundance of attention from boys. (The South Park episode on that is a good one.)
From the fact that her Hollywood heroes all look fabulous and desirable well into their 40s and even 50s or later.
From everyone — and I mean everyone: parents, friends, pastors, teachers, and every form of media — telling her that she’s only going to get sexier and more interesting as she ages and gains education and experience.
“A man who can generate attraction from women will tend to find himself faced with offers… for sex. As a moral man he should decline these.”
Doesn’t work that way today.
Only men who pursue sex generate attraction, no proposition of sex equals no attraction. It’s a catch 22.
I just glanced over the 35 things men might do to help the feminist revolution.
Let me see if I understand. Dearies spend all the money they earn, plus 50% of all money all men earn, even though a lot of men aren’t married. They have EEOC, and affirmative action. They have the police department, and the National Guard, and child support recovery, and alimony enforcement.
Also, Army; Air force; Marines; Merchant Marines; Navy; Marines; Highway Patrol; Sheriff’s department; and their needs tend to be the number one expense at every level of government.
Yet, we men are also supposed to pitch in on a personal basis? I don’t think so, More proof of the inherent inferiority of dearies, once you fully understand this whole mess.
At times I wonder if this is part of the Church of God or a synagogue of satan.
That report extract you cite reads more like a government bureaucracy’s quarterly performance summary than anything having to do with a church. Then again, considering its source, that comes as no surprise whatsoever.
I was born in 1942. Until 1962, I lived on a farm and fully expected to be a farmer.
In those days, most farmers were general farmers. That means they had a little bit of everything. Hogs; chickens; cows; hay; corn and anything else you could think of.
Later on, it became well known that farmers were better off and lived better if they specialized. For example; a grain or hay farmer. Or maybe a dairy farmer, even in some cases buying all food and forage if your inefficiencies in producing those things cost you more than buying them.
We always had hogs. Bad smelling creatures. And, we ‘slopped’ them. That meant putting a mix of dry food in a large bucket, and adding water, then pouring it all into a trough. You added a lot of water, because that much dry grain might not go down too good.
At which time every hog would push and shove and squeal, trying to get absolutely the maximum amount of the slop. Horrid squeals that pounded on your brain.
Thirty years ago, I compared feminists to those squealing hogs. Now, it’s just American women overall. No matter how much they get, they are still pushing and shoving and squealing for more and more.
Dalrock says: “But nearly always a man who learns how to become attractive to women will be astounded at how forward women can become when they are attracted. She finds an excuse to maneuver him into a secluded space and her clothes start coming off, etc.”
I can confirm this statement from personal experience later in life after starting off earlier in life fairly disinteresting to women. I’m tall with slightly above average looks and over the years my improved sophistication with women or ‘game’ if you prefer has made a tremendous difference in the response I get from females, often shockingly younger females. The fact that I’ve done well financially is like catnip to the single mid 30 something wall-bangers. I don’t kid myself here for a minute however, this isn’t purely the result of status, rather it’s primarily the result of a population of feral females who are pretty damn promiscuous to start with. A slut will sleep around and eventually take the best offer she can get when her market value starts to run out. Many of these sluts will be man-shopping at church. You don’t want to be the last man in that rather long line.
Steve H June 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Pure Gold! Couldn’t have done it better myself!
Johnycomelately, well said.
jf12 says @ 5:48 pm:
“Do we really want to raise our sons *knowing* that and knowing *how* they could get easy lays whenever they wanted to? I’ve been wrestling with this for a couple of years now.”
Absolutely yes because they are our SONS. Power and authority are the birthrights of men. Look through the Bible; from Abraham to Timothy, it’s the men who build civilization, wage wars, govern nations and represent God to humanity. God intends men to have power.
Not teaching your sons about female behavior denies them the ability to wield the power they should have. Will they use that power for evil? Possibly; the greatest villains in the Bible are also men. But denying them the opportunity to have that choice is literally emasculating.
An interesting story that I saw on the news:
https://shine.yahoo.com/photos/modern-day-fairy-tale-journey-slideshow/danielle-taylor-39-side-photo-2513772-193400093.html
You definitely need to teach your sons, and daughters for that matter, reality. It may not be pretty and you don’t have to encourage sin, but do all you can to make sure they know how things are so they can hopefully survive better.
This assumes they want to learn anything from you of course.
CAF:
Bikinis and Modesty – A Mother Responds to her Daughter….
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=891080
Hubby brought home a kitten?!
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=891073
should I leave
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=891089
Living with the inlaws, husband won’t move out
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=891123
@Gunner Q June 19, 2014 at 11:31 pm
Knowledge and technology are always morally neutral. It is the use that a person makes of the knowledge or technology that adds the moral dimension.
Dennis Rainey is a prime example of Christian hypocrisy in action. He knows the truth about marriage, and then he turns around and lies to his ministry. He is double dealing in the worst sense of the term. What scum.
As for Matt Walsh, women are the ones responsible for this mess. There, I apportioned the blame, no need to do it yourself–no, no, you can thank me later. Just trying to help.
Unfortunately, women have made it clear that men are not entitled to anything at all in the realm of dating. Hence the confusion in which men find themselves; they are not entitled to relational clarity. They will fumble along–i mean, they are men, when do they not fumble, eh?
It strikes me that this lack of knowledge of the state of a relationship is very much a feminine creation. Their sexuality is based in deception, and everything flowing out from that becomes shrouded, too. When men held sway over the scene, they had courtship, where a man was up front in his intentions. Now that women are ascendant, they take away that certainty. Anyone have any sort of support for this, or read anything of the like?
The Shadowed Knight
I suppose one could say that a man’s ideal would be to have a Harem of adoring women and a woman’s ideal would be a supply of Beta males (all of whom think that they have a chance of promotion, hence the lack of clarity from the woman as to their position).
@tsk “When men held sway over the scene, they had courtship, where a man was up front in his intentions. Now that women are ascendant, they take away that certainty.”
Yes.
@BradA, re: “you don’t have to encourage sin”
Yeah, but. In the same way that a mom couldn’t teach a girl “Ya know, if you just want to have sex with some guy, you could bend over in front of him, like this, and twerk your rear end, like this. He’ll get the message. But don’t actually ever do it.” and actually pretend not to be encouraging sin, I don’t see any way to teach my son “Ya know, if you just want to have sex with some girl, make your desire known right away, so focus her attention on your crotch. If you want something, anything, really all you have to do is just reach out and grab it. But don’t actually ever do it.”
The number one marriage vow ignored and/or broken by women is the “to have and to hold” clause. As such, the sexual desert that results is the cause of much male dissatisfaction with what would otherwise be happy and healthy marriages.
@Dalrock, re: “I’m looking for the downside here (to teaching our sons about the reality of the world), and can’t see one.”
My cognitive difficulty with all this, and my vacillating may be due more to fear and trembling than to indecisiveness, is that giving our sons the tools to be bad boys and then telling them “Wink-wink nudge-nudge, but don’t actually go through with it.” at *best* permeates everything else we might ever say with the stench of hypocrisy.
I cannot and therefore will not argue against the *necessity* for the abundance mentality for success in today’s SMP even for Christian men. But I will argue that your suggestion, i.e. to teach a boy to up his Game sufficiently to know that girls are easy for him, is the mirror image of feminism. In the face of the overwhelming popularity of bad boys, feminism angrily lashes out at those who point it out, sneeringly *daring* men to do anything substantial about it. “Yeah, so women prefer to be taken by bad boys. Aw, is little baby nice guy gonna cry? But don’t YOU be like the bad boys.”
JF12, do you think it’s possible to teach your sons how to fight and defend themselves, and also teach them to resolve differences through peaceful means and only resort to violence in cases of absolutely necessary self-defense? Or would that be hypocritical?
You’re still in the denial stage, looking for a contradiction, a lie hidden in all this that would justify spitting the red pill back up and going back to the pretty lies. But you’re kinda grasping at straws at this point.
@JF12
I’m not familiar with “grab her crotch game”, but as our culture unravels perhaps there is such a thing. Either way, this isn’t what I had in mind. I can see why you would be troubled by teaching a son such a thing.
@Cail, re: defense. Yes, my son knows how to fight, and actually has more guns than I do. We have gone over the “don’t point it at someone unless you’re going to try to kill them” idea, exceptionally well illustrated by deer hunting (deer don’t put their hands up and surrender). He is not permitted to have the abundance mentality for fighting or killing, however.
@Dalrock, re: “this isn’t what I had in mind”.
Which aspects of Game knowledge, or practice, do you have in mind to be sufficient to guarantee the abundance mentality for a boy in today’s SMP?
@KB: Young women’s default position on marriage is NO.
Amen to that and thank heavens. This is why I target only women in the 18-25 age range – they haven’t gotten the “baby-rabies” yet, so they are ideal for what I want them for. Basically, I want them to take care of my needs on my schedule, so the fact that they want only “fun” aligns with my life’s goals. Also the fact that I’m, 50+ only women that are thinking of “fun” are the ones that will get into arrangements by my rules – which is they are there when I want them, how I want them, and on my schedule. Only the young ones – usually in college – with limited time are into that, which works well for me.
Now eventually, I’ll want to be more than a biological father – and I have more than a few of those out there, thank you husbands that don’t get DNA tests. I figure when I want to have kids, that’ll be about when I retire, so I’ll punt on the US and head to somewhere in Asia and enjoy life. I figure if I have several women in the house, any one can watch the kids while I’m enjoying the attention of one of the others. That is how a man was meant to live – so enjoy it…
In less urban times, when most boys grew up in rural environments, the mechanics and purposes of sexual relations were explicitly taught to them naturally — by cattle and sheep, dogs and dragonflies. Was this a “temptation from God” that they were unable to bear, or was it important information that God wanted them to learn in a natural way?
Long before the “feminist’s” message became popular, men had descriptive words (and curse words) for certain women. They were variously known as “women of easy virtue,” “harlots,” “slatterns,” etc. Old King Saul knew the curse words: “You son of a mean-tempered woman.” Etc.
For any serious reader of the Scriptures, there were explicit passages of scripture making it clear how easy (and dangerous) seduction was. Joseph had his Mrs. Potiphar encounter, Judah his Tamar, Samson his Delilah, Solomon his concubines. Seduction was shown to be easy, both ways — and extremely dangerous (in the sight of God and man), both ways.
I see nothing in Dalrock’s suggestions of frank discussions with our sons that is contrary to the letter and spirit of Scriptural teaching — as long as we are serious in our own personal moral governance, and sincerely desire this for our sons. In other words, we are not ourselves hypocrites.
@jf12
It probably isn’t that different than what I write on the blog. I’m not focused on teaching how to pick up women, but an understanding of the true dynamics between men and women. Seeing past the lies in our culture is extremely important. You made it sound in one of your comments like we don’t teach our daughters how to be attractive. You made the idea of teaching a daughter how to be attractive seem vulgar and absurd (twerking, bending over for random sex). But the reality is we do teach our daughters how to be attractive. We teach them how to be pretty, and hopefully how to be sweet and graceful. At the same time, we teach our sons to make themselves as unattractive as possible, while offering them maximum confusion as to what is going on. Then we say (wink wink) “Go make your way with the ladies son, and once you find true love and she hands you that special man up card, be sure to marry her so you weren’t just using her for sex”.
I’ll pose it back as a question to you. Which of the following statements is incorrect:
1) Our sons are going to face high levels of sexual temptation living in a culture awash in sex, including porn.
2) The biblical solution to sexual temptation is marriage (1 Cor 7)*.
3) In order to marry, our sons must know how to be attractive enough to attract a wife.
*I realize that we cannot guarantee being able to marry, so our sons need to be prepared to resist temptation either way. But the teaching is nonetheless clear.
In fact, NOT explicitly teaching this to our young men may be a serious form of Christian malpractice.
jf12,
“women prefer to be taken by bad boys”
Desirable (i.e. feminine) women prefer masculine men. They’ll take the bad boys if the good men aren’t offering it. If you want your son to marry well, don’t emasculate him, and don’t allow anyone else to.
It’s not complicated.
@Dalrock, re: “At the same time, we teach our sons to make themselves as unattractive as possible”
Nope, nope, nope. “Be nice, be clean, be reverent, etc” was SUPPOSED to make boys attractive for marriage. Remember, YOU said that part of making them ready for marriage was getting the purely sexual abundance mentality. YOU said it, which is what we’re discussing presently.
@Just Saying: That is how a man was meant to live – so enjoy it…
I disagree but I won’t jump all over you for doing what you want. I just found there to be some really funny contradictions on this post from Dalrock. He basically says don’t be a boyfriend to a woman, even if you aren’t having sex, and even if you are purposefully progressing/vetting toward an engagement.
Then he says that unless your game is up to the point where attractive women drop their clothes for you unsolicited, that you basically aren’t yet marriage material.
I think Cail made a good point earlier that if you are doing ‘boyfriend/husband’ type duties like lifting heavy things, helping her move, stuff like that w/out being granted sex, you are on your way to chump-town. If you are having sex (and not yet married), that you are fornicating which seems pretty clear.
I would think that the proper way to pursue a women with the intention of marriage would be to date for a month or two but then start integrating each family, start talking about the future, talk about marriage intentions and start vetting. But Dalrock has been pretty unclear to me as to his ideas on this.
@Dalrock, re: “Which of the following statements is incorrect:”?
This one:
“3) In order to marry, our sons must know how to be attractive enough to attract a wife.”
YOU said what he should work towards is “he has nexted so many women), he should explain that while getting a hookup/FWB/girlfriend would be trivially easy”.
@desiderian, “They’ll take the bad boys if the good men aren’t offering it. ” Hogwash. I can smell the No True Mature Adult fallacy from here.
CS Lewis said something like this: “We castrate on Monday, and on Tuesday we bid the geldings be fruitful.” A well-trained young man can harness his own stallion — and it is better if he knows the “spiritual legitimacy” of his urges, and the spiritual necessity of a strong internal harness.
Steve,
Point of order, you got it backwards. You are thinking like a man here, not like a woman.
The woman is thinking (by allowing her ex-BF to become the beta orbiter to do favors and honey-dos for her) that she is permitting the now beta orbiter (former boyfriend) another shot to try and woo her into falling in love with him. Yes she dumped him. But that doesn’t matter, he has to “man up” and overcome that (swallow that pride and try again to win her.) Under NO circumstances is he ever giving her another “shot.” SHE calls the shots, not him. Always remember the feminist imperative here.
No, that’s the lie. It’s supposed to make boys suitable for marriage but too nice to push for what they want; so that girls can choose the boys they want, set the pace and extent of the relationship, and marry (or not) entirely on their own terms.
You’re determined to play word games here, and I don’t have time for that today, so I’ll just leave it at this: you can teach your sons to be attractive to women and to understand that women aren’t their superiors, or you can let everyone else teach them the opposite. Your choice.
@JF12
It feels like you are hiding the ball here. I have no idea what you are really asking for. Do you really want to teach our sons only to be nice, clean, and reverent, and that will attract a wife?
Lifting weights? Out!
Getting a good job? Out!
Understanding female sexuality and the lies of the world? Out!
Understanding how to playfully banter with women? Out!
No. You are mischaractarizing what I wrote. I wrote that a young man needs to be attractive while remaining moral when searching for a wife, and I explained that this would likely involve declining illicit sex (why declining illicit sex is controversial to you is baffling to me). I then offered a way to frame this which would reinforce the young man’s attractiveness without being sinful. This offends you, for reasons you won’t explain.
Instead of continuing to play this gotcha game, I’d very much prefer for you to make your case for what we should be teaching our sons. We may not agree in the end, but I think that would be much more productive than me trying over and over to dace to your tune, but you won’t tell me the song. Spit it out. You have something to teach me. By all means, teach. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Dalrock,
Thank you for all the links back to the old posts that build the story, history and narrative. I’m afraid sometimes those new to your site & others can’t see the picture because we take too much for granted about the backstory you & others have covered so often. It’s like a non-believer sitting down in a church service and all the preacher does is talk in christianese…they have no idea what is being said. Without the language and the backstory they come away more confused, & without seeing the Truth, then when they came in. ‘
I know when I linked to you the other day one gentlemen who I know is fairly strong and squared away on headship commented to me in private email that he thought you were too hard on Rainey so I encouraged him to read this post and make sure he clicked one each link back to past posts to understand why you have come to the conclusion you (and I) have come to. I’m intrigued to see what his thoughts are once he does that.
Regardless, thanks.
https://amanhiswifethebible.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/headship-teaching-another-one-bites-the-dust/
re: “Do you really want to teach our sons only to be nice, clean, and reverent, [etc] and that will attract a wife?”
Yes, that’s how I’d really want things to be, i.e. that the SMP should be such that that ought to suffice to attract a wife.
re: “Spit it out.” I already did. “My cognitive difficulty with all this, and my vacillating may be due more to fear and trembling than to indecisiveness, is that giving our sons the tools to be bad boys and then telling them “Wink-wink nudge-nudge, but don’t actually go through with it.” at *best* permeates everything else we might ever say with the stench of hypocrisy.”
I’m firmly convinced that the *only* possible way to achieve the abundance mentality nowadays, as YOU said, breaking through to getting offers of illicit sex, is to incorporate more actual badness, actual contrary-to-godliness being actually bad. It is what works.
Thanks amanhiswife. I try to balance including enough links to offer context while avoiding overdoing it. I’m fairly certain I’ve overdone it in the past. One link I didn’t include in this post is the one to the wakeup-call.
That is interesting because while Rainey got divorce right here everything I’ve seen from him indicates that he is extremely uncomfortable with biblical teaching on headship. If the young man will suffer any further links, I’d suggest checking out Rainey’s palpable discomfort when Pastor Baucham delivers an outstanding sermon on submission. Rainey can’t find any actual fault in the teaching, but references some mysterious poisoning of the stream that happened (coincidentally right when feminism really took off) which made it somehow inappropriate for men to teach Scripture (at least the parts which offend feminists):
Rainey generally avoids submission, in a thousand weasel ways, but when someone actually teaches from the Scripture, it is deeply troubling to him. Likewise, his wife has an otherwise fairly good post here talking about the role of a wife. But when she gets to submission, the twisting and turning goes full force. She suggests that submission has a multitude of caveats, and only applies if the husband meets the description of what a husband should be like in Eph 5:
She manages to leave out 1 Pet 3 however, which blows that claim out of the water. Not coincidentally, 1 Pet 3 is the Scripture Pastor Baucham preached which made the hair stand up on the back of Dennis Rainey’s neck. Then there is that weasel word “voluntary”, which I covered here (and Zippy covered here). This is all carefully calculated to push every feminist button while pretending to teach biblical submission. It is a frag grenade of strife thrown in every Christian marriage and ensures that actual headship can’t happen. Here is a woman who states she has a ministry, but she can’t (wont) get the part women are directed to teach in Titus 2 right. Dennis is sponsoring all of this as her husband, with his name.
I know this is a lot to process for the young man, because the conventional wisdom is that FamilyLife, FotF, Fireproof, Courageous are the good guys, the ones teaching solid biblical values. But when you look beneath the surface it is really quite disturbing. What I would challenge him to do is find the counter examples. Find where Rainey doesn’t express severe discomfort at the kind of biblical teaching which would make say Sheila Gregoire* uncomfortable.
*Sheila is a woman with masters degree in women’s studies who writes articles for FamilyLife and teaches wives at the FamilyLife weekend marriage conferences. Unlike Pastor Bocham and the Apostle Peter, I’ve never seen Rainey react with severe discomfort to what Sheila teaches. I’ve shared some excerpts in this post from her signature book where she teaches Christian wives that headship and submission means the wife should give the husband a list of chores to do around the house (don’t take my word for it, see the quotes or better the actual book).
Speaking of links and Sheila, you might find this post entertaining: A Tale of Two Beaches.
Dalrock,
Exactly. I’m afraid he is not that young, and he & his wife are pretty well known for what they teach about submission. Let’s just say they are about as hardcore as you come anymore on the subject. But even he could not see thru the narrative these guys teach and see it as you accurately portray it. We take these guys as good guys without digging and really examining their teaching as you have done (and I did with Baucham in today’s post). It’s all marketing anymore without any adherence to scripture. If they can market a product that sounds good, feels good, has the slight ring of truth to it then folks lap it up and accept it, even those who know better. I don’t know how much of it comes from the lack of depth in our lives (the busyness, noise, etc that often attributes us to a shallowness of life and just skimming the surface on so much) OR the lack of depth and trust in scripture. My guess it is some of both.
Don’t confuse the two. Attractiveness for a man is a two.
One is an attractive Christian husband.
One is an attractive sexual experience.
No woman is taught at any level anywhere in the west to be an attractive Christian wife. There is no doubt in my mind. And besides that no woman is celebrated at any level in the west for being a good Christian wife not even in any church. There is no wife to be had by law, and by churchian, and by culture. Our place in history as men is as a person born jewish in 1910 Europe. Your destiny is slave labor and death. (I know an extreme) Just the way it is. We don’t get to play house we are tasked with building the house for our sons and grandsons.
The PUA and player and the collapse of a nation will deliver a wife to an unworthy man in fear of getting his soul soiled. She won’t fuck that man and will not be faithful to that man. She will not respect that man. If you want to pay her bills and project virtue and goodness on to her go ahead. Oh by the she has a question for you Christian man “who is that guy that was kicked out of the church for unrepentant sin she wants to save him by praying with him.”
She is a selfish whore There is no virtue. That is your baseline even for your own daughter. Now our job as men is to motivate that bitch to behave with attraction for a Christian man on red pill land not in some delusion blue pill utopia or righteous deeds churchian world of love peace and romance. Remember no law, culture or church is for this. In fact the law will kill you for even thinking about it.
@Amanhiswife
I checked out your post today. I’m sorry to read that of Baucham. He has otherwise been so good. It is very troubling to see him not only undermining a husband in front of his wife, but teaching this then to as many couples as he can reach.
I think both of these are true. As I mentioned in a recent post, I also think there is a deeper issue, and that is having bought our modern sense of moral progress, questioning if what God teaches us is good. I also think there is a normal human tendency not to want to buck the system. Basically we are saying the emperor has no clothes. We are also doing this at a time when Christians are under assault from the outside. If one is speaking out against gay marriage for example at least if you find yourself on the business end of a black list by progressives you can expect to be backed to some degree by a large number of Christians. But what we are saying while true to the Scripture (and Catholic doctrine for those in the RCC), it is profoundly counter-cultural to the mass of modern Christians who see themselves as quite immovably conservative. The folks who supported Chick Fil A, Duck Dynasty, and the Benham brothers would with few exceptions be as hostile to what we are saying as the feminists are, actually probably more-so. This takes a great deal of faith, and not everyone is going to be ready to take this kind of risk (even anonymously/privately).
Greyghost, I’m not sure I understand your argument, but I’m fairly certain I disagree.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/06/20/judge-orders-deployed-us-sailor-to-attend-custody-hearing-or-lose-daughter-face-contempt/
lol, what is he meant to do, cause a mutiny and send the submarine back to America?! Desert his post?! That Judge should be removed immediately. What is she going to do? Hold him in contempt of court and jail him when he gets back..
“We have treaties…”
“INK ON A PAGE!”
Londo and Reefa, Babylon 5
I saw that link feminist-hater, and will have a blog post up about it shortly. Absolutely disgusting.
Dalrock
I have to rush out on the way to work. The point was more on what jf12 was saying about what to tell his. Me personally I would love to see the things you have discussed here become the normal. I have always said you are a cultural leader. My thing is actually getting the culture there. The things I say and come up with do not sound very nice. I have absolutely no problem with the disagreement you have with some of stuff I come up with. I wouldn’t respect you if you didn’t. That still does not in any way diminish anything here.
When I speak to young men 16 to 25 I do tell them the truth. (I’m not really telling them anything they all ready know it) I just spoke with a young man yesterday. Nice kid he may be coming around here by way of CH. I have a now 8 year old son. What will I have to tell him in 8 years.
Gotta hit it, I’m bring chips and cheese for the cook out
PS
The post feministhater put up, I’m more interested in making sure no judge thinks he can make that call than I am about discussing biblical wifely submission. That will come when on it’s own when no judge thinks he can try that crap, but it doesn’t mean they don’t need to know how and why now with the way things are.
Dalrock,
I think too many (well, really almost all) women just can’t get there on the submission part because the feminist imperative has them convinced that “submitting to their husband” = “woman is inferior to man and is a slave to her husband“. And that is a CHRISTIANITY DEAL BREAKER (for lack of a better term) for the majority of women on this planet. They are convinced the Bible is wrong and God made a mistake. And if the Bible is NOT wrong (and it isn’t) then the majority of women would rather give up Christianity and allow their souls to burn in Hell for all eternity than to submit to their husbands. That is how fully powerful the feminist imperative truly is. The FI trumps spiritual faith for almost all Christian women.
And for Pastors like Rainey, $$$$ (in tithes) trumps the Bible because his family has to eat.
In fact, NOT explicitly teaching this to our young men may be a serious form of Christian malpractice.
I can see massive numbers of pastors, priests, and lay leaders standing in the dock in ecclesiastical court right now facing exactly such charges of negligient malpractice. Matter o’ fact, it would probably be much easier to just recognize the very few who have done the right thing before imposing a blanket penalty on the rest.
Dalrock,
What Greyghost is saying is that there are no wives for American Christian men to make themselves attractive for. Bad grammar aside, that is in reference to your earlier post on is marriage just a piece of paper. Greyghost and I, to a certain extent, are saying no it is more than a piece of paper; it is a bill of sale which documents that you have sold yourself into slavery to a woman with the state as the overseer. What else can you call a contract that is only binding on the man and by which the man owes the woman everything and the woman owes the man nothing? Slavery is the only term that comes to mind. The marriage is no longer a contract because there is no consideration from both sides. Consideration is what each party gives to the other as the agreed price for the other’s promises. Usually the consideration is the payment of money but it need not be; it can be anything of value including the promise not to do something, or to refrain from exercising some right. Women only give an illusory promise since they are only saying I will stay married and fill my part of the bargain if I feel like it.
The truth that all here are in favor of telling young Christian men is not the truth that most here find palatable. The truth is that the young Christian women are not suitable as wives and the man should either forego marriage, as St. Paul suggests, or, if he is going to burn, then leave this sick culture and go to where wives are available and the marriage contract is enforced on both parties.
feeriker,
Here is the thing, those Pastors who do the RIGHT THING, they don’t really have a church (other then their own home) because the women would walk right out of any church where the Pastor insists that women MUST submit to their wives. There goes the $$$$$.
The Bible creates a conflict of interest for any man who wants to make any living preaching it. If you wish to preach the truth, then you must do so with the understanding that almost all will reject what you are selling them. With very few exceptions (SSM and Elspeth in particular) women simply WILL NOT SUBMIT to their husbands. Just will not do it. I pray for their souls as they are rejecting Christ.
Not to go off topic, but I thought this was too funny. Here is what the tingle brigade really want:
http://news.yahoo.com/arrestees-handsome-mug-shot-goes-viral-033406733.html
I do like Shadowedknight’s way of cutting through the navel-gazing.
“And for Pastors like Rainey, $$$$ (in tithes) trumps the Bible because his family has to eat.”
Money isn’t the motivation of false teachers, otherwise they would look at the Church’s collapse and return to the working models of yore. I see the same thing in Hollywood. G-rated movies make about 17 times more profit than R-rated movies (this statistic is about 20 years old now) but the movie industry keeps churning out the sex and violence. Realizing the smut purveyors are NOT mercenaries, that pushing T&A is more important to them than bundles of cash, was a learning moment in my adolescence.
If the Churchians were mercenaries then they would cling hard to the Bible; eternity is a smart investment. Or, they would notice the incredibly underserved demographic of Christian men (half of Christendom!) and build a new empire countering feminism. Or, if they were Godless mercenaries then they’d demand profit sharing in addition to mere salary. None of this is happening.
I would think that the proper way to pursue a women with the intention of marriage would be to date for a month or two but then start integrating each family, start talking about the future, talk about marriage intentions and start vetting
I’m trying to imagine right now a scenario in which all of the young, single men in a given church congregation announce, verbally, in a collective declaration, that any dating overtures they make to any of the congregation’s young single women are to be construed as the first step toward a committed relationship leading ultimately to marriage. Imagine also that NONE of these men, with maybe one or two exceptions, are of PraiseServiceLeader/YouthPastor/ChristianBadBoyRockDrummer Alpha variety. Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe that the reaction of the young women would be anything other than a collective “EEEEEEWWWWWWW!!!!!” followed by a stampede for the exits so intense that several instances of death by trampling would result? Or that the reaction of pastors, deacons, and elders would be one of anything other than ridicule, shaming, and condemnation?
I’m already ROTFLMAOing just at the idea of a mass declaration of intent by men in a church o pursue biblical marriage in any church today.
Not in the world of reality.
Show me a Pastor preaching the truth and I will show you a man who is a lay Pastor (kind of like Dalrock) who earns his living elsewhere. She me a man who insists that his church preach the truth and I’ll show you Joseph of Jackson who is booted from his church because the women make the rules in the church since they control the flow of the money. (If mama’s not happy in church because the pastor mentions submission, we as a family aren’t going and we aren’t tithing and if daddy insists we go, mama will invoke threatpoint to threaten to divorce dad for cash and prizes.)
That is reality.
Churchians aren’t Christian. They don’t really believe. They have no real faith, no fear of damnation. If they did, they would earn livings elsewhere (not through preaching) and would preach for free to all who cared to listen (even if that number was zero.) That type of preaching isn’t very lucrative now is it?
feeriker,
Being semi-serious here, I don’t know of any church congregations with any young single men in it. When the young boys become young single men and they are free to attend church (if they choose to, since they are now men) quite often, they don’t.
I know many churchian congregations with single boys in it, with young married men, and old single men, but no young single men.
feministhater says:June 20, 2014 at 12:32 pm
I believe that under the amended provisions to the Soldiers and Sailors Act of 1917 (federal law), this man is exempt from compliance with any civil legal orders while deployed. In other words, that judge stands a great chance of getting that order rammed so far up back his ass that he’ll vomit it up, tearing his tonsils out with it.
HER ass. No male judge would make such a stupid ruling. She did this because she lacks the ability to understand cause and effect. Such as it is when the feminist imperative trumps all reason.
Gunner, this is one of IBB’s hobby-horses. For some reason, she refuses to accept that people pushing bad ideas can be motivated by anything other than money. Even if you point out examples where people clearly take financial losses to push an ideology, she will insist that those don’t exist, or ignore them and continue to recite her $$$$ mantra.
As you say, ideology trumps money quite often. Catholic pews, seminaries, and convents were packed in the 1950s. Vatican II and the modernization of the 1960s emptied them. Not once did the people responsible consider scaling back the changes, slowing down, compromising with the people who were leaving in protest in order to keep their $$$$ coming. If anything, they doubled-down, pushing for more and faster changes despite the losses. They did not do it for the money.
Here’s an article I just read about millennials discovering the Latin Mass. A church in Chicago was about to be closed, but now it’s doing well because it started offering the Latin Mass, which has drawn a lot of young people. A quote from the article:
And yet there are still bishops and priests who refuse to consider the Latin Mass in their areas, even as an experiment. It’s not the money that drives them.
And that is a CHRISTIANITY DEAL BREAKER (for lack of a better term) for the majority of women on this planet. They are convinced the Bible is wrong and God made a mistake. And if the Bible is NOT wrong (and it isn’t) then the majority of women would rather give up Christianity and allow their souls to burn in Hell for all eternity than to submit to their husbands. That is how fully powerful the feminist imperative truly is. The FI trumps spiritual faith for almost all Christian women.
Yup.
I don’t think that most of them think that God is wrong; rather, they just don’t like/agree with what God has to say and therefore aren’t about to get with His program. In addition to being hopeless at understanding cause and effect, the vast majority of women are also incapable of thinking long term or seeing the proverbial “big picture.” Sure, God will ultimately judge her for not submitting to her husband (“or so He says,” she hamsterbates to herself), but since the spiritual cat o’ nine tails isn’t palpably poised to punish her RIGHT NOW if she doesn’t, it is not on her concern radar screen. In other words, women being mostly children in adult bodies, if Daddy God isn’t within proximity to her at all times, prepared to “spank” her for not doing what He commands her to do, she’ll do whatever she wants, knowing that there will be no immediate repercussions – “immediate” being the only time preference frame that registers with her.
Churchians aren’t Christian.
There’s a doctoral dissertation germinating in this statement that someone could also turn into a best-seller.
Seriously. I mean it.
Cail please do not link the problems the Catholic church has to filling up the pews to the problems Protestant churches have in filling their pews. A Catholic Priest has taken a vow of poverty, makes $12,000 a year (or whatever it is) because they have no expenses, no children to support. Getting them that kind of money from the RCC is no problem, they don’t worry about finding a church and keeping their job by saying only what the women want to hear. All the infrastructure is already built. The Catholic Churches in the 1950s were full because people got married younger and they had a brood of children, you know, the Baby Boom? The 1960s brought the second wave of feminism, no fault divorce, abortion, and if it feels good, do it. And it didn’t feel good to attend church anymore so if you look around, its just old people now in most Masses. A Protestant Pastor and his situation is completely different. They are quite often married and need to pay for a wife, children, and a house if the church isn’t wealthy enough to own its own Parsonage. We are talking $50K to $75K a year, minimum. And they are paid by one church family with NO hierarchy. They are no assigned to a parish the way a RCC Priest is, they must interview for the job and get the job. And they have to say whatever they are told (by the church) and that is discussed in the interview process. And they understand that their livelihood depends solely upon making sure that church is as full as possible. It is completely different.
Those millennials attending the latin mass are doing so because they haven’t a clue what is being said as they don’t understand latin. But sitting there listening to a dead language is (in and of itself) cool to a millennial.
You are linking a bunch of silly data points that have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Don’t do that. You are all over the place.
> jf12: Yes, that’s how I’d really want things to be, i.e. that the SMP should be such that that ought to suffice to attract a wife
I’m not sure that’s ever been enough. I know we pretend in the past men were only these things, but I just don’t believe it. I’m young, grew up in the height of the lesson “be nice and girls will like you”. I look back at the stories of my grandfathers, and great uncles, and don’t see anyone who resembles this hypothetical choirboy. Or women who were attracted to that.
Look at the famous sailor kissing the woman in Times Square: She didn’t know him, he was just a manly assertive dude who wore the uniform that meant bad mother-fucker. That was back in the Traditional conservative golden days. So to pretend that that will ever be enough is denying reality, IMO.
jf12,
“Hogwash. I can smell the No True Mature Adult fallacy from here.”
Hm, well my computer doesn’t do smell yet, I must be behind the times. Care to enlighten me?
Also references to scripture calling Christians, let alone Christian men, to be “nice” and “clean” would be appreciated.
feeriker,
“Churchians aren’t Christian.
There’s a doctoral dissertation germinating in this statement that someone could also turn into a best-seller.”
The Bible beat you to it.
Personal example: I was in my most impetuous, rash, selfish, and violent when my now-wife was first attracted to me. I thought I was lucky that she continued to stay with me despite my arrogance, selfishness, and unchecked desire for sex, because I had internalized that message my entire life. I look back now, and realize it was because of that, not in spite of it. If you look, all of those things are unrestrained or undisciplined male traits. The only thing that she wasn’t attracted to was my lack of ambition. Which is a very masculine trait. Again, she could forgive/was attracted to my “faults” and only pushed away by my lack of a standard male drive.
“Also references to scripture calling Christians, let alone Christian men, to be “nice” and “clean” would be appreciated.”
Charles Martel and John of Austria were nice quiet boys. Very reserved. That’s what the ladies loved.
feeriker,
Actually feeriker, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree here. I understand your point, but I don’t think you understand women. After counseling quite a few Churchian women and some of the problems they have had in their marriage, when you get right down to it they do NOT believe in parts of the Bible. They simply choose to disregard those passages, its as if they do not apply what-so-ever. And if those passages are the word of God, then He is wrong. Yup. That is what I gather. When I tried to talk a woman out of frivorcing her husband and showed her Luke 16:18 stipulating that she would never get married again (as any man marrying her after the fact is committing adultery) she closed the book, stood up, scowled at me, walked toward the door to leave the office, and told me that she would never speak to me again. The very next day I got called into the Pastor’s office and I was told that I could no longer give any spiritual counseling for people having marital problems, could not quote the Bible in the House of the Lord. I promptly left that church, but not before I told every member I met what happened. The men (who weren’t feminized) understood and agreed (privately) with me but were helpless to go with me since their wives made the calls as to what church they were to attend. The women of the church were glad to see me go.
That is par for the course. You simply can NOT do ANYTHING in a Protestant church where you challenge the feminist imperative because the women control the money. You can’t. The only way you have a true Christian church where the Pastors are preaching the absolute truth of that perfect book titled King James Bible, is one where the Pastors are NOT paid, where the church has NO debt, and there is enough money in the bank to cover all the utilities to keep the lights on and the building warm. Then (and only then) are you in a position to preach the truth and if people can’t handle it (and most can’t) then they are free to walk out the door, reject Christ, and face God’s punishment when they go to meet Him.
Ours is not an easy religion. It has been artificially made easier by feminism having the power to trump whatever parts of the Bible are inconvenient of run contrary to the feminist imperative. But when you alter the ultimate word of God, you are no longer living a life that is Christlike and you really can’t call yourself a Christian. The path to Heaven is narrow because so many simply refuse to truly believe in Christ and what He has taught in fulfilling God’s law. The path to Hell is wide and has many souls on it. I pray for every single one of them.
GunnerQ,
“If the Churchians were mercenaries then they would cling hard to the Bible; eternity is a smart investment. Or, they would notice the incredibly underserved demographic of Christian men (half of Christendom!) and build a new empire countering feminism. Or, if they were Godless mercenaries then they’d demand profit sharing in addition to mere salary. None of this is happening.”
Exactly right. It’s not just the men who have abandoned churchianity. It’s increasingly young women as well, and for the same reason. Young women want masculine headship and will choose men that offer it, no less in churches than in husbands.
IBB’s solipsism has swallowed her faith whole.
IBB,
“the absolute truth of that perfect book titled King James Bible”
I agree with your (former) pastor. Teaching is not your gift.
I wasn’t teaching.
@Desiderian, the last things shall be first.
“Also references to scripture calling Christians, let alone Christian men, to be “nice” and “clean” would be appreciated.”
Well now, that’s too easy. I was kinda hoping for a more suitable i.e. Herculean assignment. If you’re gonna sillily argue that 1 Cor 13:4 “Charity suffereth long, and is kind” doesn’t “prove” Christians should be nice i.e. kind, then should we start with Eph 4:32 “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted” (that was the first one that sprang to mind)? And of course 1 Pet 3:8 relatedly, and literally hundreds of other verses extolling the virtues of, calling to be, and commands to be, kind. It’s not even a stretch to prove that the Bible considers niceness is associated with *attractiveness*, e.g. Esther 2:9, and Psalm 19:22 “The desire of a man is his kindness”.
And the KJV actually uses the words clean* and wash* in well over 300 verses, most of which have at least one literal interpretation. And that’s not even getting into purity …
Among the red-letter *imperatives* by Jesus are Matt 6:17 “wash thy face”, John 9:7 “Go, wash”, and the Mandatum to wash feet, of course, in John 13. Among the verses literally talking about literal cleaning of ourselves (as well as other kinds) are
2 Cor 7:1 “let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh”
James 4:8 “Cleanse your hands”
Heb 10: 22 “our bodies washed with pure water.”
Matt 23:26 “cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also”
@desiderian, re: “Care to enlighten me?”
As I explained here
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/when-dennis-rainey-got-it-right/#comment-128025
I’m calling the fallacious view that the reason good enough men can’t get married is that they aren’t quite good enough the No True Mature Adult fallacy for (recent) historical reasons. You claimed that the reason good enough men weren’t getting married is that they weren’t asking women, which is factually incorrect, and that bad boys *were* asking women to marry them, which is factually incorrect. I then, and now, correctly predict that you will modify your egregious calumny against nice guys “They’ll take the bad boys if the good men aren’t offering it.” to pretend that you wanted to mean that the good enough men weren’t *quite* good enough, even though I’m here making fun of you for so pretending.
Enlightened enough yet?
35 (+ 1) Steps Women Can Take to Support Biblical Patriarchy (Be a Woman of Character)
As re-evaluated from:
http://www.xojane.com/issues/feminism-men-practical-steps
Thank you to Casey, Steve and a nutty feminist for the inspiration which lead to the completion of this list.
1) Do the house work (all of it) unless your husband says otherwise.
2) Find mature Christian women whom are submitted to their husbands for ’emotional’ support. Men are not women, so don’t expect them to relate to you as women.
3) Question cultural products produced by women. Are these women promoting misandry or other destructive ideas? Read your Bible and seek wise council if unsure.
4) Realize that you are not the center of the universe and a man will need time to himself. Don’t interrupt, don’t start trouble and don’t nag.
5) Realize that you, as a woman, are not the authority on what is sexist and what is not. Read your Bible.
6) Realize that sexism, as it is understood in the mainstream of society today, is not necessarily a bad thing. If a man tells you something is sexist, see if the Bible agrees with him. If a woman tells you something is sexist, see if the Bible agrees with her.
7) Don’t have sex until you are married. If you already have, then STOP. A woman of character does not fornicate. There is no need to have clear unambiguous communication regarding sexual relationships if you are not a whore.
8) Contraception? Consider the aspirin method. See number 7.
9) The HPV vaccine should have no place in biblical patriarchy for a woman of character. See number 7.
10) Have nothing to do with progressive name politics. If you don’t want your husband’s name, then don’t get married.
11) Don’t have children until you are married. When you do have children, expect to live the traditional role of wife and mother unless your husband says otherwise. You should behave like a Titus Ch 2, Prov 31 type of woman.
12) Pay attention to and gently encourage women to engage in traditional roles at family functions and at church. This especially should be done in the presence of feminists and churchian egalitarians. As a classy, feminine, attractive woman who believes the Bible, you should stand against role reversals whenever possible.
13) Be mindful of your inclination to usurp power within intimate/domestic relationships, especially with men…whether a husband, suitor, or family members.
14) Make sure honesty and respect guide your sexual relationship with your husband. Review number 7. Forget about “romance” as represented in modern society. It promises what cannot be delivered. Read your Bible.
15) Don’t be an online bystander in the face of misandry. You may have sons one day. Also, review numbers 5 and 6.
16) Be responsible with money. You don’t need 100 pairs of shoes or credit card debt, and any husband, future or current, does not need the added burden these would create.
17) Exercise and eat right. Do you find overweight and out of shape men attractive?
18) Don’t speak ill of men. Do not slander or gossip.
19) Do not pay attention to or believe what the “sex of experts” and “key figures” in the media say about anything. They are blind fools leading other blind fools. See number 7 and read your Bible.
20) Ensure that your role models are (or were if deceased) God fearing women who submitted themselves to their husbands.
21) Praise the virtues of your husband, father, and / or brother(s) to others (especially to other women).
22) Demonstrate integrity with your female friends. (i.e., Don’t be a “ho.”). Also, don’t have “HOs” for friends. Don’t have friends that try to turn you against your husband or your father. Don’t have friends that talk bad about the men in their lives.
23) Don’t treat your husband or any other male family members disrespectfully. See number 4.
24)Know that acknowledging your own selfish opinions and stereotypes is not enough. Do something about them.
25) Do not have male “friends” or “beta orbiters”. Realize that the men you know are family, brothers in Christ, or acquaintances.
26) Submit to your father and, if married, your husband. Ask them for guidance and council. Also, find mature Christian women who take the whole council of God and have submitted themselves to their own husbands to teach you.
27) When courting, be responsible for events and special dates associated with your side of the family. When married, be responsible for all of it unless you husband says otherwise.
28) Men’s appearances should not be your concern unless they are suitors you are considering for marriage. Even then you should not nag them about it. See number 4.
29) Do not expect male family members or acquaintances to be at your beckon call. Be it to walk you home alone at night, or to a public space where you are likely to feel unsafe, or any other endeavor of your making. You can ask, but do not expect such treatment. Men are not beasts of burden that exist to serve you.
30) Inject wifely submission and biblical Patriarchy into your daily conversations with other women (especially with feminists and egalitarians) as often as possible.
31) Do not consume drugs or excessively drink alcohol. A woman of character is not a druggy or a drunk.
32) Be aware of the resources you consume, and don’t use more than is necessary. Someone is paying for it, and you can bet your bottom dollar it most likely is a man.
33) Don’t spread feminist none sense such as “income inequality” and “a woman can do anything a man can do”. Pretty much anything you hear a feminist claim as a fact will instead be a long refuted talking point.
34) Understand that your femaleness has an unearned privilege attached to it that you have to actively work to cede, and that being male comes with an unearned disadvantage that men have always had to bear.
35) Expose feminism for what it really is, rebellion against God and His creation and misandry in disguise
.
+1 more) Make lots and lots of SAMMICHES, and encourage other women (especially feminists and egalitarians) to do the same.
@jf12:
You conflate “niceness” with “kindness”. That explains a lot of the dialogs you and I have had. Ann Barnhardt on “being nice”. I would suggest you skip to the 2:30 mark and start there:
There is nothing kind about refusing to call someone out on their crap. And it is absolutely possible to do that without being angry or mean. Kindness means to be helpful, generous, and to care about other people.
To be nice means to be agreeable. There are times when being agreeable is the least kind thing one can do.
I should be more clear. There are times when it is not acceptable to call someone out. However, for a husband to allow his wife to sin unchecked and not correct her and not hold her accountable is unkind. It’s nice, but it sure isn’t kind.
@Elspeth, through a cleverly unhidden trap or something, the words I quoted as translated “kind” mean mild, easy, pleasant, agreeable, etc. “Suffering long” means exactly nothing else but “allowing the mess to continue for a while”. And “tenderhearted” is kinda unmistakable.
From Strong’s, a translation of “kind” from Ephesians 4:32:
1) fit, fit for use, useful
1a) virtuous, good
2) manageable
2a) mild, pleasant (as opp. to harsh, hard sharp, bitter)
2b) of things: more pleasant, of people, kind, benevolent
Now I stated above that a man can correct and guide his wife (and hold her accountable without being mean and/or harsh. But nowhere here do I see any indication that being agreeable in the face of blatant sin on the part of someone under your charge is acceptable.
You seem to be of the mind that longsuffering and correction are mutually exclusive. So should church leadership be longsuffering and agreeable when a parishioner is in sin?
I am not following you today. Your definition of kindness leaves absolutely no room for any kind of accountability under the mistaken impression that being easygoing is a cardinal virtue in Scripture. And I do know from experience that it is possible for a husband to be both longsuffering (giving his wife a chance to self-correct) and also taking seriously his responsibility to not allow her to continue in rebellion.
It isn’t kind to anything less. To do less is shirking his duty (oh, there’s that word we hate so much). Not to mention, the children are watching.
Re: you wouldn’t like me when I’m nice. I’m probably a tad bit more … interesting when sufficiently aroused.
Cail, thanks for the heads-up! IBB does bring up a good point about lay pastors being tighter with doctrine. The reason for that is modern credentialing, however, not money. Like public office, becoming an ordained pastor is such a difficult process that most of them are the ones who made a formal career out of it. Majoring in holding power over others is a very, very unbalanced thing to permit. At best, the professional leader has never been in the trenches himself; he cannot form his own opinions about complex issues. At worst, the professional leader is a sociopath who sought power for its own sake as early as possible. Most often, the professional leader is simply handed power without having to earn it, which is why our elites are continually vexed by the law of unintended consequences. Men who live in the real world before donning vestments are grounded by a lot of experience.
“I don’t know of any church congregations with any young single men in it.”
Seconded. The outliers are generally musicians and aspiring professional clergy. Who can blame the ordinary guys? I remember one church, also had a seminary, that had a post-college singles group. Very nice gender ratios. I thought it would be a good, safe place to try dating again. Ended up learning what a nuclear rejection was. Sluts were using the group as a base from which to stalk the seminary candidates and, wow, they were NOT happy about my presumption that they were on the same level of desirability as an underpaid math geek who hadn’t yet discovered the gym.
Gunner Q:
“Ended up learning what a nuclear rejection was. Sluts were using the group as a base from which to stalk the seminary candidates and, wow, they were NOT happy about my presumption that they were on the same level of desirability as an underpaid math geek who hadn’t yet discovered the gym.”
Without mentioning names, would you mind elaborating on that rotten experience? (which, by the way, I’m sorry you had to suffer through.)
jf12,
“You claimed that the reason good enough men weren’t getting married is that they weren’t asking women”
That’s interesting, care to produce a quote?
“bad boys *were* asking women to marry them”
Nope, didn’t say that either.
“I then, and now, correctly predict that you will modify your egregious calumny against nice guys”
Sure. They’re a bunch of emasculated momma’s boys who are afraid to become men.
How’s that?
“They’ll take the bad boys if the good men aren’t offering it.”
Check again on what “it” refers to. Once you get over the embarrassment, it might finally produce some understanding.
“Enlightened enough yet?”
Nah, brah, still through a glass darkly.
jf12,
There are many gifts, but the same spirit. Not all are called to be kind, let alone nice, at all times. Particularly, the strong are called to protect the weak, a calling to which the egregious doctrine of wussitude to which you subscribe has wreaked great havoc.
Would you like to contend that Jesus was nice to the Pharisees and Sadducees? Vipers and hypocrites terms of affection and tenderheartedness?
GunnerQ,
“Men who live in the real world before donning vestments are grounded by a lot of experience.”
Wise words. See Paul of Tarsus and Ignatius of Loyola, for instance.
Becoming a professional minister is not so much difficult as incredibly tedious and riven with much of the rent-seeking restrictions plaguing all our professional guilds. As with those guilds, the right ideological/political beliefs can grease one’s way, but those beliefs continue to depart further and further from the gospel.
@amanhiswife & Dalrock
Did you guys read the sermon, or listen to it? What amanhiswife described is not what Baucham communicated in that sermon; not in the overall message, and not in the specifics, either. He has been grossly misunderstood and ill-treated because of it.
You can see my full response at amanhiswife’s blog.
IBB, you said the people attending Latin mass had no idea what is being said. WTF? I was raised on Latin Mass, and we had prayer books and knew what was being said.
That stupid, dearie judge, yes, she will get her bogus order handed her on a platter. Maybe no, but I think so, too. The Relief act is too simple and obvious.
Just like a girl.
Gunner Q says:
June 20, 2014 at 7:01 pm
‘“I don’t know of any church congregations with any young single men in it.”
Seconded. The outliers are generally musicians and aspiring professional clergy.’
Seriously? Where do you guys live? Every church I’ve ever attended had a group of young singles – both male and female – and not just the “musicians and aspiring professional clergy” types. Is this a big city phenomenon? Because I haven’t lived in a big city in 25 years.
Accepting being single
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=891438
JDG – nice work. For a conservative Christian seeking a (solid, Biblical) marriage life-path, that would be great counsel. Though that’s not me, it is the path of several women and men I know – and they are hungry for good information/counsel outside of the garbage so plentifully available on Yahoo Shine, MSN, HuffPost and the like. So – kudos to you, and I hope you cross-post that list elsewhere for maximum exposure.
Dalrock & his readers,
I did a little more research on Voddie Baucham and listened and read a few more sermons. The first one I read and posted on was the outlier and not the norm. Other than this one sermon, he is pretty spot on. I posted an apology to him & and updated the post to reflect that this one sermon was off but he is one of the good guys. Respectfully-
https://amanhiswifethebible.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/an-apology-to-voddie-baucham/
Jf12, you can test your ideas. Do not tell your sons how to attract women. See how long it takes before they get married, and again before they get divorced. Alternatively, you can also gather this information the quick way: by looking at all the millions of other men that took this advice. In fact, I will do it for you.
Hmmm, hmmm… Well, it looks like they waited a decade or so to marry, then got divorced. That does not sound good. They lost their children, too. Well, it seems like not telling men how to attract women is a bad idea. Although I swear I read that somewhere in the androsphere before today.
You are being intentionally dense. Men have to be attractive if they want to marry. If they are not married, they are not attractive enough. No, being clean and nice has not ever been attractive. No, teaching your sons the same lessons that so many other fathers did is not going to change the outcome. No, creating a fallacy does not mean that reality will bend to make your ideas logical. No, no one cares.
Bottom line is that you can either teach your boys to attract girls or teach your boys to avoid girls. If you do not get women, you will not get women.
Oh, and that judge? Figures that it was a woman. Woman wants, so woman gets. Woman important; law is man thing, and man bad. Law not important. Feels important. Woman has bad feels, need help woman.
The Shadowed Knight
theshadowedknigh
I’m back from work and your comment to jf12 was outstanding. It is very hard for a father especially for a man that chooses a foundation in Christ to accept the truth about women when it is for real and not just theory talk. A Christian man with game has real power godly and worldly. I’m a Texan, just about everybody I work with including myself has a concealed handgun license. Doesn’t mean we all shoot every body we see because we are armed and can, no. A Christian man with game doesn’t have to fuck every chick with the gina tingle for his dick. He could use that gina tingle for the purposes of improving her behavior.
This is the Achilles heal of the Christian man. Too busy projecting virtue on a slut.
Greyghost, I had a girl at work that all but threw herself on me. She was asking me all sorts of suggestive questions, being really friendly and open to me. We spent some time together and she was showing me around because I just moved to the area. I did enjoy her company, but she wanted more. I told her no, and she started ignoring me, acting odd around me, avoiding eye contact. Really strange stuff, so I cut all contact.
After that mistake, I have learned to keep all interactions with woman at work, and to avoid sexualizing myself. I am friendly with most of the women at work because I have game skill, but I used it as a social lubricant, not a sexual intoxicant. That is the important part of game: how it is used.
In the end, I did not have sex with her. It was a simple matter. I made a decision, and I held to it. No sex, and that is all. Young men can make that decision, if you train them to set boundaries for themselves and others.
The Shadowed Knight
Waaaay up there, near the top of this thread, mojohn asked:
“Has the use of “man up” even by a generally red-pill guy like Matt Walsh become the “third rail” in manoshere politics???
“I read the article and basically agreed with Matt that if a man is interested in a woman, he should take charge and let his feelings be known rather than beating around the bush like a high-schooler. How is that objectionable? Is because he used the phrase “man up?” If so, does that mean a generally red-pill guy like Matt Walsh is persona-non-grata because he touched the “man up third rail” in manoshere politics???”
It’s not so much that “man up” is the “third rail”. It’s just that feminists appropriated the phrase “man up” to mean something very different from its original meaning, and Matt Walsh has fallen prey to it. It’s why a lot of men (myself included) bristle at the phrase, particularly when uttered nowadays.
“Man up” was a rebuke and a correction from men to other men and boys who needed a good kick in the pants. They needed encouragement or sometimes just a stern reproof from another man to get with the program, stop being such a whiny bitch, stop being a p*ssy, pull your weight, get your shit done, etc. “Man up, son! The rest of the tribe needs you to get with it!”
Today, the phrase isn’t uttered to get men lined up with other men. Now, men are told to “man up” when they aren’t doing what women and feminized men want and expect them to. In this culture, “man up” is a demand that a man submit himself to the feminine imperative. He needs to hitch himself to a plow, get a job, make money and “put away childish things” not for his own good, but for the specific purpose of making himself useful to a woman. He needs to do these things not because it will sharpen him and make him into a man; but because they will benefit some woman in his preordained role as her husband and father to her (not their, HER) children.
“Man up” used to mean “your tribe needs you”. Now, it means “marry the slut”. It means “a woman needs your money, services, and labor”.
Deti, absolutely right. In addition, “man up” nowadays often carries the extra meaning of “lower your expectations.” It’s not just, “Be a man and get married for the sake of the tribe.” Now it’s, “We have this surplus of thirty-something single moms who have given their best years to a series of other men and accumulated a dumptruck full of baggage. They need husbands to pay their debts and be fathers to their feral children, so ‘man up’ and do your duty.”
If “man up” meant, “Get a job and marry this 21-year-old virgin holding the plate of brownies she just cooked,” not many men would resist that program.
deti,
I hope you wrote on Matt Walsh’s blog exactly what you wrote on this one. I know Matt is young and pretty naïve, but if you phrased it like that maybe he would start to understand that HE was a big part of the problem? But in order for that to happen, he would have to “man up” and swallow his pride.
@GunnerQ It would be helpful if people entering politics as well as clergy candidates had experience of real life.
@jf12 The command is to love one another, not to be nice to one another. There is a big, big difference between the two.
@UK Fred, YOU SAW that I quoted “Be ye kind” and you said you didn’t see it. Like a girl.
Its like this…
Matt Walsh & Pastor Driscoll: “Son you need to man up!”
Red Pill MGHOW: “Number one I am not your son. Number two, I have a job. I work 40+ hours a week. I support myself. I collect no benefits from government.”
Matt Walsh: “That is not what we mean.”
Red Pill MGHOW: “Well, what then?”
Pastor Driscoll: “You need to get married. A truck moves straighter with a heavy load.”
Red Pill MGHOW: “Well, I haven’t found the right woman yet.”
Matt Walsh: “They are all over the place. Come to church, get with the program.”
Red Pill MGHOW: “All the unmarried women in the churches I have attended are divorced or single moms with kids from different fathers they were never married to…”
Pastor Driscoll ANGRILY!: “SO???”
Red Pill MGHOW: “So I am not going to marry a divorced woman because of Luke 16:18 and I don’t want to financially support any children that I did not sire. I want a virginal bride.”
Pastor Driscoll ANGRILY!: “You just don’t get it!”
Red Pill MGHOW: “I get it fine. I refuse to marry a woman who rides the cock carrousel.”
Matt Walsh: “Don’t you think maybe you are aiming a little too high here?”
Red Pill MGHOW: “You got to marry a virginal wife. Why can’t I have one?”
Matt Walsh: “I’m not going to touch that. Pastor you have anything to add?”
Pastor Driscoll: “He just doesn’t understand. Getting a heavy load will make him a better man.”
Red Pill MGHOW: “You said man up. Now you are saying you want me to be a better man because you acknowledge I am already a man. Which is it?”
Pastor Driscoll: “When I say man up, it doesn’t mean I don’t think you aren’t already a man. I want you to be a better one.”
Red Pill MGHOW: “Why should I marry a single mom and provide financial resources for her and all her children that I did not sire? Why should I do this when the three of us all know that she could divorce me the next day and collect cash and prizes, half the assets and wealth that I have personally accumulated long before I met her?”
Matt Walsh: “He just doesn’t get it.”
Pastor Driscoll: “You do that because it is the right thing to do. It is the Christian thing to do. You were born a man. That gives you an edge in life. If you squander that edge by not providing for others, you aren’t fulfilling your part of the bargain.”
Red Pill MGHOW: “Please quote the scripture, either one of you, where Christ or any of his disciples says marrying a reformed slut/baby mama or divorced woman is the right thing to do for a man, to fulfill my part of the bargain.”
Matt Walsh & Pastor Driscoll both shaking their heads angrily in silence…
Red Pill MGHOW: “I am not signing up for this. The laws on the books are all stacked against me, she could end the marriage contract at any moment and steal me blind. No thanks. I’ll follow the teachings of Paul and go my own way. I don’t get burned this way.”
Matt Walsh & Pastor Driscoll both “But what about those sister’s in Christ who need you? You are turning your back on them because of man’s silly divorce laws?”
Red Pill MGHOW: “Until they reverse what Governor Reagan got started in California in 1969, I wont sign up for it. Too much risk. Forget it. And since I missed my window in marrying a virginal bride anyway, too old now, I guess it doesn’t matter, I wouldn’t marry a reformed slut even if you two each paid me $10,000 to do it. She’s have to have a massive DOWRY provided by her father to bribe me into marrying her to deal with the burden of her shenanigans. I don’t see that happening anytime in my lifetime. There is nothing in it for me.”
Matt Walsh & Pastor Driscoll both shaking their heads angrily in silence… “We shall pray for you.”
Red Pill MGHOW: “And I shall pray that the two of you start eating red pills. Please visit Dalrock’s blog and learn reality.”
@tsk, I have tested the ideas, and I agree being a man being good and nice doesn’t work with women. That means, simply, that women are badly broken, because as we all *feel*, being bad and meane *shouldn’t* work but it does. So that isn’t the question. My focus currently that I have ALSO tested my whole life is that, empirically, being “more masculine” without being specifically bad and/or mean also doesn’t actually work with women. Almost all women seem to require that their men actually be, or allow the women to believe they are, more than capable of being bad and mean to them.
“Almost all women seem to require that their men actually be, or allow the women to believe they are, more than capable of being bad and mean to them.’
Why do you believe this is a modern symptom of “badly broken” women? Are their natures so malleable that just a few years of modern western culture can do this? I don’t believe so.
“Oh, and that judge? Figures that it was a woman. Woman wants, so woman gets. Woman important; law is man thing, and man bad. Law not important. Feels important. Woman has bad feels, need help woman.”
“”Man up” used to mean “your tribe needs you”. Now, it means “marry the slut”. It means “a woman needs your money, services, and labor”.”
“”We have this surplus of thirty-something single moms who have given their best years to a series of other men and accumulated a dumptruck full of baggage. They need husbands to pay their debts and be fathers to their feral children, so ‘man up’ and do your duty.””
Shadowed Knight, Deti, Cail – Absolutely correct analysis. Matt and Dennis, among others, ought to see so nakedly distilled what you all have laid out here.
“My focus currently that I have ALSO tested my whole life is that, empirically, being “more masculine” without being specifically bad and/or mean also doesn’t actually work with women. Almost all women seem to require that their men actually be, or allow the women to believe they are, more than capable of being bad and mean to them.”
JF12 – what if you replaced ‘bad and mean’ with ‘indifferent’ or ‘carefree’? It changes the whole dynamic. Being ‘more masculine’ while still being ‘a servant leader’ – I think that’s the problem, and perhaps the lens through which you’re making this observation. Being ‘bad and mean’ isn’t intrinsically necessary to making things ‘actually work with women’.
Cail Corishev says:
June 21, 2014 at 7:30 am
“If “man up” meant, “Get a job and marry this 21-year-old virgin holding the plate of brownies she just cooked,” not many men would resist that program.”
If by “brownies” you mean bacon, then yes.
Off Topic: Could Roissy or Dalrock please call this poor fellow and tell him to quit supplicating? We’ve all been there, but this sort of thing doesn’t really help…
Proof that even pop stars don’t know much about women.
Much more at: http://entertainment.ca.msn.com/celebs/robin-thicke-continues-marriage-fight-with-sentimental-songs-1/?ocid=binganswers
jf12
Women were always badly broken that is the way they are. The only thing different is keeping that in check with indifference and focus on the mission. That is considered mean now. Now we follow the feminine imperative. Take a look at Detroit, Stockton, Ca. etc. and tell me or anybody what mean is.
Yea, greyghost, tell me about it. Most are batshit insane. They love drama; the more toxic, the better. Everything has to be a battle. And then you are expected to control them and love them as Christ loves….. and it’s at that point I lose the ability to care.
Let them eat cats!
More like, “Man up and work 10 to 15 years paying off your house and setting up a career while watching our daughter screw other guys and then, when she’s good and ready, sign yourself up for another 30 year mortgage for a big house you don’t need while selling your current house for a loss to cover her loans made during her screwing years. And don’t forget, you’re lucky to have such a wonderful specimen, that’s why she will divorce you anyway, take the children, house and leave you wondering why the hell you ever tried at all.”
Yea, I’ll take the first option only. If it’s not on offer, well, maybe just enjoying life as a minimalist is the way to go.
Don’t marry a post 22 year old women. Not worth it.
for all men, Christians included http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/the-value-of-game/
Cail,
“If ‘man up’ meant, ‘Get a job and marry this 21-year-old virgin holding the plate of brownies she just cooked,’ not many men would resist that program.”
Heh. Can’t you make a mediocre comment every once in a while just to keep us guessing?
@greyghost, Steve H, Vercingetorix, et al. “Indifference” is not “tenderhearted”. It doesn’t matter what spin you put on the verbiage, the plain and simple fact is that being nice is what we are *supposed* to be, and being NOT nice is therefore what we are supposed to NOT be. I know it’s easy to understand. The acceptance that you have already verbalized that being nice doesn’t work with women is an acceptance that IF you are going to succeedwith women then you have to be what we are supposed to not be. Again, I know it’s easy to understand, and you have already entirely agreed with it, so it’s not worth discussing whether one must cross the threshold into badness to succeed. The only thing worth discussing is how far over this threshold we can (not going to say “should”) go.
The purple pillists, of which I thought Dalrock was becoming one until this discussion in which he advocated incautiously (and I too waekly advocate, although feeling terrible about it) men practicing getting women to be willing to take their clothes off (without necessarily completing the act), I think, keep one foot on the line.
jf12,
“My focus currently that I have ALSO tested my whole life is that, empirically, being ‘more masculine’ without being specifically bad and/or mean also doesn’t actually work with women.”
Been there. I once compared it to good men needing to wear a burqua to conceal our good sides until after a woman had chosen us it could be safely revealed a little here and there.
I was wrong. What I called goodness and you niceness or cleanness was merely self-righteousness and vanity.
“That means, simply, that women are badly broken, because as we all *feel*, being bad and meane *shouldn’t* work but it does.”
Feelings are a poor basis for understanding or manly action.
Should ain’t got nothing to do with it, you’re mixing up is and ought.
We’re all badly broken.
“Be clean” is old covenant thinking. None are clean apart from Christ. To the extent I am clean, that is Christ, not I, and does nothing to make me more attractive – to set me apart from other suitors – at most it is a minimal standard, but settling for minimal standards is what left the old covenant barren and impotent.
“Wash oneself” is new covenant, and completely useless to one like yourself who believes he’s already clean. We are unclean by our (base) nature, and likely to be sullied again in carrying out our manly duties to protect the weak and discern false from true, friend from foe; thus the need for confession, repentance, grace and redemption.
@Cane Caldo
I didn’t go through the sermon myself before my comments above, and I should have. However, after your rebuke I’ve printed out a hard copy and am going through it line by line with a pen and a highlighter. I’m only 8 pages out of 18 in, and haven’t gotten to the part Amanhiswife referenced, but I have to say, he is right. It absolutely cuts husbands off at the knees. This isn’t to say that it doesn’t have quite excellent parts, but being 8 pages in I can say the only way that the claim of cutting husbands off at the knees is wrong would be if this sermon was specifically given only to the men, not delivered to his full church with the wives present. The tone of it is very much about tearing men down. Sometimes this needs to be done, and perhaps he has a particularly violent wife beating group of husbands in his congregation who need to be disabused of notions that headship means abuse. But if this was done in a mixed audience, the charge that this sermon is cutting men off at the knees is entirely accurate in my view. I’ll post my thoughts over there once I’m done. I would encourage you and anyone else interested in the topic to print out a hard copy and go through it carefully as well.
“being nice is what we are *supposed* to be”
False and destructive doctrine. Begone demon! Leave jf12 alone!
You can’t handle the truth.
“completely useless to one like yourself who believes he’s already clean” bounces off me and sticks to you. YOU’RE the one saying it’s perfectly fine to be bad.
The problem with seeing women as “badly broken” is that it leads logically into, “But they can’t all be broken. So I just need to keep looking until I find a Nice Girl, and she’ll like me for being clean and kind.” Or a guy thinks if he can just get his crush to listen to reason or get some therapy or something, she can be “fixed” and lose that attraction to bad boys.
Women aren’t broken, they’re just women. (Or to put it another way, they’re broken by Original Sin, and have been since Eve, so it applies to every single one of them until the Second Coming, so accept it as their nature and deal with it.) Your great-grandmother didn’t reject the thugs and layabouts and settle down with that nice farm boy because she had no desire for bad boys, adventure, or independence. She did it because her desires were restrained, by laws, conventions, upbringing, religion, and economic realities. Those restraints are now gone, so we’re seeing them in the wild, as it were.
Guys need to get past being angry at women for not being men with breasts, or thinking they can be fixed. Think of them as flighty little birds, pretty to look at and pleasant to have around. Their song can be enchanting, but it wears on you after a while. They can be fierce in defense of their nest, but otherwise are easily frightened and swayed by emotion. They’re soft and warm and cuddly, and great to have around for some things, but terrible at others. They need constant care and guidance, and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.
Once you see them realistically for what they are, with their own pros and cons, you can A) decide with open eyes whether you want to risk shackling yourself to one, and B) enjoy their company more in general. I find women much more enjoyable, even delightful sometimes, now that I’m not always mystified by what they do or wishing they’d stop being weird and act “normal.”
Take a look at this nice guy here being good to his daughter.http://www.the-spearhead.com/2014/06/20/feminist-fathers/ being nice to a woman as a way to a woman’s gina tingle was a gift from a civilized society. It is not the normal but a part of a civilized society. Society took care of the shit test for you so you could play nice Christian guy. Women voted that out you have to kick her ass yourself. Otherwise you get to submit to her authority like everybody else and be considered a “good man” that “manned -up”. Reality is coming back. Feral has been voted in and financed and this is what it looks like. This embedded video from Bee on another article was what is going on stopping it is not going to be pretty or nice and will take a hell of a lot of faith. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/escoffier-on-modernity/#comment-127497
Thanks Dalrock, for so much and for warning us about these satanic Churchians. I believe Rainey was one of those the Lord included when he said: “On the day of judgment There will be those who cry Lord, I cast out demons in your name and I will tell them away from me evil-doers. I never knew you.”
@jf12: “That means, simply, that women are badly broken, because as we all *feel*, being bad and meane *shouldn’t* work but it does.”
Read the Bible. Women are not “broken.” They were DESIGNED this way. It is not a bug, it is the program. It is not social conditioning, it is God’s plan. The challenge for every civilization has been controlling female sexuality. Left unchecked, several BAD things happen.
First, women given the freedom to divorce on a whim insures that 60-80% of marriages will fail. Interestingly, both partners in 90% of marriages on the brink of divorce, claim they have a “good marriage” within 2 years. Conclusion: I’m not haaaapppy divorces should not be allowed. Ever.
Second, with women in control, as now, and given free reign to ‘explore’ their sexuality, they will go after the “top” 10% of men. These men might have a different woman every night while the other 90% of men are lucky to go without for decades, learn to supplicate pussy, and ultimately marry up a reformed whore later in life. These are the “good” men who work and support society and they can just go to hell. Conclusion: Throughout almost all of human history, the kin of women chose their husbands. Women having total control over choosing their sex partners destroys society.
Third, the so called “good men” that women favor are GREATLY over-represented by thugs, psychopaths, tattooed bikers, and felons. Women given control over their sexual partners will choose badly and their darkest instincts- rewarding ‘bad boys’ with warm tang while starving the Betas who support society- can only end badly. Conclusion: Same as before.
Fourth, women given unbridled power and exalted by society means they will choose bad boys until they approach the wall and then expect a niiiice guy to step up and marry them. Much has been written on the manosphere gloating how so many women will end up spinsters but the truth is most will succeed- and many will succeed more than once. The deeper reality is that these same whores who hogged down Alpha dogs like cotton candy and earned the nickname “yes-girl” will, after years of hawt guys pumping and dumping them, “settle” down and THEN they will get bored with their Beta hubby. The first thing the “former yes-girl” will do is cut off sex with their husband- supported by the Churchians satanic choir. The next thing they will do is destroy their families and swing to the next branch, again supported by the Churchians satanic choir.
Our definition of “bad and mean” has been changed by feminism into: “Anything that does not put women on a pedestal. Men are such wimps today that merely asserting yourself, or telling a woman (calmly and quietly) that she is not to speak to you in that tone of voice is seen as “bad and mean.” It is neither.
Women have always been hypergamous, branch swinging whores who will keep pushing and pushing and pushing just so far as you let them. As Roosh writes, they take the shape of their container. Read Genesis Chapter 3: Even God could not control the darkest, disobedient, disrespectful, and sinful instincts of his creation.
Here are two familiar verses that may provide an escape, very narrow-path, tightrope narrow, from the dungeon of niceness. I’m not going to bother with the currently inapplicable “unto the pure all things are pure.”
Jude 1:22-23 And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Clearly, “others” are those for whom compassion ain’t making a difference.
Cail That was awesome That is how Christian man talks. A good women is made and maintained by leadership. You just don’t go and pick one up at the love tree. “toil, sweat of the brow” thing
@greyghost, re: “Feral has been voted in and financed and this is what it looks like.”
Correct. The patriarchy used to be set up to make it easy for women to have to fear their husbands.
Bluepillprofessor
Outstanding
@Cail, re: “She did it because her desires were restrained, by laws, conventions, upbringing, religion, and economic realities. Those restraints are now gone, so we’re seeing them in the wild, as it were.”
I’m in total agreement.
“otherwise are easily frightened”
It’s like a tactical plan.
@Bluepillprofessor, re: “Women given control over their sexual partners will choose badly”
= women are badly broken.
“women are badly broken” stop saying that They are normal women that is who they are and the way it is. I have two daughters to not know the truth of women or to assume virtue would condemn them to death and all the while I would have worldly praise of being a loving father embracing the feminine imperative. See Welmer’s post at the Spearhead.
@ Dalrock & Cane,
I do believe I misrepresented Baucham in one of the three claims I made on this sermon- but I only know that after reading and listening to several more sermons where he deals with headship and he then has the history/credit/etc to view my last claim about the couple in counseling being off. I do stick by my first two claims- and do believe they were cutting men off at the knees and not biblical.
HOWEVER, and this is important. This message seemed to be the outlier. I read the sermon he gave on submission that Dalrock has in his history and 3 others. While not being quite as hard core on the subject a I thought, he did more, rather than less hold up headship and submission. More so than any other person I have found outside of the manosphere.
So to be quite honest, I did not feel comfortable with the hardline stance I took. I backed off it some on this particular sermon and quite a bit on him personally. I have apolagized to him on my site and also emailed him and we have had a conversation where I have asked for forgiveness for slandering his name and he has granted that. He was very gracious.
I repeat, I do think this sermon was a disservice and not a service to headship but it was not the norm for him.
Respectfully-
Thanks for the kind words, guys.
Not to repeat myself too much, but the word “broken” implies that the object in question can be fixed, or that an unbroken version of it can be found. That’s not the case here, so it’s misleading. Young men don’t need to be taught that women are broken; they need to be taught that women are women, very different from men in some important ways.
When I was young, and girls friend-zoned me while telling me I was a “great guy,” I believed something like that they were broken. She has poor self-esteem, so she doesn’t believe a good man would want her (arrogant, huh?). She’s messed up from bad past relationships. She’s scared of commitment. Her parents were split up, so she doesn’t know how good it can be. Her abusive boyfriend’s beatings have made her too codependent to leave him.
Those thoughts might have been comforting — they might even have been true in some cases — but they weren’t the point, and they kept me from getting to the point: those girls rejected me because I wasn’t attractive, because I wasn’t dominant, confident, and playful. I bored them. They weren’t broken at all; they were just being women. If I’d understood that, I wouldn’t have kept waiting for them to change and get better, or for an unbroken one to come along.
Cail,
If life were only as easy as what follows:
Life in Patriarchyland!
(daughter) “Daddy, I would like to get married.”
(dad) “Good.”
(daughter) “But I don’t know who to marry. I don’t trust my own judgment.”
(dad) “You shouldn’t.”
(daughter) “So how do I know if he’s the right one?”
(dad) “I’ll tell you.”
(daughter) “But what if I don’t love him?”
(dad) “That will grow, it will come and go.”
(daughter) “But what if I’m not always happy?”
(dad) “That is not marriage. You want to be married right?”
(daughter) “Yes.”
(dad) “Okay, do you only want to be married if you are always happy in it?”
(daughter) “Well, isn’t that the way its supposed to be?”
(dad) “No.”
(daughter) “So what do I do?”
(dad) “I will pick the boy. You will fall in love with him. You will do absolutely everything he tells you to do. You will give me 12 grand children.”
(daughter) “That’s a lot. What if he can’t afford to support them all?”
(dad) “I will buy you two a house near us, keep it in my name, you two will live in it free of charge, and your mom and I will help with the grandkids.”
(daughter) “What if I don’t agree with everything he says?”
(dad) “Doesn’t matter. Do whatever he tells you to do.”
(daughter) “Sounds like slavery?”
(dad) “No. he has headship. You are his property and he will take care of you, he had pride of ownership.”
(daughter) “Okay. So get him for me.”
(dad) “I will.”
—– (two weeks later) —
(dad speaking to another dad) “So what did your son think of the picture of my daughter?”
(other dad) “He said she was beautiful. He loved her long hair.”
(dad) “Good. I picked out a starter house around the corner. How’s his job going?”
(other dad) “Its a hassle. His boss is being deliberately difficult so I told him to send out the resumes and not to quit until he found something else.”
(dad) “Understandable. You’ll be in church Sunday?”
(other dad) “Of course.”
(dad) “See you then.”
—- (two weeks later) —-
(daughter’s dad to young man) “So you think she’s pretty?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “Do you think you could ever love her?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “And if you two get married, you are okay with living around the block from us?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “And if you two get married, you are going to try and get her pregnant on your wedding night?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “And if you two get married, you are going to consummate this marriage every single night of the week?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “And do you know what happens if you ever hit her?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “Okay you may court her.”
—- (two months later) —-
(dad) “Do you love him?”
(daughter) “Yes daddy.”
(dad) “Do you love her?”
(daughter) “Yes sir.”
dad “Okay you have my blessing.”
— (two weeks later) —-
(her) “I do.”
(him) “I do.”
— (12 hours later)—
(her) “I’m pregnant.”
If life were ONLY that easy. Of course, it isn’t.
Cail Corishev says:
June 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm
“Not to repeat myself too much, but the word “broken” implies that the object in question can be fixed, or that an unbroken version of it can be found. That’s not the case here, so it’s misleading.”
That’s not necessarily true. “Broken”, in this case, means that the object is incapable of fulfilling the purpose for which it was designed. EVERY human being ever born was born in that state, and as with some other broken things, only the designer and manufacturer – God – can fix us.
“Young men don’t need to be taught that women are broken; they need to be taught that women are women, very different from men in some important ways.”
No. All people need to be taught that all human beings are born broken, and only God can fix us. Female brokenness manifests itself in ways that are different from male brokenness, but the same principle applies to every human being, and in fact, all of creation.
@Oscar, yes. In the context of sexual relationships one might say that one way that women’s brokenness can be seen is in their refusal to be submissive to a nice man, and one way that men’s brokenness can be seen is in their inability to get niceness to work for them. One demeans and dirties oneself by having to be more bad in order to accomplish something.
@tsk re: “JF12, your problem is your definition of nice.”
Which definition would that be? This one is from the Bible:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/when-dennis-rainey-got-it-right/#comment-128215
Oscar, like I said, I didn’t want to repeat myself. Yes, we’re all “broken” in the sense of Original Sin, being part of a fallen world. But that’s not what people usually mean by it, especially when guys say, “You can’t find a good wife these days because women are broken.” Millions of women managed to be good wives in the past, though they were just as broken as women today in the sense that you’re talking about. Other things have changed, not that.
I’m not saying you’re wrong; I just think that word doesn’t frame the problem very usefully. Especially when guys say it with an obvious sense of frustration, so the subtext comes across as, “Why can’t I find an unbroken one?” or, “How can I fix this one that I want?” My point is you can’t.
@Cail:
I think the word works just fine, if one uses it in its correct sense. But I’m not committed to it. So, what word should we use?
Cail,
As usual, wise words. Oscar’s doctrine is correct.
I think the conundrum can be solved by recognizing that we’re all broken, but it is not out of brokenness that women long for masculinity, but out of their true and godly purpose. It was the brokenness of their mothers, and ours, that led those (older) women to seek “nice” guys that they could dominate in their rebellion, and to raise emasculated sons readily dominated by future generations of women.
That future generation is balking at the treachery of their mother’s generation and demanding masculinity from their men, not submissive niceness. The mothers retain a great deal of power in the culture, and in their solipsism continue to double down on their rebellion and enforce it on others, but their children, male and female, are not playing along.
Oscar,
It works, as long as the men recognize their own brokenness and give up our vain self-righteousness, keeping in mind that all can become more whole in Christ over time through the spiritual discipline of confession, repentance, and openness to God’s redeeming grace.
The frustration of the “nice guy” is in part due to his own vanity, as Cail noted above. I likewise lived, and suffered, long in this error.
“to be submissive to a nice man”
It is impossible for anyone to be submissive to a nice man. Nice = submissive.
“Not to repeat myself too much, but the word “broken” implies that the object in question can be fixed, or that an unbroken version of it can be found.”
The subject in question can be fixed, just not by us. Good and much needed advice on the non-existence of unbroken ones. That’s good pedestal prevention.
“Young men don’t need to be taught that women are broken; they need to be taught that women are women, very different from men in some important ways.”
It’s not either/or.
re: “It is impossible for anyone to be submissive to a nice man.”
Incorrect. You are not permitted to redefine nice. You are very wrong; you are extremely wrong about this. It is ALWAYS possible to choose to submit; always. It isn’t easy to WANT to, because it is difficult for (broken) people to WANT to do what is right. What is right, in this case, is a woman submitting to a nice man INSTEAD of a bad man. You are bad so far in refusing, like a girl, to admit you know you are wrong.
desiderian says:
June 21, 2014 at 4:21 pm
“It works, as long as the men recognize their own brokenness and give up our vain self-righteousness, keeping in mind that all can become more whole in Christ over time through the spiritual discipline of confession, repentance, and openness to God’s redeeming grace.
The frustration of the “nice guy” is in part due to his own vanity, as Cail noted above. I likewise lived, and suffered, long in this error.”
Amen. We are ALL broken, and only a complete rebuild (rebirth) by the manufacturer (God) will fix us.
Over at Elspeth’s “overt” masculinity is identfied as bad, mean, brutal, by the most aware Christian women I know of.
Besides the blasphemous undertone of “God created things wrong”, the problem of saying “Nice guys are the real jerks” is that that statement is THE characteristically bluepill girl-speak of feminism as regards intersexual relations.
True colors, and all that.
“Over at Elspeth’s ‘overt’ masculinity is identfied as bad, mean, brutal, by the most aware Christian women I know of.”
They are possessed by the same demon that possesses you.
Begone! You have no power here! Leave jf12 alone!
“Nice guys are the real jerks”
They would have to grow some balls to rise to the level of jerk.
That is beside the point. Again, I said nothing of the sort. Every single time you’ve quoted me, demon, you’ve done so falsely, revealing yourself. You cannot hide here. Begone!
@Jf12:
Liar.
Seriously, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I have ever pushed the idea that masculinity is “bad, mean, brutal”.
No one said that. Your problem is that you are offended that masculinity does not mean nice. And that women are (yes, broken from the Garden of Eden), and need a firmer guiding hand than most men are equipped are willing to give.
Where did I (or any of the women in the convo on my blog) say that masculinity is bad, mean, brutal?
And if you’re going to quote what I said about my husband’s past, don’t leave out what I said about how he feels about that season of his life.
Man, you are full of it.
Elspeth, I think you said it better the first time.
There is a far-goneness here. I’m having at least the decency to be embarrassed. I ask Dalrock’s forebearance, for a little while at least, so maybe it will not become too far-gone. The belittlement of nice guys comes from the exact place which says good is evil, and calls evil good. That same evil place, from whence sprang feminism and the sexual revolution, has engendered the idea promoted in the comments here that a high N of sorts is a prerequisite for marriage! i.e. only after a young man has proven himself alpha enough to get the sexual attentions of many women, then and only then he should decide to settle down.
A Christian brother, for such I call him, has the temerity to deny that the Bible calls for Christians to be nice and to be clean even when seeing the verses, and sees nothing wrong in saying many blatant absurdities such as it being impossible to submit to nice. Other brothers says things like “Enjoy women’s attraction to bad boys by becoming more a bad boy yourself, heh heh.”
Not to belabor this point, but our sister elsewhere says “the most common displays of overt masculinity are either violent or ungodly”, and agrees with another sister who claims that thugs are the ONLY examples of masculinity that women see, and then calls me a liar for pointing out that she did so.
Jesus, help us all.
Jf12:
Way to misinterpret and read something in the most uncharitable way.
I have written more than enough that my position should be clear. But I’ll try again.
Most typical American young women who were fortunate enough to ne involved with their fathers watched them be cowed by or divorced by their mothets.
The first glimpse of a man unapologetic of his maleness is usually an ungodly glimpse.
How is this blasphemous?
and agrees with another sister who claims that thugs are the ONLY examples of masculinity that women see,
You are talking of me here and this is not exactly what I’ve said. I’ve not read the whole thread, just these last few so I’m not sure about this whole conversation so let me just address this point. What I did say was this
Many women today will never meet a man of Godly masculinity. They will never meet a dominant man who is good yet strong and who knows the difference between loving with strength and domineering. It is the only examples these have to go to because they have never met a masculine man who is NOT a thug.
jf12, the etymology of nice is foolish and stupid. One can be a good man without being nice and also without being thug.
Elspeth–
“Most typical American young women who were fortunate enough to ne involved with their fathers watched them be cowed by or divorced by their mothets.
The first glimpse of a man unapologetic of his maleness is usually an ungodly glimpse.”
I can’t quite put my finger on it, but this is somehow related to the discussion happening over at your blog (that I clumsily tried to chime in on).
Yes Scott, it is. Rather than engage me at my blog, jf12 decided to try me here.
So I responded here, which may have been a mistake. Dalrock can render verdict I suppose.
My wife and I had this discussion before, since we have boys AND girls to raise, and both need to know that there is a difference between a “nice guy” and a good man.
The most obvious difference is that a good man knows when to stop being nice.
Christ – always the best example – knew when to be gentle, and when to flip over tables, whip people with a rope fashioned into a scourge and say things that were so offensive that most of his followers abandoned him. None of those actions were “nice”.
Of course, Christ is sinless. We can’t be (until we get our complete manufacturer’s rebuild). It’s therefore helpful to consider examples that are as flawed as we are. Fortunately, the Bible abounds with examples of Godly manhood.
Let’s consider David.
David knew when and how to demonstrate mercy and grace to his enemies (1 Samuel 24 and 2 Samuel 21). He also knew how to knock a champion warrior down with a rock and chop his head off with his own sword (1 Samuel 17). He once received orders to kill 100 enemy soldiers. David, always the overachiever, killed 200 (1 Samuel 18). I doubt anyone would describe David as a “nice guy”. And the ladies loved him for it (1 Samuel 18).
Well said Oscar. A good man will be nice guy when appropriate and hard guy when necessary.
jf12,
“Not to belabor this point”
Too late. If you love the demon who has possessed you more than you love the Lord your God, there is nothing we can do to help you. Embarrassment is a start. Now search your soul and repent.
Nice means all kinds of things, some of those things it has in common with Christian virtues, even manly ones, but you’re falling victim to the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. One thing nice always means is submissive. Men are called to submit to their Lord and Savior and those whom their Lord has commissioned to have authority over them. Good men will also naturally gravitate toward submission to better men. I have no hesitance submitting to Dalrock or Cail, for instance.
The Lord, in his infinite wisdom, has not given this commission to my wife. For me to submit to her, whatever my motivation, would be to deny my manly duty and to disobey my Lord. I am often kind to my wife, and at times tender-hearted, at other times stout. I am never nice, nor would she easily forgive me if I were.
jf12,
“The belittlement of nice guys comes from the exact place which says good is evil, and calls evil good.”
The genetic fallacy. Feminists are also known to breathe, should I hold my breath until I suffocate?
Nice guys don’t need me to belittle them, they’re already too small for their britches. I’m just bearing witness to the truth. They have shirked their manly duty and given themselves over to vanity, disobedience, and cowardice.
“has engendered the idea promoted in the comments here that a high N of sorts is a prerequisite for marriage! i.e. only after a young man has proven himself alpha enough to get the sexual attentions of many women, then and only then he should decide to settle down.”
There’s a lot of work, and sin, between attention and N. I had some attention (to which I was largely oblivious) as a nice guy, and a lot of attention as a good man. In neither case did my N become one until I reached the marriage bed.
What does it gain you to continually misrepresent the opinions and statements of those with whom you disagree? This is why I believe you have a demon. Demons can’t help but lie and misrepresent. People in their right mind at least tend to throw in some truth even when they aim to deceive.
“A Christian brother, for such I call him, has the temerity to deny that the Bible calls for Christians to be nice and to be clean even when seeing the verses”
I’ve got all the temerity you can handle, son, and then some. I saw the verses, interpreted them, and yet you pretend I deny them. It does not call men to be “nice”. The word does not appear in scripture. Perfect for demonic use. It calls much more often for washing, implying that getting one’s hands dirty comes with carrying out one’s manly duties, than it calls one to be clean above all. The obsession with purity is Levitical and at odds with the new covenant. Regardless, one can be clean as the driven snow, and not attractive to women, if a man is so concerned with preserving his cleanliness that he shirks those duties.
One question I hope you’ll answer:
Why the monomania with the word “nice”? Is it not apparent how easily Satan preys on the weak and ignorant when otherwise good men are so worried about being “nice” that they fail to contend with evil and sin when it stares them right in the face? the havoc wreaked by husbands submitting to their wives, and pastors to the women in their churches?
“Why the monomania with the word “nice”?”
Indeed. Why the rush to jump on Brother jf12 for using a perfectly good word, with a perfectly clear meaning, which he elucidated numerous times (as clean, just, kind, and reverent, among other things)?
It is rather narrow-minded to attribute weakness and ignorance to niceness as he defined it, repeatedly, here. It is also hasty and unjust to invoke demons as motivating someone whose words we do not fully understand.
One should not let semantics interfere with the truth, so maybe it is time to abandon this peculiar “monomania” and stop unduly focusing on one’s individually tainted interpretations of this particular word, taking it as it was intended, in its original meaning of decency and goodness.
@desiderian, I ask you why YOU focus on nice. I said kind was nice. Which it is. Everything you say is wrong on thos. Everything.
@bradford: Thanks.
@Elspeth:
I checked out your blog, because I didn’t know what you were talking about, and I found this gem in the comments from Alte.
“The thing about the wimpy/felon conundrum is that neither man is morally upright. Both ends of the continuum are corrupt and perverted, so women are choosing between the plague and cholera.”
I think she’s right. One example: violence is never a good thing, but on (thankfully) rare occasions it’s the only moral choice. As I wrote above, a good man knows those occasions exist, knows how to recognize those occasions, and knows what to do when those occasions arise. A “nice guy” doesn’t.
Granted, some good men are more skilled at meeting out violence when the need arises than others, even among those of us who’ve experience combat. I’m not cut out for Operational Detachment Delta, for example. We are not equally gifted, and that’s fine.
However, every woman wants to know her man is willing to fight for his family, and I think that’s a Godly desire. The trouble is that, as we’ve been discussing, we’re all broken (fallen), and one way in which some women’s brokenness (sinful nature) manifests itself is that they pervert their God-given desire for a man who’ll fight for his family into a love for thugs.
I mentioned violence first because it’s the most obvious example, but there are others. For example, women typically loathe men who are push-overs, if for no other reason than a push-over rarely progresses far in his career, and that hurts the family.
Again, that is a Godly desire, but a woman’s sinful nature can pervert that Godly desire into a love for sociopathic manipulators.
The same principle applies to men, of course. It’s no coincidence that the book of Proverbs spends three chapters warning young men to avoid sluts, and only one chapter describing the ideal wife.
CAF and the Monster From Hell:
“Saint John Paul II’s Father Is a Role Model for All Men.”–a Catholic Account
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=891617
Cohabiting without sex (now) Scandal … Help!
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=891577
Help! Husband has been toying with the cult called SSPX and son came out as gay to me.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=891597
Re: paternal disengagement:
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.com/2014/01/paternal-disengagement-and-female.html
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.com/2014/02/gss-links-between-paternal.html
@el, thanks for a vote of sanity.
“its original meaning of decency and goodness” Yes, and don’t forget mild and pleasant and tender.
@desiderian
“I saw the verses, interpreted them”. No you didn’t. You denied they applied.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/when-dennis-rainey-got-it-right/#comment-128230
That’s the total extent of your interpretation: denying.
and meek
The issue is that jf12 thinks that being clean and nice/kind/good/whateverdonotcare is all that his sons should need. Not wisdom, not strength, not courage, not wit, not charisma, not determination. Be nice, be clean, and wives should appear. Then he tries to use the bible to say that this is what should be. His position is asinine, and either way, it. Does. Not. Matter. Women will not choose his sons, and all the whinging and sniveling he can muster will not change that. His opinion on reality is irrelevant.
He wants to get in a cage match with Dalrock, his commenters, and Reality. I say we just sit back and let Reality beat him and his sons until they are ready to listen. Unless he is willing to learn, no point is made by teaching.
Can we get back to the original point of the post: that Rainey is a wolf among the flock and is spreading lies to serve his own interests? Much more pressing than this argument. Rainey has influenced many, and we need to discuss how to understand him and oppose him.
The Shadowed Knight
“The issue is that jf12 thinks that being clean and nice/kind/good/whateverdonotcare is all that his sons should need. Not wisdom, not strength, not courage, not wit, not charisma, not determination. Be nice, be clean, and wives should appear.”
This is a willful misinterpretation of his words, which is perhaps not surprising coming from a man who advocates use of physical violence in intimate relationships with women (“You have to handle women with a firm hand. That means if they get out of line, you drag them back, kicking and screaming if need be. That will work to keep them attracted. Women respond to strength, but you need not be cruel. Do not bounce her head off a wall when a slap will bring her to her senses.”)
In light of your own disturbing comment, as well as several others on this thread in the similar vein, Brother jf12’s concern is even more relevant and justified.
[D: I’ve removed the original comment because it advocated violence, but I’ve left your response quoting it because I didn’t see it first and it is relevant to the discussion.]
“As I mentioned in a recent post, I also think there is a deeper issue, and that is having bought our modern sense of moral progress, questioning if what God teaches us is good. I also think there is a normal human tendency not to want to buck the system. Basically we are saying the emperor has no clothes. We are also doing this at a time when Christians are under assault from the outside. If one is speaking out against gay marriage for example at least if you find yourself on the business end of a black list by progressives you can expect to be backed to some degree by a large number of Christians. But what we are saying while true to the Scripture (and Catholic doctrine for those in the RCC), it is profoundly counter-cultural to the mass of modern Christians who see themselves as quite immovably conservative. The folks who supported Chick Fil A, Duck Dynasty, and the Benham brothers would with few exceptions be as hostile to what we are saying as the feminists are, actually probably more-so. This takes a great deal of faith, and not everyone is going to be ready to take this kind of risk (even anonymously/privately).”
Sums it well, including allusion to Genesis 3:1. You have to know where you are, to know where to go.
Christian men are largely cowards before the gynarchy. They go along b/c the consequences of displeasing an American female — custodial, legal, social, economic — are real. This is the final recapitulation and working-out of Eve’s rebellion against God and man (“Womens’ Liberation”) and Adam’s compliance with her leadership and desires.
God’s primary punishment of womankind was a vastly increased ‘desire’ for the ‘husband’ — meaning a much magnified psycho-sexual dependence of the female upon the male. (Which, by the evidence, drives most modern females quite crazy with resentment. As God intended, bc he is not sorting them, they sort themselves.) God could have taken the easy way out, for himself included, and just altered Eve’s free will for power and material things, nipped it out. Instead, He allowed human beings to witness over time the results of that choice, ie a fallen, wicked, diseased and suffering world, deriving directly from those original (and ongoing) choices.
Given this, it’s v important to point out just how fringe, how extreme, obedience to God’s Word is amongst modern Christians, especially purported leaders. Very few Christians can accept God’s will for human females and males, and the people and organizations you properly rebuke in these posts are fooling themselves if they think Christ will permit them into his Eternity. He won’t. He is going to leave the rebellious behind, no matter what they call themselves.
The breach in the Garden wall hasn’t changed, it’s just called feminism now. Most females are still Eve and most males are still Adam. So it DOES take faith and risk to stand for the LORD’s Word, bc you are correct, the fans of duck dynasty and other ‘hardcore Christians’ would like to parade you thru jerusalem, and not with palm fronds either.
King Jeshua said the path was for few, so look, and it is. But we also see to our satisfaction that the truth, however inconvenient and unwelcome, leads to the King’s Throne, where Truth is.
” Feminists are also known to breathe, should I hold my breath until I suffocate?”
Please do, your continual nazbol misandry is tiresome.
Grow some agency,demon.
God may not be dead,but he has been relegated to a position lower than
the leading cast of Twilight,thanks to Nazbol harlots demanding more thuggery from would-be Christian men.
The patriarchal impetus of the Christian church has been broken by these Jezebel harlots and thus has become it’s own antithesis.
Thus all the smoke and fire here.
Keep fighting for more control OVER men harlots,we turn a deaf ear and our backside to your demand for aggression.
Down to your master,off you go!
(Good work jf12!)
To add:
Feminism was created to destroy the nuclear family and promote the Police State necessary in a non-accountable Matriarchal society.
The harlots may have won the war of the sexes,but they will claim innocence when the blood flows in the streets.
The Old Testament
Capital punishments were so severe as to shut the yap of harlots like desire-driven,who wouldst drag down every nuclear family in their midst.
Start holding that breath sweetheart, no one will come running to your blue face and balloon cheeks,you will be looking like your inner baboon you release here.
Shadowedknight,
Wise council. Their heresy and/or willful ignorance is already being overturned by facts on the ground. When it becomes too powerful to deny, they can remember this conversation when they then stand in need of wisdom and understanding.
It is a manly duty to call out bad faith rather than meekly acquiesce to it, or, as el has done, turn a blind eye and feign ignorance. I’ve have discharged that duty and will now cease feeding the trolls before more come out of the woodwork.
TSK,
He’s not the only one. There are many wolves among this flock of so called pastors and spiritual leaders.
Incidentally, your pike-men avatar, that looks like the picture on the militia card in the card game “Dominion.” Is that where you found it? That is quite a good game if you haven’t played it.
@IBB
I believe it’s a screenshot from the Mount & Blade menu.
I don’t even know what Mount & Blade is. But thank you for clearing that up.
freebird,
No, that is the RESULT of feminism, the result of what has been wrought. That was not the reason why it was created in the first place. The reason was far simpler.
Rush Limbaugh has perfectly defined why feminism was created.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1140209/posts
24. Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.
Women want access to resources. The Patriarchy provides (to women) the access to those resources through marriage, through being OWNED by a man. Problem is (for women) the ugly women weren’t getting any resources because no man wants to marry and own them. The Patriarchy does not work out to well for ugly women. So (in desperation for resources) ugly women created feminism for their own survival, the access to mainstream society (something they would already have access to, were it not for their pure ugliness.)
Ray
Pleasing woman is a man’s greatest mistake. jf12 will have a pleasing son because to not do so wouldn’t be nice. The good intentioned road to hell paved with happy women and their pleasing pet men. Amen
I’d rather my son follows this command: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves”. Being wise in the evils and fallen nature of the world is shown by the Lord’s own words not to mean causing harm to others. Why then should Christian men be spineless? Courage, leadership, fortitude, determination, and truthfulness are all godly virtues that those raised to be “nice” in our modern society are sorely lacking.
Dear JF12:
“Nice” has an incredibly broad lexical range in contemporary parlance.
There are “nice guys” in the Robert Glover sense, namely the types of dudes who do nice things for women, hoping to manipulate them into banging, without ever being nice enough to elucidate their true intentions. Such a dude often explodes with rage, when the object of his affection proves unable to read his mind, and react by bending over for him with no other information to go on. Nice guys like that actually are assholes, from the perspective of their marks.
I think what you’re talking about (and I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong) is the type of dude who has self-discipline enough to treat others with kindness, and who doesn’t need to prove his own masculinity by banging lots of chicks (to channel Jack Donovan, in this world, that’s the only way young brothers are actually allowed to feel like a man). Your definition is commensurate with the traditional “gentleman” in Christian/Jewish culture, and I don’t think it conflicts necessarily with what other people are using different terms to idealize.
Best, Boxer
Pingback: Life in Patriarchyland! | Hipster Racist
Please prove the evil intent of Rainey. It is widely claimed, but use Oscar’s Razor applies much better and simple idiocy is far more likely.
How many of you chastising Rainey have made your statements open to public scrutiny? Who is willing to stand behind what they say and use a real name? Anonymity encourages lots of boldness. Too bad proof and accuracy are lacking.
I certainly do not agree with much of what they say today, but I am not foolish enough to assume malice when stupidity explains things sufficiently.
Boxer, JF12 is claiming that “nice” is “nice,” and anyone who tries to draw a distinction between Christian kindness versus being a subversive supplicant, as you just did, is secretly a feminist. Or something.
My only conclusion from that is that he’s not capable of seeing the distinction, or he’s refusing to acknowledge it because he thinks it proves a flaw in the foundation of our arguments so that he can laugh them off.
The red pill can be awfully bitter.
Brad, all of our statements here are subject to public scrutiny, by definition. As for anonymity, when someone pays me to stand up in front of people and teach them, I use my real name, so no worries on that score.
I’m not sure anyone here has accused Rainey of evil intent, so you might have to point to what you’re talking about. One or two people have accused him of softening his creed for the money (which I and others disagreed with), but even that I wouldn’t label as “evil” as long as he’s able to convince himself that what he’s teaching is an acceptable interpretation and not actually counter to scripture. That shouldn’t be too hard, since it’s what practically everyone else is teaching too.
Rainey’s not being singled out here because he teaches a modernist distortion of marriage roles. That’d be a dog-bites-man story. The point here is that his words to his daughter prove that, on some level (perhaps not a conscious one), he knows what he preaches is not the best way to avoid divorce. He knows the best way to avoid divorce is to refuse to divorce, but he doesn’t preach that to crowds. Is that because he thinks it would drive too many away, and you can’t help people who aren’t listening, so by using a softer message (which he still considers acceptably scriptural, if not the ideal) he can help more people overall? Maybe. That would be my guess, rather than that it’s a calculated financial decision, or that he’s evilly cackling over ruined marriages.
jf12 (and el) tilting at windmills …
Check out the Top Posts at Deep Strength’s blog, there is one there about nice guys. I’ve been what you two advocate, Got me hardly any dates at all, then it got me a destroyed marriage. I can’t be a nice guy anymore, but it’s damn hard to move away from that mindset and I get why guys like jf12 and el hold on to it so hard as to be obtuse to its cost to their sons.
I say this as a Catholic, it is possible to be in the world, but not of it, to be wise as serpents, yet compassionate; to read Heartiste, Rational Male and MMSL (to name just a few), to understand the nature of our world and the women who populate it, yet not fall into that base mindset. Jesus spoke Truth to the Pharisees and cracked the whip on the money changers. Nothing that is jf12’s nice about either of those actions. Those actions represent an aspect of masculinity we should aspire to.
Speaking of Rainey and his evolution from the father addressing his daughter to the sellout being called out today, Free Northerner has a new post up regarding a similar evolution in TV programming from the Simpsons to Modern Family.
While there are a lot of broken family casualties among us, we must not lose sight of the fact that some people are still making it work out there. I know several people who are still married to their first spouses after 15, 20, 25, 30 years of marriage. So while I too am a casualty, I remember it’s not all blackness out there when I’m at their houses.
@IBB,
“He’s not the only one. There are many wolves among this flock of so called pastors and spiritual leaders.”
Do you still think that Mark Gungor is a red pill pastor?
Random Angeleno
Adams sin was being nice. He was pleasing his wife. The productive beta male (the 80%) when feral will be a pleasing SOB. That is the male normal just as a selfish slut is the female normal. When the word men is used the 20% is what is seen. Civilization was created by nice guys but they had to stomp the shit out of the thugs to do it. The desire to be pleasing to man is our sin as men. on the same level as the female selfish slut both will destroy civilization.
That is the motivation of the preacher supplication to the feminine imperative. The desire to be admired by other men
Bee
That preacher described guys that get regular pussy from their wives. That was a funny video.
Bee,
I’m beginning to think that there are ANY red pill pastors (not Mark Gungor, not any of them.) That doesn’t mean that the majority of what Mark Gungor is saying about men and women (and how vastly different they are and how women need to ask MORE THAN ONCE of their husbands to do things) isn’t true.
That said did you actually listen to the crap that Mark was saying just now? I don’t know of ANY Pastors who would tell a woman (any wife to her husband) to shut up and put out (or submit.) None. So I think he is talking out his behind on this one, in particular because the male he is describing is NOT any kind of man that I have ever heard of… so his “example” (much that it is) is nothing of the kind.
Look at the youtube posts on the two bains (man’s brain vs woman’s brain) and about asking more than once. Those are good. That is the Mark Gungor you should be focused on, not this guy who is slinging blue pill crap.
I got the same vibe as with Marc Driscoll shouting “how dare you”. It’s basically gaming the wives and daughters of the congregation from the pulpit, by AMOGing their husbands and fathers. Despicable, but not unexpected.
Best, Boxer
@IBB,
I did listen to it. It was pathetic. I have never heard of a preacher or marriage counselor saying what he was accusing. I would like to see Mark Gungor show us a youtube video of a sermon like that.
Bee, those 4 minutes were designed for the sole purpose of making money, to defer to the feminist imperative to get the women in the door and for the couples to buy admission tickets. That is all that was. He had to say that in order for feminist women to consent AT ALL for signing up for his lectures.
Mark Gungor knows those kinds of men (he was describing) don’t really exist (certainly not in any meaningful numbers to shame/man-up the way he was then) and neither do the pastors that tell these women to submit. Doesn’t happen.
This is a willful misinterpretation of his words, which is perhaps not surprising coming from a man who advocates use of physical violence in intimate relationships with women.
This:
Nope, nope, nope. “Be nice, be clean, be reverent, etc” was SUPPOSED to make boys attractive for marriage.
as well as:
re: “Do you really want to teach our sons only to be nice, clean, and reverent, [etc] and that will attract a wife?”
Yes, that’s how I’d really want things to be, i.e. that the SMP should be such that that ought to suffice to attract a wife.
mean that I do not have to willfully misinterpret a damn thing. I can read it straight and my point stands. Those were not the only quotes, either. He wants an easy out.
In light of your own disturbing comment, as well as several others on this thread in the similar vein, Brother jf12′s concern is even more relevant and justified.
Women made a cheap erotic novel on dominance a worldwide bestseller. Women are converting to Islam at three to every man. Men are complaining that women want them to choke them and ignore them when they resist sex, on the first date. I am not advocating violence, women are. Runs on Magic has an excellent piece titled, “How Women Teach Men To Rape.” Go read that, then talk to me.
The Shadowed Knight
“Men are complaining that women want them to choke them and ignore them when they resist sex, on the first date.”
I can confirm through young degenerate friends this is widespread in middle class college women. Wide. Freaking. Spread. A lot of me don’t complain though.
And the women converting to Islam all have a subtext of “I wanted someone to take charge, but everyone except Ahmed here is a push-over.”
@Boxer, re: “Your definition is commensurate with the traditional “gentleman” in Christian/Jewish culture.”
Yes. Thanks. To recap, my position is that being a *good* man inescapably requires him to be almost all beta with a garnish of alpha; a gentle man. But, being a “good* man doesn’t work with women. What does work with women is being a *bad* man, of which the main requirement is the appearance of the capability for badness to women.
And, meltdown and all, I’m saying this after my second foot crossed the line.
@tsk. Etc.
There are a lot of commenters who aren’t being completely honest. What JF12 and El are trying to say is more true than what the opposition is claiming.
The bible contains commands/instructions to be meek, poor in spirit, pure in heart, peacemakers, kind, not puffed up, patient, longsuffering, not to behave unseemly, seek not your own, think no evil, not rejoice in iniquity, avoid all uncleanness, avoid filthiness, avoid foolish talking/jesting, submit to one another, nourish and cherish your wife, cleave to your wife, forbear one another in love, have no corrupt speech, be edifying with your speech, be tenderhearted, esteem others better than themselves, be slow to wrath, be humble, be courteous, honor your wife, not repay evil with evil, have compassion. Nice is not a very precise word, but it does convey a sense of kindness, peace-seeking, courtesy, humility, cleanness, consideration, self-control, politeness, etc. to most men. Not sure about women. So a man trying to comply with the Bible’s guidelines on behavior and character will align quite a bit with “nice”.
Now the bible also does not promise, that I’m aware of, that cultivating these attributes will get women burning for you. And most men genuinely seeking to follow Christ, not churchians, are able to accept that. After all, most men will admit to a nice woman not being a turn-on without the minimal physical attributes. However, a nice woman is not a turn-off to men, unless she is being fake/hypocritical. Even then the turn-off is minor compared to physical assets. Likewise, most Christ-followers realize He did overturn tables, drive out moneychangers, call Pharisees hypocrites and vipers. But the bible does not give very much guidance on how to give a righteous beat down or verbal lashing. So a man trying to follow Christ is not going to display those actions too frequently unless confronting obvious evil. Even then, “speak the truth in love” and “edify others”. And yes, I know women are not men. But the bible’s commands in these areas are not gender specific or are aimed at men (cherish, cleave).
What is alarming for genuine Christian men trying to follow the bible honestly is that cultivating these biblical “nice” attributes seems to repel women, even Christian women. The bible states that God created marriage, created women for men, and that God desires certain behavior/character of His people. If following His commands and guidelines tend to turn women off, something seems very wrong. Especially if “good” women/mothers are advising these things, apparently lying. This apparent contradiction is rarely addressed in an honest way from a biblical view. Calling men who are pointing out this problem as demons or wussies is not very helpful. Nor is it good logic to use feminist shaming tactics. Vox has offered that game is a shadow of the truth – no fear. Cane has tried to address some of these contradictions. To believe women are broken or worse than men seems a more reasonable conclusion to many men than women’s love of badness is a feature not a bug. There is a significant amount of truth in game and red-pill gender relations, but something is not quite right from a biblical perspective.
Marc Driscoll makes my skin crawl.
Every reference to “seduction” in The Bible refers to being under and evil influence.
Quote me one verse where ‘seduction” is written in a positive sentence.
You cannot,because it is not there.
Civilization is based upon the premise what’s yours is yours,and if another man comes between,there is punishment.
No longer,and no longer civilized.
The violence has already begun,the wimmin laugh and rejoice.
“Let’s you and him fight.”
I say return violence to those who sow it via proxy.
They WILL be held accountable,someday,some way.
Blue and white knights,I pray you pay dearly.
Thinkn’Man @ June 20, 2014 at 9:42 pm:
“Without mentioning names, would you mind elaborating on that rotten experience?”
I was in my mid-20s at the time, living in Southern California. The church I grew up in was a small one with no singles my age. It’s hard for a guy in that position to make friends so I looked around. There was a big church not far away with post-college singles groups. It also had an attached seminary which appealed to my intellectual side (never enrolled).
It seemed like a typical church singles group and I was glad that the group rules permitted dating. I attended for a couple months, got to know guys and made sure I was fitting in before making my first approach. Nothing fancy, I just asked a pretty girl my age if she might want to do lunch after church a couple blocks away.
She froze like a deer in headlights and backed away from me, eyes wide.
I was caught completely off-guard by a response like that. Tried again the next week with a different girl. That one muttered something while again backing away. People were looking at me. Feeling nervous and unprepared, I then talked to the female co-leader of the group (the leader in charge was a married guy, I think), said I was interested in dating and asked if she could make an introduction or something to help me out. Her face hardened, she made a comment along the lines of “Oh. Maybe,” and quickly walked away. Needless to say, no followup… and I can’t recall any girl in the group talking to me after that, even in passing.
I stayed in the group but stopped asking for dates after a couple more failures. Frozen body language, backing away, silence, glares. Why was I being treated like a dirtbag? It hurt. I watched the same women be friendly with the other guys, most of whom either had some small role in the church or were pursuing advanced education at the seminary. Why was I different? Was there something wrong with me?
Then the male leader took an interest in me. It may or may not have been related to my dating efforts but the upshot is he became convinced I could not have been a Christian because I didn’t feel love for God. Why did I need to? In the Gospels, Christ clearly equated love for him with obedience to his commands. I don’t need to feel warm fuzzies to be devout but that attitude somehow convinced him that I was a false Christian.
That was when I left. You can’t stay at a church where the leaders name you an imposter.
Looking back after taking the red pill many years later, the situation made sense from the hypergamy point of view. Becoming a PastorWife is the holy grail of female status in the Church and most of the young men there were in the leadership pipeline. If a woman had tried dating me, she would not only be losing opportunities to win a pastor-in-waiting; she would also be lowering her status in the singles-group herd. That made a perfect explanation for the fear and disgust I was shown. Dating me would have been, from her perspective, the equivalent of an Olympic athlete choosing to be a high-school gym teacher a month before the Olympic Games opened.
The completely illogical reason for declaring me unChristian also makes sense, if the female leader was leaning on the top guy to get rid of me and he lacked the spine to defend the quiet, unpopular man in the corner.
Today, I feel sick when I see a young pastor with a hot wife. I know what happened in seminary… do I tell him? If I do then he’ll be forced to choose between me and his girl. If I don’t then he thinks Marriage 2.0 works… until he somehow loses top-dog status and then her hypergamy betrays him at the worst moment of his life.
I think you are illustrative of a great misconception about women, which seems prevalent in the manosphere. Namely: That women want an evil man.
Of course, some women want an evil man, hence the letters that show up pledging undying love to the inmates on death row, and such. This is a small minority, and women who display this trait are totally bonkers, so I assume most of you fellows on this blog wouldn’t be interested in such headcases.
Most women that I’ve dated do not want an evil man, as much as they want a man who doesn’t let his buttons be pushed.
Cutesy anecdote: Years ago, I had a girlfriend who would try to pick fights with me. This reminded me of my mother, and as such I found it distasteful. I would blow her off with a phrase like: “if I am not enough of an asshole for you, you’re welcome to hit the street”. That seemed to turn her on quite a bit. Of course, I was young, and I had yet to meet all you fine gents, so the reaction was sorta confusing for me. Only later did I realize the attraction of a man who does not make a woman the center of his universe.
Women want a man with goals and plans, and they want a man with ambition, who is going places in the real world. In short, they find men of action to be attractive. Now, many thug types will fit the bill, but that is incidental, and doesn’t mean you brothers have to debase yourselves with thug type behavior to attract a woman (though many lazy men find it easy to dress thuggish to get a quick lay, I think it’s sorta scroungy). Simply being too busy to text her hourly or having an active social and professional life is enough. Refusing to fight with her when she gets all infantile will help also. There’s nothing that contradicts the Bible (or Qur’an, etc) in being a strong and successful man. If I’m wrong, please let me know.
Regards, Boxer
@Boxer, re: “If I’m wrong, please let me know.”
Ok.
“Simply being too busy to text her hourly or having an active social and professional life is enough.”
Wrong, depending on what “enough” means.
You aren’t showing me the chapter and verse in the religious text that sez:
Behold, be thou a doormat, and wait for the women to flock to you, thou shalt not work out at the gym, go for the promotion, or become socially competent. Thou shalt be the stereotypical “nice guy”… etc.
Show me the verse, in the religious book that, men are not to make any effort to be attractive to women, and I’ll concede.
@Boxer, I already gave my definition. So I don’t have to address your straw definition.
Leaving the topic of nice guys aside, look how shrews are born:
http://goo.gl/1MJ62q
Does one need the Bible to be wary of them?
Cail,
TSK said:
> “Can we get back to the original point of the post: that Rainey is a wolf among the flock and is spreading lies to serve his own interests?”
IBB added on:
> “He’s not the only one. There are many wolves among this flock of so called pastors and spiritual leaders.”
You are correct that the word “evil” was not used and I mixed in some other things I had just read. My error on that. Though calling someone a “wolf” would be very close, as it implies intent to devour/deceive, not just stupidity.
I am still convinced that stupidity is the issue here, not malicious intent.
My point about anonymity made more sense when I wrote it, but I will retract that (at least until I think of the reasoning again) as I can’t figure it out now.
GunnerQ,
Why would you feel sorry for the pastor with a hot wife? She could leave him, but it is not preordained. Were you making another point?
freebird,
> “Blue and white knights,I pray you pay dearly.”
That is certainly contrary to the attitude the Scriptures proclaim. See Jesus’ words about loving your enemies, etc. It would make me wonder which god you are praying to for such vengeance.
It is also quite unnecessary in most cases.
That video was creepy. What’s with the weird music?
jsr,
“The bible contains commands/instructions to be meek, poor in spirit, pure in heart, peacemakers, kind, not puffed up, patient, longsuffering, not to behave unseemly, seek not your own, think no evil, not rejoice in iniquity, avoid all uncleanness, avoid filthiness, avoid foolish talking/jesting, submit to one another, nourish and cherish your wife, cleave to your wife, forbear one another in love, have no corrupt speech, be edifying with your speech, be tenderhearted, esteem others better than themselves, be slow to wrath, be humble, be courteous, honor your wife, not repay evil with evil, have compassion. Nice is not a very precise word, but it does convey a sense of kindness, peace-seeking, courtesy, humility, cleanness, consideration, self-control, politeness, etc. to most men. Not sure about women. So a man trying to comply with the Bible’s guidelines on behavior and character will align quite a bit with ‘nice’.”
“Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.'”
– Matthew 19:21
Have you sold your possessions and given the money to the poor? Best get on it!
St. Francis was among the finest of men, but he would have been worse than useless in confronting Hitler or a rapist breaking in to one’s home. That sort of perfection is the last step of the process of spiritual discipline, not the first, and it is particularly ill-suited for those to whom the stewardship of a family is being entrusted, whether in prospect or in deed.
The priestly calling is a high one; it is not the only one. That said, the vast majority of teaching on your list can be readily followed without any recourse to niceness as currently practiced in Churchianity.
Nice is not kind in its dishonesty.
Nice is not peace-seeking, as the weakness it betrays causes strife, both in marriage and among peoples.
Nice is not courteous, in that the false face it puts on insults the honor of the one due true courtesy.
Nice is not humble, as it is demonstrably conducive to vanity and self-righteousness among the nice, who rarely fail to pat themselves on the back for their niceness and seethe with resentment when they do not receive the deserts the believe themselves entitled to.
Nice and clean both are those who have turned our churches into hotels for saints (sic), rather than hospitals for sinners, who have preserved their own inflated self-regard while their country is conquered, their culture corrupted, their churches given over to false teaching and faithlessness, and their very children sold into slavery. Squeaky clean! Good job!
Nice requires no consideration as it studiously avoids any topic that might give anyone offense, first and foremost sin. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, as evil has its way with the weak in their charge.
Nice attempts to abnegate the self, but in the end merely eliminates all self-awareness as it careens out of all control.
Nice is indeed polite. Idolatrously so.
The cult of nice has been an unmitigated disaster for their church and her people.
jf12, boxer and others have given examples of behavior that does not fit the “nice” definition you provided, and is not contradictory to Christ’s commands. That’s the root of his challenge. He’s not drawing up a strawman, he’s pointing out the traits that are NOT required of Christians that you and a few others seem to believe are evil. You have provided no justification for why social competence, confidence, a sense of wry humor, or a strong sex drive are un-Christian. That’s the point of his argument.
jsr,
“Calling men who are pointing out this problem as demons or wussies is not very helpful.”
I wasn’t calling him a demon, or my exhortation to the demon to leave him alone would be meaningless. Is not unmitigated false witness demonic, not human? The human is always a mix of false and true.
“Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused, or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!”
– Pope, Essay on Man
“Nor is it good logic to use feminist shaming tactics.”
Again, the genetic fallacy. Is it not a shame that so many men never achieve the purpose and glory God intends for them? Feminists (ab)use shame to preserve their power. My end is truth, not power, as the only power I have is in Christ, the Truth, and the extent to which my arguments accord with His teaching and our shared reality.
“To believe women are broken or worse than men seems a more reasonable conclusion to many men than women’s love of badness is a feature not a bug.”
Who claimed such a thing? I claim their thirst for masculinity is true to their godly purpose, and a church that thwarts the development of that masculinity defying God, as are those who so readily mistake masculinity for badness that they are apt to conflate the two in misquoting the arguments to which they object.
“There is a significant amount of truth in game and red-pill gender relations, but something is not quite right from a biblical perspective.”
Game is primarily about the identification and dispelling of falsehoods (pretty lies) and practices predicated upon them (anti-game); the red-pill nothing but the doctrine of original sin rediscovered.
Ver,
Are you addressing me? Your statements make no sense.
“You have provided no justification for why social competence, confidence, a sense of wry humor, or a strong sex drive are un-Christian.”
They’re not. They also have nothing to do with nice, as currently practiced or by any definition.
Ver,
Apologies, I see you were addressing jf12.
OT
http://elitedaily.com/women/20-something-women-need-stop-thinking-like-30-something-women/634789/
My Catholic Divorce is costing me way too much, and is way too hard! It’s not fair!!
“Nice” has nothing to do with love, goodness, and righteousness.
http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/nice-versus-love-goodness-and-righteousness/
The gold standard for husbands and wives is Jesus and the Church (Eph 5). How many times did Jesus criticize, correct, and chastize his disciples for their lack of faith? Their wrong/improper attitudes toward children, women, gentiles, unclean, etc.? How about being the greatest?
To follow God’s commands is to call other Christians out when they sin. This is Scriptural. There is more than ample opportunity to do this in today’s world. This is the backbone that Christian men need, and it is also attractive.
Also, there is a Christian understanding of attraction, but that is almost beside the point.
http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/a-christian-understanding-of-attraction/
If you cling to game over the Scriptures you get a warped view of the world.
@GunnerQ
Thanks for elaborating. It’s depressing when one gets a glimpse into the female soul, and sees how stunningly shallow it is.
OK, pick up as many stones to hurl at me as you wish. But the fact of the matter is that Christianity simply lacks the means to deal with the problem, and the problem within Christianity is not that people are failing to abide by its tenets, but that they are following them. Bear in mind this is NOT the white-knighting modern version of Christianity, but it is that as taught in the Bible, directly.
1. Christianity makes passively (“patiently”) bearing injustice a higher virtue than actively fighting against it, and a much higher virtue than seeking retaliation (which is often, in fact, deemed a vice). Now, enough family court judges in wheelchairs, or in the morgue, placed there by outraged fathers, would be sufficient to stem the tide. Budgets simply can’t stretch to afford Secret Service-like protection to every family court judge in the country, and family court judges don’t really care about children, they just like their nice lifestyle paid for at taxpayer expense. But Christianity forbids this. Yet family court judges aren’t that stupid. They can see when a man steps foot in their courtroom and is willing to fight – to whatever endpoint – for his children and his family.
2. Christianity makes duty an absolute, meaning not dependent on what anyone else does. It simply cannot abide that once a women elects single motherhood as a lifestyle choice, the children are her responsibility and her responsibility ALONE. Sure modern Christians will wax eloquent about the father’s duty toward the children, but they will be mum about the mother’s duty toward the father. (Of course, there’s more than a little hypocrisy here. Congregants don’t do their duty of supporting the church, so the church gets foreclosed and the pastor has to sleep in a truck. Think he’s going to stick around because of his “duty” to his congregants?) Anyway, men could, if they chose, make life REALLY MISERABLE for single mothers so that it would simply almost never be considered as a “lifestyle option”.
3. Some of the virtues which Christianity holds dear, such as meekness and unquestioning obedience to authority, are EXTREMELY unattractive to women. It takes a little foray into evolution and evolutionary psychology (which of course some Christians deny) to understand exactly why. But for the readers of this forum, these are quintessential “beta” traits.
Well…
http://chastityproject.com/2014/06/first-brother-lover/
@ BrainyOne
Matthew 3:39 “”But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”
Note it says EVIL PERSON. If your wife claims to be Christian and is divorcing you then she should be fought tooth and nail because she is basically trampling the name of Christ into the ground. God hates divorce. Christian men should always fight against sin — the divorce.
Also, if you want to speak in game terms if you believe in God then turn the other cheek to evil persons is the ultimate form of “outcome independence.” Do you validate a woman’s shit test to you with a serious or defensive answer? Or do you laugh it off and continue on your way?
You’re discussing churchianity not Christianity.
We serve God because we have His joy and peace of forgiveness and because we love Him not because it is our duty.
Incorrect. Humility is neither here nor there. I don’t need to brag about what I do to be confident in execution of my God given talents and cultivated abilities. If you prefer game terms then “show don’t tell.”
Likewise, what is this unquestioning obedience to authority? The only unquestioned authority is God. Humans are fallible. We are quite clearly supposed to test everything against the Scriptures (1 Thess 5:21) even if it comes from the pastor’s mouth. We are to obey God not men.
I don’t mean this as an insult but you said you’re not referencing white knight versions of Christianity. However, that is exactly what you have done.
BradA says:
June 22, 2014 at 12:11 pm
“Please prove the evil intent of Rainey. It is widely claimed, but use Oscar’s Razor applies much better and simple idiocy is far more likely.”
Please don’t use my razor. That would be unsanitary.
@BrainyOne
Seems you forgot all about the Jesus who spoke Truth to the Pharisees, who chastised and rebuked his apostles and disciples time and time again, who fashioned a scourge from the materials at hand and chased the money changers from the temple. That is right there in the Gospels, and you’re saying oh no, mustn’t read anything into that, meekness and niceness is all there is? That we’re not to follow Jesus’ example in these cases?
@Deep Strength
I’m happy you say it should be fought “tooth and nail”. But NOT because it is an injustice to you, and because she is also trampling YOU into the ground. Right? ONLY if there is a higher motive to be found is there justification. THAT’s what I disagree with. You have just as much right to fight injustice toward yourself as toward others.
And, what does this fighting “tooth and nail” actually entail? She can file for her divorce, have it granted under no-fault laws, etc., and you are powerless to fight it. What you CAN fight is custody and exiting for cash and prizes. THAT’s what’s discouraged under the aegis of “taking up your Cross”.
Um, no. If someone steals my car I am going to seek reimbursement from my insurance company as well as seeking to get the perp prosecuted. I’m quite sure you would do the same. My actions are quite outcome dependent, and I make no bones about it.
Humility is not the same thing as meekness, and it is also not the same thing as not bragging. But while we’re at it, humility is extremely unattractive to women as well. Just WHY should you be “confident” in execution of your God given talents? Don’t you know He could withdraw them at a moment’s notice? Yes, confidence in men is sexy to women. Unfortunately, there is no biblical basis whatsoever for making this a virtue. Confidence is pride, not humility.
You agree you are expected to unquestioningly obey the Bible, right?
Many women today will never meet a man of Godly masculinity. They will never meet a dominant man who is good yet strong and who knows the difference between loving with strength and domineering.
Since most of them do their spiritual shopping at their local churchian franchise, it stands to reason that they never buy what the store doesn’t offer in stock.
“Unfortunately, there is no biblical basis whatsoever for making this a virtue. Confidence is pride, not humility.”
Confidence is from the Latin prefix con- meaning “with” or “together” (cf. contract, compassion, congregate) and the root fides, meaning faith, reliance, trust (cf. semper fidelis = always faithful, bona fide = good faith). Confidence arising from brotherhood in Christ (cf. Romans 1:11-12) and faith in Christ Emmanuel (Hebrew for “God with us”) is very much a Christian virtue and sign of grace.
“Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have access to God in boldness and confidence through faith in him. I pray therefore that you may not lose heart over my sufferings for you; they are your glory.
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name. I pray that, according to the riches of his glory, he may grant that you may be strengthened in your inner being with power through his Spirit, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, as you are being rooted and grounded in love. I pray that you may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.”
– Ephesians 3
Nor is even pride without virtue, if its subject is Almighty God and the strength he has faithfully granted those throughout the ages who have trusted in Him, and not themselves alone.
“O that my head were a spring of water,
and my eyes a fountain of tears,
so that I might weep day and night
for the slain of my poor people!
O that I had in the desert
a traveler’s lodging place,
that I might leave my people
and go away from them!
For they are all adulterers,
a band of traitors.
They bend their tongues like bows;
they have grown strong in the land for falsehood, and not for truth;
for they proceed from evil to evil,
and they do not know me, says the Lord.
Beware of your neighbors,
and put no trust in any of your kin;
for all your kin[d] are supplanters,
and every neighbor goes around like a slanderer.
They all deceive their neighbors,
and no one speaks the truth;
they have taught their tongues to speak lies;
they commit iniquity and are too weary to repent.
Oppression upon oppression, deceit upon deceit!
They refuse to know me, says the Lord.
Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts:
I will now refine and test them,
for what else can I do with my sinful people?
Their tongue is a deadly arrow;
it speaks deceit through the mouth.
They all speak friendly words to their neighbors,
but inwardly are planning to lay an ambush.
Shall I not punish them for these things? says the Lord;
and shall I not bring retribution
on a nation such as this?
Take up weeping and wailing for the mountains,
and a lamentation for the pastures of the wilderness,
because they are laid waste so that no one passes through,
and the lowing of cattle is not heard;
both the birds of the air and the animals
have fled and are gone.
I will make Jerusalem a heap of ruins,
a lair of jackals;
and I will make the towns of Judah a desolation,
without inhabitant.
Who is wise enough to understand this? To whom has the mouth of the Lord spoken, so that they may declare it? Why is the land ruined and laid waste like a wilderness, so that no one passes through? And the Lord says: Because they have forsaken my law that I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, or walked in accordance with it, but have stubbornly followed their own hearts and have gone after the Baals, as their ancestors taught them. Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: I am feeding this people with wormwood, and giving them poisonous water to drink. I will scatter them among nations that neither they nor their ancestors have known; and I will send the sword after them, until I have consumed them.
The People Mourn in Judgment
Thus says the Lord of hosts:
Consider, and call for the mourning women to come;
send for the skilled women to come;
let them quickly raise a dirge over us,
so that our eyes may run down with tears,
and our eyelids flow with water.
For a sound of wailing is heard from Zion:
“How we are ruined!
We are utterly shamed,
because we have left the land,
because they have cast down our dwellings.”
Hear, O women, the word of the Lord,
and let your ears receive the word of his mouth;
teach to your daughters a dirge,
and each to her neighbor a lament.
“Death has come up into our windows,
it has entered our palaces,
to cut off the children from the streets
and the young men from the squares.”
Speak! Thus says the Lord:
“Human corpses shall fall
like dung upon the open field,
like sheaves behind the reaper,
and no one shall gather them.”
Thus says the Lord: Do not let the wise boast in their wisdom, do not let the mighty boast in their might, do not let the wealthy boast in their wealth; but let those who boast boast in this, that they understand and know me, that I am the Lord; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the Lord.
The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will attend to all those who are circumcised only in the foreskin: Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab, and all those with shaven temples who live in the desert. For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.”
– Jeremiah 9
The prophet of the Lord. Some nice guy.
@MarcusD
Here is a link for you that my brother sent me.What a real winner this c*** is!
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/why-i-filmed-my-abortion#comments
A lot of people misunderstand the Biblical term meekness, because it’s come to mean something very different from what it used to mean. The word translated “meek” in Matthew 5:5 (“Blessed are the meek”) is the Greek word prautes.
Source: The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, p. 1209-1210, as quoted here (in the section titled “What Does Meekness Mean?”).
Gentleness that springs not from weakness, but from power correctly utilized. In other words, the character Jesus displayed, being gentle with people like the Samaritan woman in John 4, but showing righteous anger towards the moneychangers in the temple in Matthew 21. That’s what meekness means; that’s the attitude Jesus tells us to display. We must be strong when necessary, but default to gentleness with those who are weaker.
Interesting… : http://asr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/29/0003122414536391.abstract
@Mark
I heard about that video. It’s certainly says a lot about the state of society (and none of it good…).
I appreciated your comments, Robin Munn. I am not sure when or how our understanding of Christian character came to be interpreted as “simpering, insecure, passive, and supplicating to any and everyone who crosses your path. Even to those under your charge.”
It baffles. This was not what Christ modeled. When the choice was His human exaltation verses the mission God sent Him here to perform, he submitted to the mission. But we so no evidence that He was a man afraid or unwilling to confront, or without emotions other than grief and fear, or that He didn’t command His disciples.
I already know that one of the ways that the world has muzzled the church in the public square is by indoctrinating from childhood the idea that love always acquiesces. But I’m shocked to see that view being espoused in a forum such as this.
Elspeth
This whole conversation is the source of strength for churchian priest, and pastors and is the reason men are leaving the church. No woman can gina tingle for such a man. Even beyond that a woman can never have inner peace with such a man. This is one of those conversations I wish I had never seen. Men not willing to risk getting their souls dirty. And proud of their righteousness. There is nothing in this world uglier than that.
desiderian says:
June 23, 2014 at 12:59 am
Desiderian is right about confidence. Whenever one thinks about confidence, one should immediately ask oneself, “confidence in what?”
Confidence in self is un-Godly. Confidence in God is Godly.
Proverbs 3:5-6
New King James Version (NKJV)
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.
A secular man may tell a woman (implicitly or explicitly) “come with me because I’m hot stuff”. A Godly man tells a woman, “this is my God-given mission in life, and I want you to follow me on it.”
That implies, of course, that he actually has a mission in life. A man without direction can’t lead, and therefore is not ready to be an effective husband or father.
@ BrainyOne
No, I quite clearly said she is trampling the name of Christ into the ground with the divorce. You fight against sin. That is why you fight the divorice and whatever that entails.
It’s called righteous anger and action. See Jesus overturns the moneychangers tables.
You should read up on the various interpretations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek
Humilty is the same thing as meekness if you have studied the Greek. And it doesn’t mean what you’re saying it means. Others have addressed this above.
Likewise, there are multiple terms used in the Scriptures for confidence if you study the Greek.
http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/christian-masculinity-and-confidence/
If God isnt first in your life then it’s something else — pride, money, wealth, women, whatever. There’s no way any of those are better than God but feel free to disagree.
To be quite frank here it seems you’re not a Christian, and you’re not here for honest discussion. You just want to push your agenda that what the Scriptures say is unattractive and crappy personal conduct.
Niceness in action:
“A sign of a sick society is its cheap empathy and caring for the present, and its utter indifference to the past and future.”
That is niceness as currently practiced in the post-Christian world, churchian and prog.
@Vercingtorix, re: “You have provided no justification for why social competence, confidence, a sense of wry humor, or a strong sex drive are [necessarily attractive to women].”
They didn’t help ME in reality with women, nor did they ever help any other extraverted nerd (think Steve Urkel for a fictional archetype). However, being an empiricist, I can vouch that my being bad does help me with women.
desiderian mock Jesus again. “Have you sold your possessions and given the money to the poor?”
@MarcusD re: linked Beauty and Status article.
The woman author wishes that handsome guys were more into rich women.
Meek, the Greek word Strong’s G4239, means gentle, mild, unresisting; acquiescent is the best single word. You do not get to pretend otherwise.
In 1 Cor 4:21, a SHARP contrast and either/or choice is presented, between either authoritative discipline OR meek love.
@ jf12:
Are you arguing that a husband is supposed to always take an acquiescent position with his wife? Parents with children? And that this is the epitome of Christ-like love? That love cannot be authoritative? How then is a husband to be the head? Who then is a wife to submit to if her husband is supposed to submit to her? Human beings will never ever agree on every point, so what is to be done then?
I know that’s a lot of questions but I’m trying to follow you here. I’m being sincere in my asking.
MMSL sez, whole hog, beta with a side of alpha is the way to go. Claims it’s more or less guaranteed to work. Totally against too much alpha, if monogamy is wanted.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/2014/06/is-monogamy-making-you-unhaaaaappy/
Then, he blames the man for not being alpha enough if it’s not working.
@Elspeth, thanks for asking. As I think you know, my position is unchanged, and that is that it is up to the woman to choose to be submissive.
Elspeth
This whole conversation is the source of strength for churchian priest, and pastors and is the reason men are leaving the church
Greyghost, you stole my thunder.
Yes, this is it exactly. Whether they admit it or not, the “leaders” of the various churchian corporate brands have managed over the last couple of centuries to instill the idea into their male customers, the vast majority of whom have been biblical illiterates, that spineless supplication is godly behavior. Spineless supplicants don’t challenge or question authoritay, so it is in these people’s best interests to ensure that their male clientele consists of a herd of spiritual and emotional geldings.
@jf12 –
Meek, the Greek word Strong’s G4239, means gentle, mild, unresisting; acquiescent is the best single word. You do not get to pretend otherwise.
No. Meek, the English word, means gentle, mild, unresisting, acquiescent. To understand the Greek word praus (or its noun form prautes), we need to look at other Greek writings where it is used. Then we can see whether “meek”, with all its connotations, is the best way to translate the Greek word praus, with all its connotations.
There’s a good discussion of the various uses of praus and prautes at http://www.truediscipleship.com/Biblical%20subjects/subjects403.htm. Note how there’s one person in the New Testament who’s described, several times, as praus, and that’s Christ Himself. (Matthew 11:28-30, 2 Corinthians 10:1). So whatever English word we use to translate praus ought to be one that would accurately describe Christ. Does “gentle, mild, unresisting” describe Him? Well, He was unresisting by choice in the Garden of Gethsemane — note how He told Peter He could have called up a dozen legions of angels to defend Him if He had chosed to do so. But He certainly was not unresisting with the moneychangers, nor with false teachers. He chose when to use His strength and when to hold it back. That, as I said before, is the meaning of praus, clearly laid out for us in the Scripture. To attach the English word “meekness”, which carries no connotation of strength, to the Greek praus is to miss a large part of its meaning.
I suggest “chivalry”, in the old sense, as a better translation.
“Chosen” to do so, not “chosed”. That’s what happens when you edit in haste and replace a word without re-reading the sentence.
Oscar,
I hate auto-correct on my tablet many times. That should have said Occam’s Razor, but it probably fixed it for me….
Deep Strength,
> “To follow God’s commands is to call other Christians out when they sin.”
Where do we see examples of the disciples being told to harshly correct others? The examples are of those in leadership (Jesus, Paul, etc.) correcting those under them, not a harsh correction of all who err.
Some of this aim at purity of doctrine reminds me of the physical harm done to many in the name of both the RCC and the Protestants who broke away. Some early protestant leaders were very harsh to those who disagreed with them. Read up on what happened to those who opposed Calvin, for example. Humans taking God’s judgment into their own hands do very stupid things.
jf12, the author of MMSL claims to be an atheist now, so tying what he says to Christian doctrine is not accurate.
Though having some beta traits in a marriage has value. They just cannot be all your traits. To claim the only successful marriages show no deep care from the husband (as one beta trait) is bunk.
I am walking this out imperfectly, but I don’t always have to be the perfect alpha to keep my own marriage going. The groundwork does need to be established and I have to avoid falling into the trap of being a beta all the time, but some “nice” actions are helpful at times given a good overall context.
OT. This is very symbolic
An American student gets trapped inside a giant vagina sculpture, the way American culture has been trapped inside a giant vagina.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025138775
My best understanding of biblical direction is that the husband is responsible to take the initiative and lead in his marriage to the best of his ability, trusting in God. I do agree with jf12 however, that the woman will ultimately have to choose to submit, to follow. A man of more dominant personality may make it easier for some women to make this (ongoing) decision. But in the end the woman must decide and will be accountable before God one day for the decision she makes.
BradA says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:24 am
“Where do we see examples of the disciples being told to harshly correct others? The examples are of those in leadership (Jesus, Paul, etc.) correcting those under them, not a harsh correction of all who err.”
Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
People who’ve been excommunicated probably think it was harsh, and it’s definitely not nice.
bradford,
“I do agree with jf12 however, that the woman will ultimately have to choose to submit, to follow.”
No, jf12’s position is that women should choose a nice guy to marry in the first place. No one argues against her duty to submit once she has undertaken her wedding vows.
jf12,
“In 1 Cor 4:21, a SHARP contrast and either/or choice is presented, between either authoritative discipline OR meek love.”
Bullshit, demon. Here is the context from your proof-text:
“I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me. For this reason I sent you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church. But some of you, thinking that I am not coming to you, have become arrogant. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power. For the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power. What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?”
– 1 Cor 4:14-21
Let the reader judge whether jf12 speaks true, or it his demon which is incapable of truth. Begone demon!
@Elspeth
What quotations, exactly, are causing your womanly projection of “simpering, insecure, passive, and supplicating to any and everyone who crosses your path. Even to those under your charge.”?
@desiderian “What would you prefer?”
Clearly, you prefer denial.
@Robin, re: “He was unresisting by choice”
Yes. It was His mission. Period.
Koine Greek praus meaning: calmly accepting. I.e. acquiescent.
http://www.studylight.org/language-studies/greek-thoughts/?a=13
Bengel suggests placid, i.e. tranquil
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=107
Generically, it means gentle in the sense of tamed, easy, soothing.
http://www.preceptaustin.org/matthew_55.htm
Matt 5:5 is quoting Psalms 37:11. The Hebrew word there translated meek is Strong’s Hebrew H6035, which means suffering, needy, downcast, afflicted, poverty-stricken.
Jerome’s Vulgates uses the word mites, which means mild, placid, soothing.
http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/27061/mitis-mite-mitior
You are no permitted to make it mean the opposite “sometimes”.
It is peculiar to see such prideful and misguided defenses of aggression and aggressive dominance over others as somehow compatible with Christ’s teachings. Even though this confusion of dominance with love is not limited to men, as evidenced by women partaking in and supporting it, one could call it, after jsr, a form of manly projection, since it is mostly men who seek to justify their basest impulses and desires in such a way.
Far from being a weakness, kindness is the genuine and most difficult strength, for it requires one to inhibit the most primitive and egotistical elements of our nature, a task that is most challenging of all human spiritual endeavors and one that embodies the life and teachings of Christ.
@jf12
The woman author wishes that handsome guys were more into rich women.
I’ve noticed a trend with recent research dealing with that topic – the authors’ biases are often quite obvious (ans there’s nearly always spin or dubious interpretation of results).
—
I actually just went and downloaded the paper and noticed that the age range only goes up to 24 years of age.
Real kindness, of this sort, is always evinced by strong men toward those who are weaker than they. It’s the president’s pardon, or the commanding officer’s leave. Great leaders are kind and generous, because they can afford to be. With this in proper context, there is nothing in New Testament that prohibits men from achieving strength and greatness, provided these same men transcend their undisciplined and selfish desires to lord their position over others.
The Jesus character in the text was not a whiny dog. He was kind to people, and his kindness was contrasted with his abilities (he’s portrayed as god on earth, who had the power to kill you with a snap of his fingers, etc.) It is through the strength of Jesus that his kindness is visible.
Best, Boxer
el
You are deliberately playing dumb. Kicking ass is about not supplicating.
@ desiderian:
The way you sling around the term, “demon”, it seems to me that you’ve watched way too many reruns of Rosemary’s Baby.
@ Boxer
“The Jesus character in the text was not a whiny dog.”
Nobody says He was. You are arguing with yourself here.
greyghost says:
“You are deliberately playing dumb. Kicking ass is about not supplicating.”
You, like Boxer, continue to reveal your lack of understanding what kindness is, indulging your own aggressive and prideful projections instead.
I say this with kindness, and as you can see, without a hint of supplicating.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2014/06/20/feminist-fathers/ Check out this supplicant he is a hit on yahoo as a good father.
Rollo wins the research reference award, showing that bad men are preferred by women over good men.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814000774
Rather than relying on passive-aggressive insults, as your pal JF12 did above, why don’t you humble me properly, by providing some quotes from the Bible? I’m not a Bible scholar, mind you, so I’m totally open to the possibility that I am wrong. I’d also like to know where you guys are coming from.
My nom-de-guerre on this forum is marginally accurate. I learned how to box from a Christian priest, who was quite a good fighter in his day, and I know lots of Christians who, like him, are strong men (physically as well as psychologically). Strength and power are good things, representative of the ability to help one’s community, rather than exploit it.
Best, Boxer
Did you actually read the extract?
Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners.
1. Women prefer men of action over layabouts. Christians can be men of action, as can thugs.
2. Convicted criminals have more children than the mean for many reasons, among them, poor impulse control. Guys who do the heavy lifting and get a regular career going (or just plan their crimes to avoid being caught) are also going to be more thoughtful about raising a family. Thugs have lots of kids because thugs have no self-discipline, lay up with all sorts of trashy women who want the welfare check, and who are also scroungy people who don’t want to lead a thoughtful life.
3. Most of the men on this forum are getting regular sex, and it’s not likely that we are all a bunch of criminal scumbags. That anecdotally refutes your contention better than any other bit of evidence.
4. The wimminz who like thugs are damaged beyond repair anyway, and I doubt too many of you Christian brothers would find these women to be suitable wives and mothers to your children. You ought to be thankful that they have taken themselves out of the competition for your resources. You’d have a much harder time raising families if these ho’s were “passing” as regular women.
5. Labelling all women as inherently evil/bad/broken is a feminist tactic. Feminists want to spread their own dysfunction as far into the general female population as possible (hence shit like “slut walks”, virgin-shaming, celebrating std’s, etc.) What feminists hate is for men to choose decent women, and leave the damaged feminists to their cats, and they will tell almost any lie to effect the sort of confusion you are enamored of here.
Regards, Boxer
@Marcus, from McClintock’s most extensive writeup, and was also part of her proposal to perform the research,
“evidence of exchange in that these traits predict having an attractive partner, potentially offsetting the disadvantage of obesity. But, comparing exchange and matching was not their primary aim and
they failed to control for the partner’s education, obesity, personality, and grooming.”
Short version: a lot of the attractive men looked fat and dirty. Tells you a lot about her basic approach.
Keep in mind that for the “trophy wife” paper she used a highly biased subsample of data from the Adolescent Sexual Health study, namely, very young couples in which both were about the same exact age, and in which they had been paired off for some time. Needless to say, ugly poor men are not included in the sample at all.
@Marcus, forgot to add, obviously, also older ugly rich men were not included.
jf12,
“tamed”
Let go your demon and become the man God made you to be.
vas,
“The way you sling around the term, “demon”, it seems to me that you’ve watched way too many reruns of Rosemary’s Baby.”
Never seen it. I don’t throw around the term. That demon held me in thrall too, I know it well.
It was only the power of Christ in me that defeated it. The fruits of that labor have been beyond my previous imagining.
To fight aloud, is very brave—
But gallanter, I know
Who charge within the bosom
The Cavalry of Woe—
Who win, and nations do not see—
Who fall—and none observe—
Whose dying eyes, no Country
Regards with patriot love—
We trust, in plumed procession
For such, the Angels go—
Rank after Rank, with even feet—
And Uniforms of Snow.
– Emily Dickinson
Speaking about the power of good to repel women, how is that programme going amongst, well three of the young men bloggers spring to mind, of the young men lecturing the young women about how attractive their goodness is? How is it working, quantitatively, so far?
Boxer,
> “Labelling all women as inherently evil/bad/broken is a feminist tactic.”
Good point!
Don’t all start chiming in with saying I’m shaming N = 0. BTW I was arguing against someone else who said having demonstrated an ability to get multiple young women to take off their clothes ought to be a prerequisite for marriage.
I’d leave jf12 alone on this one. Let his sons be the drones the feminist beast eats. My son will have game.
Speaking about the power of good to repel women, how is that programme going amongst, well three of the young men bloggers spring to mind, of the young men lecturing the young women about how attractive their goodness is? How is it working, quantitatively, so far?
Not well, mostly because they still have much the same attitude you do. They do not want to accept the way things are, and reject proven social behavior. They are begging, not commanding. Their failures are borne of their weaknesses, not their goodness.
The Shadowed Knight
“Their failures are borne of their weaknesses, not their goodness.”
A good closing word.
@Boxer:
“Rather than relying on passive-aggressive insults, as your pal JF12 did above, why don’t you humble me properly, by providing some quotes from the Bible?”
I am not interested in humbling you, “properly” or not, in this particular discussion, or anywhere else for that matter; although it should be noted that there is nothing passive-aggressive in observing the fact that one uses aggression-tainted projection instead of sound arguments.
As to the quotes you requested, here are just a few that come to mind:
“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also (and not bounce their heads off the walls, or, if feeling especially benevolent, merely slap back.)”
“Blessed are the meek, for they (and not the egotistical jerks with a desire to dominate, possess, and control) will inherit the earth.”
Last, but not least:
“Love thy neighbor as yourself (and not seek to dominate or clobber him to a bloody pulp). There is no commandment greater than this.”
“There is no commandment greater than this,” for it embodies the radical kindness that makes Christ’s teachings and His existence such a revolutionary development for the human race.
Dear el:
Thanks for the reply. Please see below:
Asking a question about your position isn’t making an argument (sound or not). In any event…
That’s a great quote. The Christian existentialist Kierkegaard deconstructed it masterfully. Check out Works of Love if you have the inclination.
In any event, Jesus also told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-22-36/
Being strong and prepared to defend yourself is not synonymous with becoming “egotistical jerks with a desire to dominate, possess, and control”. In fact, I’d argue that a strong man who has cultivated a spirit of self-control and self-discipline is much less likely to exploit others, than a weak man, who follows his whims and lives an undisciplined life, from moment to moment.
In any event, I suppose we can agree to disagree on the matter.
Be well!
Boxer
It’s fun watching the correct response to a straw man argument: another straw man. It’s like a puppet show! My daughters were famous for their energetic and poignantly zany puppet shows, but they were taught well.
And yet, you still can’t tell me exactly what your contention is. You simply excuse any opposing views with chants of “straw man argument” and such. Ah well, live and learn.
Have a good night,
Boxer
@Boxer, your repetitiion of a dissimulation doesn’t make it *less* incorrect, but rather *more*.
“And yet, you still can’t tell me exactly what your contention is.”
False. I already have said, and we all know you know I already have.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/when-dennis-rainey-got-it-right/#comment-128410
To recap, my position is that being a *good* man inescapably requires him to be almost all beta with a garnish of alpha; a gentle man. But, being a “good* man doesn’t work with women. What does work with women is being a *bad* man, of which the main requirement is the appearance of the capability for badness to women.
“You simply excuse any opposing views with chants of “straw man argument” and such.”
False. I have 70 (seventy!) comments in this thread alone. With more than a dozen Bible references under discussion, a half dozen appeals to Greek scholarship, and about a dozen separate but intricately intertwined lines of argument.
Might I recommend instead the vows be embroidered in nylon and/or polyester thread, as a message of permanence: one color for the text embroidered into textile of another color. I say those specific thread materials because the filaments themselves are colored, no dye is used so the color can never fade or be removed or bleached out.
I’m also fond of the old Anglo-Saxon tradition of the wedding cake: everyone in the village would bring a cake they baked, and they would all be stacked up high to make one big cake.
That claim has already been amply refuted. Your definition of “bad” and “good” has yet to be established, as has any evidence of your implied claim that those of us who aren’t celibate are “bad” men (whatever that means, from moment to moment).
Yet, you can’t successfully reconcile Jesus’ good advice in Luke 22:36, but would rather chant the “straw-man argument” mantra, in hopes I will be distracted by such nonsense.
I know the “sell your cloak and buy a sword” verse as a non-Christian and an absolute Bible novice. I’d love to be taught something new, and I’m totally open to learning, but all you have yet to offer me is passive aggressive insults and claims that you already established your arguments elsewhere (with no pointers as to where such places might be found) etc.
Again, I’m fine with agreeing to disagree, and wish you the best.
Boxer
“That claim has already been amply refuted. ”
Nope. Nope. Nope. Not even one attempt at refutation anywhere, merely denial.
Matt 26:52. I’ll win any battle of dueling verses, so it’s not very interesting.
@jf12
I’m jumping in late here and I haven’t followed this argument for the past few days (aside from trying to keep a basic eye on it from a moderators point of view). However, I would argue that the issue here is not that men need to become bad to attract a wife, but that there is a dire shortage of women (today) suitable to be wives. If she can’t be attracted to a strong man who is good, can she possibly be suitable for marriage? I don’t mean state certified bf/gf, but real marriage.
This doesn’t “solve” the problem at the macro level, because as you work through the ramifications of this they are deeply troubling. Good men will have to forgo sex and children. A much larger group will fornicate or fap to porn. It is what Mathus called Misery and Vice in his terribly misunderstood essay.
The positive is that you understand this at a level that very few other fathers understand it. While far too many young women may be unable to be attracted to a decent man, some of them still can. This is a case of not having to beat the bear, but having to beat the other hikers. Very few good men understand the nature of attraction for women. In fact, almost all good men have been tricked into believing that being unattractive makes them more attractive. The Love Dare is the modern Christian template to courting (and recourting) a wife; just understanding how incredibly foolish that is puts a young man miles ahead of 90% of the good men out there.
“there is a dire shortage of women (today) suitable to be wives”
Ok.
“almost all good men have been tricked into believing that being unattractive makes them more attractive.”
Yes. Very yes.
“The positive is that you understand this at a level that very few other fathers understand it.”
The negative is that in staring at the abyss I’m wondering if it’s really all that deep.
Jf12:
I’m also following your argument here. Or trying to.
I don’t think it’s true that being a “good man” means you’re beta with a dash of alpha. Alpha does not necessarily mean unchaste, or dark triad, or thug. “Good man” does not necessarily mean milquetoast or p*ssy or simp. Alpha and “good man” are not mutually exclusive.
Perhaps a “good man” might not do violence, but he certainly has the ability to do violence if he has to.
You’re getting caught up in a false dichotomy here: Badass dickbag promiscuous alpha, or weak simpering milquetoast p*ssy beta. There’s a lot of distance between the two.
Being a good man doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone gets the benefit of that man’s “goodness”. Nor does it mean that “good man” puts his “goodness” on display for all to see or sample.
I left this off.
“Good men will have to forgo sex and children.”
Yes. Or, for older gents, forgo some grandchildren while our sons gtow.
@deti re: “Alpha and “good man” are not mutually exclusive.”
Almost, though. And the thin overlap is indistinct and spotty and not worth trying for the vast majority of men. There aren’t enough alpha seats as it is, and almost all of them are filled to overflowing by the backsides of bad men.
Jf12:
You’re saying that it’s too difficult to calibrate alpha to beta. No, it’s not, and even if you do sometimes overshoot with too much alpha or too much beta, hell, that’s HER problem, not yours. The problem is not so much with the overshot as it is how she FEELS about the overshot.
You are caring too much about her feelings. Stop caring so much about how she feels about all this. Let her feel it. She’ll get over it.
The good man would be a guy kinda like greyghost
What I’ve learned about a woman’s feelings is that they don’t stay for long, and that I’m not responsible for them.
Feelings and emotions are like the wind. Feelings come on in, they sit for a bit while she feels them, and then they blow right on out.
If she tries to hold onto her feelings, or feels them too long, or hangs onto bad feelings like fear, anger, rage, etc., none of those things are my problem. I’m not responsible for her feelings or what she does with them.
And they’re not yours, either. And you’re not responsible for Mrs. Jf12’s feelings or what she does with them.
@deti, re: “You’re saying that it’s too difficult to calibrate alpha to beta. No, it’s not, and even if you do sometimes overshoot with too much alpha or too much beta, hell, that’s HER problem, not yours.”
MMSL says the exact opposite. Total 100% opposite. And I don’t believe him either. What I’m saying it doesn’t matter if it difficult or not; it doesn’t work. But bad does work.
What kind of “bad” works? Soft dread? The kind where you say “shape up or ship out”? Where you say “either things improve NOW, or the marriage is over”? How exactly is that incompatible with Christianity? That’s called “consequences”. That’s called “you do X, then Y will happen”.
Now if you’re saying the only kind of “bad” that works is cheating, or beating her up, or being an absolute dirtbag, or going full on psychopath, then I don’t agree with that. I don’t think you have to get to that point. And if you do have to get to that point, then the marriage is over anyway.
Submission for a woman can be difficult. It can be mentally and emotionally painful. Tough shit. Perhaps she needs to experience that mental and emotional pain. That’s her battle, not yours. That’s her problem, not yours.
Perhaps she needs to decide whether she would prefer the mental and emotional pain of submission. Or perhaps she would like the mental and emotional pain of being a newly single woman in her middle age, with a set of new “prospects” dwindling by the day.
Perhaps she would like the emotional pain of sexual invisibility, of degrading herself to get male attention by any means necessary.
Or the grinding emotional pain of involuntary celibacy.
Or the searing emotional pain of rejection from a man she deems “unworthy”.
Or maybe she wants the emotional pain of being the “post divorce spinster” and the pity and disdainful looks from her friends. You want emotional pain, honey? Try THAT one on for size.
Pick your poison, sweetie.
However, I would argue that the issue here is not that men need to become bad to attract a wife, but that there is a dire shortage of women (today) suitable to be wives. If she can’t be attracted to a strong man who is good, can she possibly be suitable for marriage? I don’t mean state certified bf/gf, but real marriage.
It just might be that this cuts straight to the heart of the matter more quickly than anything else discussed in this thread. It might just also be the most profoundly depressing morsel of reality we are forced to chew on and digest.
re: “Submission for a woman can be difficult.”
I dispute that. It’s no more difficult than making a sandwich. It’s the easiest part.
re: “Where you say “either things improve NOW, or the marriage is over”? How exactly is that incompatible with Christianity?”
If you have to ask, then any answer I can give would be unsatisfactory.
You are caring too much about her feelings. Stop caring so much about how she feels about all this. Let her feel it. She’ll get over it.
Yep! We aren’t responsible for their feelings. That would be like trying to grasp the wind. Those of us that are married Christians need to follow Jesus regardless of our wife’s feelings on any given subject. It is the woman’s obligation to follow the man (to submit and obey), and to help him in his endeavors.
It is the man’s job to love his wife as his own body. It is his job to nourish and cherish her. However, It is not the man’s job to try and keep the woman happy, though it may be desirable when reasonably possible. Her emotional roller coaster is not his responsibility. She needs to humble herself, accept what God has established, and submit to her husband.
Sometimes we can do things that are immediately enjoyable that will benefit our bodies, other times (much more often) we must do things that aren’t enjoyable at the moment, but the payoff comes later. Our wives often don’t get this, but to me that is irrelevant. I have a job to do.
I’m not going to intentionally play alpha, beta, or gamma with her (even more since I’m not even sure where the lines a drawn for these labels). She needs to do her part just like I need to do mine. Each must do their part regardless of the short comings of the other.
I dispute that. It’s no more difficult than making a sandwich.
My experience has been that all women struggle with submission. I believe it to be part of the curse. Many of them struggle with sammich making too. Especially the fembots.
If she’s not Submitted, then one can argue she’s not married and is not committed to the marriage.
If she’s not submitted you could make the case she’s not a believer, because she’s not yoked in a Christian marriage.
But only you can make that call.
re: sammich. One time during a hazwoper exercise we had to write an SOP for making a sammich. It was *difficult* to try to misunderstand my directions, since one of my duties (at the time) was to write SOPs, and eventually to make their point about best laid plans agleying or whatever (in my case, and several of the older fellows’ cases) the instructors simply lied and disregarded and misread our instructions in order to pretend they had to struggle.
“ However, I would argue that the issue here is not that men need to become bad to attract a wife, but that there is a dire shortage of women (today) suitable to be wives. If she can’t be attracted to a strong man who is good, can she possibly be suitable for marriage? I don’t mean state certified bf/gf, but real marriage.”
Some female bloggers of a certain age call that “misogyny”.
re: “If she’s not submitted you could make the case she’s not a believer, because she’s not yoked in a Christian marriage.”
Me leaving still isn’t actually optional, and I haven’t been able to concoct any good reasoning on why I ought to permit myself to behave such that she will leave.
Some female bloggers of a certain age call that “misogyny”.
I’ve read some who consider this whole site misogyny. I recall a woman over at CAF who had some not so nice things to say about Dalrock and those who comment over here.
If she’s not Submitted, then one can argue she’s not married and is not committed to the marriage.If she’s not submitted you could make the case she’s not a believer, because she’s not yoked in a Christian marriage.
Yup.
I would encouage everyone to consider your experiences and surroundings for a moment, let deti’s statement sink in, and let the true horror of its implications make itself felt.
If she’s not submitted you could make the case she’s not a believer
If this is so, then couldn’t the case be made that anyone who is disobedient is not a believer?
Disobedient to Christ I mean.
I guess it’s unsafe to say that despite and/or because of my lack of reasoning abilities, the failure to concoct hasn’t caused a failure to, er, launch anyway.
> “What I’m saying it doesn’t matter if it difficult or not; it doesn’t work. ”
It may not be working for you, but it certainly does work. My own marriage is proof of that. I have pushed things farther than I probably would have years ago recently and things have changed. I also know that I need to show some tenderness to my wife or it would eventually bust as well.
It would not be enough in and of itself, but my wife has enough attraction to me that pushing things can work. A women who has lost that attraction and commitment will have a much harder time with it and may never follow whatever the man does.
I have certainly not done all MMSL recommends though, as I haven’t trimmed my figure the way I should. Have you seen men who have followed his entire program and failed? Note that he even allows specifically for that, as his option 5 is leaving IIRC. It is certainly not Christian advice, but it still has some good points.
====
deti,
I can’t buy the idea that a with who won’t submit is unsaved. Rom 10:9-10 indicates what must be done to be saved. (Confessing Jesus as your personal Lord (in charge of your life) and believing God raised Him from the dead.) It does not require perfect walking out of things and 1 John indicates this is definitely not the case else we would not need to repent of future sins. How many sins make someone unsaved? Are you really arguing that a saved spouse perfectly walks in that role all the time?
I strongly suspect I would leave my wife if she absolutely refused to follow me. I would be in sin, but I wouldn’t try to justify it with some false “she is not a believer” slight of hand. I would consider her a rebellious believer and consider my own peace of mind as more important. That would be my own sinful tendencies talking, but it is what it is.
At least own up to sinful choices if we are going to make them.
It is wise to heed Eccl 7:17 “Be not overmuch wicked”. Not overmuch.
@BradA re: ” Have you seen men who have followed his entire program and failed?”
Have you ever seen anyone who followed the underpants gnomes’ *entire* program failed to profit? You can’t, because failure is literally not an option.
Step 1. Collect underpants.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Profit!
See? All you have to do is complete all the steps, and I mean *all*, in their program and you’re guaranteed to profit.
I have not interest in marriage at all- and I know there are other men out there that feel the same way. No I am not psychologically damaged or social inept nor ugly nor morbidly obese or jaded in any way. I’ve never had problems attracting ladies. So why doesn’t anyone ever acknowledge this fact in any articles- that some of us guys have not desire to couple up? I am not anti-relationship nor anti-marriage- to a point that is- yet everything and every article revolves around coupling and marriage. I would just for once like to see an article about being happily single. And letting men be happily single and do whatever it is that makes them happy. If a guy wants to be get married fine but if he doesn’t that is fine too. It’s all about “let’s force the dudes to conform and get married to the first available female.” Yuck! I realize this is not the aim of this article but i don’t see an appropriate place to put in my remarks about this issue.
Upthread the observation was made that the modern SMP and therefore MMP is an ambiguous one, as a result of women’s choices. Agreed.
Going further: the SMP and MMP of a civilization indicate who is in charge, men or women.
If men, then both the SMP and MMP are unambiguous. Go back 100 years to any part of the Anglosphere: you will find brothels / whorehouses, where sex is readily obtained for cash, and you will find courtship in some form followed by marriage. You’ll even find some transitioning from whoredom to marriage (the 1930’s movie “Stagecoach” dramatizes this nicely), and some the other way.
But there was no ambiguity. The brothels in Nevada are a pale imitation of late 19th century ones, but the “pick out a girl and take her upstairs” model is unambiguous, a man knows what he’s getting into. Similarly, marriage in 1914 was very clear – till death. Even if he drinks. Even if she’s a shrew. Etc.
Contrast with the modern world, where “hookup” means everything from a cuppa coffee to a weekend in the sack, where “seeing each other” means anything from platonic video viewing to near co-habitiation, and where marriage 2.0 is the norm, not some bizarre exception.
The SMP and MMP are run by women’s rules now, and women’s rules always accentuate ambiguity, double-meanings, emotional drama, etc.
I restate: to see who is in charge, just look at the SMP and MMP of a civilization.
Pingback: Marriage is a Committment
Pingback: The Evolution of “Man Up” (By Deti) | Just Four Guys
Pingback: Repackaging feminism as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock