Recently a self described conservative Christian mother of 5 came to scold me for criticizing the Christian Broadcasting Network’s endorsement of actress Janine Turner’s book praising single mothers:
I encountered your blog because I had found Janine Turner’s book in my church library and a Google search led me here. I am pretty disgusted with the condescension and misogyny that you express in so many of your articles. I am a very, very conservative Christian, married for 20 years with 5 kids to a wonderful man, and I can’t ever imagine Our Lord looking down on human beings with the contempt that you display in your writing. You do not have the heart of Jesus–he came to save, not to condemn…
It’s very sad to me that you can’t seem to recognize that there are many women out there who lived sinful lives, who now have sole care of a child from their past, and who have had a conversion BECAUSE of their struggles. One of God’s greatest talents is to bring good even from our sinfulness, as He did on the Cross. These single mothers are trying to work out their salvation with fear and trembling just like you and me, and all Janine Turner was doing with her book was trying to encourage women in that situation to hold fast to Jesus and not despair that God can’t do amazing things for their lives and their children because their circumstances don’t “look” wholesome and perfect…
As I’ve written before, as feminist thought has taken hold across our culture instead of becoming more vigilant to feminist rebellion Christians have become desensitized to it. No matter how blatant the expression of feminist rebellion, we just can’t see it. As a result, we no longer need radical feminists like Sanger and Friedan; ordinary Christians now reflexively toe the feminist line. In a world where unwed motherhood and kicking the father out of the home are celebrated feminist rights, objecting to Christians declaring these sins as godly is the new heresy. Objecting to declaring evil good is now hateful, misogyny.
Make no mistake; Miss Turner is quite open about what she intended to accomplish in writing her book. This is not as the commenter implied a book about repentance. In the forward to the book Miss Turner describes her own out of wedlock pregnancy and birth without a hint of repentance. She presents her out of wedlock birth not as a foreseeable result of sinful choices, but something which life did to her (emphasis mine):
My Journey
I’ve often reflected, How did a Baptist girl from Texas end up as a single mother? My pregnancy, however, was the most miraculous event of my life. I would read to her in the womb, play Mozart, and pray with her. I even felt the joy when she kicked, literally, to the music of a Broadway show.As my pregnancy progressed, however, it became increasingly evident that my journey as a mother was to be a singular event. One day I predicted that my daughter’s father would not be there when our baby was born. He responded by holding me tightly and saying that, yes, he would be there. I knew in my heart that he would not. Call it women’s intuition, but I knew. This is not how I envisioned the drama of my life, the joy of bringing a child into the world, but life presented itself to me in this way.
A bit further down she explains her mission in writing the book:
My Mission
There’s one thing I believe fervently, and that is that 90 percent of single mothers never intended to be single mothers. Most young girls, as they daydream about the day when they will have children, rarely say, “When I grow up I want to have a child and raise the child without a father.” Or, “When I grow up I want to get a divorce and raise my children all by myself.” It rarely happens.I wrote this book to inspire these women. I wrote it so that single mothers of today would not feel alone, troubled, burdened, shamed, or depressed.
To drive home the need for such a book, Miss Turner points out that we are experiencing an explosion of single mothers:
The U.S. Census Bureau data published in 2004 reports that approximately 43 percent of women raising children are single mothers; this number is likely higher today. 51 percent of women in America are not married. The wisdom that the women of this book impart to us is that we are not alone. Women have been doing it for centuries and through tragic circumstances in social environments that, for the most part, pale to any we could encounter today.
This is the message Miss Turner with the help of CBN, the married mother of 5, and her church (by placing this book in the church library) is selling to young women. There is no sin, only circumstances that life hands you. With a little girlpower and moxie you don’t need a husband, and your children don’t need a father. Hold your head high. You’ve come a long way baby.
Is that quote for real?
Shouldn’t it be the challenges of today pale in comparison to the challenges of the past?
Unintentionally funny sentence due to poor wording or solipsism on steroids?
Pingback: Selling sin. | Manosphere.com
What is Churchian Love?
Not every Christian man sets out and says he wants to get married and have mistresses, but sometimes that is what life hands you.
Not every Christian man sets out and says he wants to have a lazy nagging complaining fat wife that he has to handcuff and spank, but sometimes that’s what life hands him.
Those Personal Jesuses are looking more and more like little devils. Sin without remorse or repentance isn’t going to get these females to heaven, no matter how they rationalize their behavior. And no, Christians are not called to approve sin, but to avoid it.
The more one reads, hears and sees, the more difficult it becomes not to look forward to a cleansing and resetting by fire.
To quote a canon of the early Catholic/Orthodox church
For clarification of these categories
American Christianity strikes me as … considerably less intense. In fact, far less intense than African Protestantism. In America, sin is neither acknowledged, nor confessed.
I can tell her exactly how she got to be in the state of pregnancy. It’s not rocket science! You chose to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Sex did what it is designed to do, produced a child. If the father of this child chose to abandon her and the child, then he is a jackass. This does not make her a saint. Sorry, women, just because there are lots and lots of single mothers does not mean that it is a good thing, or something one “falls” into. Can God bring good out of this? Yes, of course, but that does not abrogate your sin, nor make it “good”. As a very wise man said, “Truth is not determined by a majority vote.”
Saw this a while ago:
Zvan’s Law:
“The chance of being called a privilege-blind misogynist has a direct correlation with the number of factual arguments you make.”
Mykeru’s Law:
“As any progressive movement grows and achieves success, the probability of it being co-opted by women who want to make it all about their vagina approaches 1″
http://greylining.com/2012/10/24/zvans-and-mykerus-laws/
Dalrock,
All the examples of radical feminism (what I prefer to h/t Christina Hoff Sommers and call “gender feminism”) that are out there and you choose Friedan?
I am so disappointed.
Friedan was a humanist and her objective – which developed and refined over her lifetime, was autonomy – for men as well as women. Her advocacy was outside a Christian aegis – it was a secular advocacy. The Christian role is to determine how to maintain the integrity of Christianity while living alongside or inside a larger or dominant secular culture.
When I argue with gender feminists Friedan is who I invoke – where there feminism specifically departs from hers, and her humanism, in ways she warned and argued against. The humanist autonomy of Friedan’s progressive feminism can co-exist with Christian traditionalism. The kind of hegemony demanded by gender feminism will not.
The distinctions are important. Making it impossible to recognize a tolerant center isn’t going to help – it is literally the (typical American) lack of understanding of even recent history that leads to the kind of splitting we have here and the splitting isn’t going to lead to a traditionalist majority so I think it is particularly incumbent on traditionalists to put their inner Burke’s and Kirk’s at the executive head here. Equity feminism is feminism that is safe for the GOP. Progressive feminism – anchored in humanism – is more than those here have a taste for, but it can co-exist with you and Friedan embodied that – that is good for you and for the survival of the values you represent, it is not a threat – it may be essential to the survival of what you believe in. Cicero, Aurelius, Diogenes, … read up – this isn’t new, we’ve been here before. There is only human co-existence, there is no total victory and anyone peddling that there is is a talking snake in a tree, even if he comes cloaked in Great Books.
@Bluedog
Friedan launched modern feminism and founded NOW. That you don’t think she is really all that feminist reinforces the point of the post.
Over at The American Catholic it was explained to me that Sanger wasn’t a “real feminist” because she wasn’t a Christian. I’m not sure if you are making the same case here about Friedan, or the opposite. Either way, both Sanger and Friedan were quite open in selling rebellion against the Christian view of men and women, yet what they are selling has been accepted by modern Christians as an “improved” form of Christianity.
You know why we scold you and some of the others? Because your constant attempts to shame women are what separates them from Christ and eventually fuels more feminism. You should ponder the fact that who you are now attacking are often Christian wives and mothers, women closely aligned with your position on a myriad of issues.
[D: Welcome.]
Funny how much people forget about what Jesus taught. It’s like they’ve never gotten past Sunday School when it comes to basic Biblical doctrine
“You know why we scold you and some of the others? Because your constant attempts to shame women are what separates them from Christ and eventually fuels more feminism.”
Incorrect. It is the threat of shame and actual consequences and punishment that make sinners at heart (i.e. ALL OF US) try to be better people. You don’t deal with disobedient children by encouraging their misbehavior and giving them a warm hug and a pat on the head when they disobey. Giving women moral sanction to fornicate and arranging free resources to protect them and their bastards hasn’t lowered the number of single mothers. That is the reality of the situation. If you reverse the picture and make sure women suffer social outrage, physical want, and possible death due to exposure, starvation, and disease (i.e. like it was for most of history) you get less single moms. That is nature’s verdict. Protecting women from this hasn’t made the world a better place. We’ve gotten more of what we’ve subsidized by paying handsomely to cover up women’s bad choices.
margaret59 says:
October 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm
” can tell her exactly how she got to be in the state of pregnancy. It’s not rocket science! You chose to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Sex did what it is designed to do, produced a child. If the father of this child chose to abandon her and the child, then he is a jackass. This does not make her a saint. Sorry, women, just because there are lots and lots of single mothers does not mean that it is a good thing, or something one “falls” into. Can God bring good out of this? Yes, of course, but that does not abrogate your sin, nor make it “good”. As a very wise man said, “Truth is not determined by a majority vote.””
Much truth there, but not all truth.
1) Only something like 1 in 2000 acts of sexual intercourse in a Western country result in pregnancy. Humans are unusual (compare to dogs and cats, say) in our females willingly having sex when unable to conceive, i.e., while already pregnant. Obviously, sex for humans has legitmate purposes besides conception from that particular episode. Keeping the male around for protection/provision/assistance during the 9-month pregnancy and the year or two of nursing (reduced female fertility during, remember) are VERY evolutionarily desirable from a woman’s POV.
2) How does a man with no commitment to a woman “abandon” her? You might as well attack him for kicking her out of his house and making her homeless when he and she never lived together.
This woman (and man) not only violated the Biblical proscription against fornication. She also made a deliberate, voluntary choice to engage in coitus with a man with whom she had landed no commitment. (A penis is not a ballpoint or fountain pen; it does not sign marriage licenses.)
Do remember that as a practical matter, women largely control contraception, to say nothing of their 100% control of what happens in the 9 months following..
Now, if you had said that (only after a positive paternity test) he should have accepted the child from her, I think you’d have been on firmer ground. He might reasonably be said to have an implicit obligation to the child, though certainly none to her.
nsanitybytes22 says:
October 10, 2014 at 8:34 pm
“You know why we scold you and some of the others? Because your constant attempts to shame women are what separates them from Christ and eventually fuels more feminism.”
Some intellectual guidance for you, ‘bytes.
1) For Christians, which Dalrock and many posters here are, women are not to teach men, especially on moral/theological areas. (It’s in the Bible; look it up if you’re a Christian and thus bound by it.)
2) Feminist women are responsible for their own thoughts and actions. They don’t get to blame their deliberate choices to sin upon other people. Feminism being almost 100% completely at odds with Biblical Christianity, to the extent that a woman is feminist is nearly the measure of how fallen into sin she is.
3) Re Dalrock calling out unrepenitant sinning women (which the mass media almost never does) being a bad thing and/or leading to more feminism, oh, come on and take a defensible position in debate here. First, we’re in an infinite, saturated (means already at 100%, which can’t be exceeded) sea of feminism in this country, such that it’s literally driving us back towards pre-civilization times (at many times the rate it took to climb out of the Neolithic), and we aren’t supposed to point out moral Typhoid Marys? Uh, sorry, not going to fly.
Second, as a Christian, Dalrock is COMMANDED by God via the Bible to say publicly when people in the community are sinning and won’t turn away from it (and again, almost all feminism is clearly gross rebellion against God and His will).
Third, read point #2 above again.
insanitybytes22 is GG is yttik and pseudonyms is a known commenter and troll at Vox Populi and Alpha Game. She is an older lady who likes to make overuse of the shame card, despite its complete ineffectiveness. Shame is soooooo 1980s. lol
After reading this, I now realize why I more and more frequently ask myself: how many women really believe in the God of the Bible and His commandments and prescriptions set forth in that book, and how many of them truly fear His retribution for their sins?
The answer I keep coming up with, based on all clearly available evidence, is “very, very, VERY few.”
Woman’s true god is her hamster. Whenever the God of Abraham causes pain and distress by causing such to her hamster, the woman reflexively and eagerly bows to the idol god of the hamster. In epochs past this idolatrous practice was severely restricted in prevalence and societal impact due to “patriarchy.” Now this restraint is gone, the patriarchy having been replaced by supplicating churchian mangina-eunuchs who eagerly build and maintain the treadmill altar upon which the hamster god exercises. Today the Cult of the Hamster is emerging as churchianity’s largest and most powerful denomination. Anyone lookimg for evidence of genuine repentence, humility, or submission might as well be on a quest for the Holy Grail.
The patient is truly terminal now.
A lot of loose vaginas gladly and willingly taking in foul seed. And we’re supposed to laud this idiocy?
TRULY, GOD forbid.
Sadly, Churchian women are consuming more feminist poison, making their behavior & character more ratched. MGTOW is looking like a better option with each passing day. Reminds me of this: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1scic6q
These apologists for sin are engaging in the fallacy Paul rightly condemns in Romans: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may increase? May it never be!”
In the story of Joseph being sold into slavery, what his brothers intended for evil, God intended for good. But that didn’t mean the acts weren’t evil in and of themselves.
God in his immense grace many times does redeem our lives from the sins we commit. Often he even uses our sins for some good for the kingdom. But this grace is not a validator of sin. To say that some positive outcome (or supposed positive outcome, such as being a single mom) means God puts his seal of approval on our sin is to hold up the blood of Jesus to mockery.
Paul talked about his sin explicitly in 1 Timothy. Why did God let him go on so long in horrific sin? “In order to demonstrate his perfect patience.” Paul had credibility in preaching the gospel because he could let people know through the example of his own life that it was never too late to turn to Jesus. Did that make his sin a good thing? Paul didn’t think so, saying, “This saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief.” Paul never made any excuses for his behavior.
As John Owen put it in another context, God’s redemptive power should make us feel more humble, not less guilty.
Luke, pretty much the only thing we can agree on, is that there should have been a paternity test. It really doesn’t matter if only 1 in 1000, 1 in 2000, or whatever, sexual acts results in pregnancy. The point is, this is what sex does. duh. It is the primary purpose of the sex act. I also think that it is intended for bonding, but any idiot knows that sex makes babies. Just because women are total idiots, who act like morons, does not give men the right to have sex without consequences. This woman acts like she somehow, mysteriously became pregnant, even though she was a Baptist in Texas, as though no Baptist woman in Texas gets pregnant by, le shock, engaging in sex.
Other than that, I think you are a nasty piece of work. I think you are a racist, and a man who thinks that your children are things that you have a right to, as though they are products that you can pick and choose. I find your attitude despicable, really. Not that it matters what I think, but there it is.
Oh, and insanitybites, I guess it does. You seem to think that women are totally blameless in their behavior? I am not willing to go there, because it is totally illogical. You sound like a bloody idiot.
“I think you are a racist”
Margaret, you would have been better off calling him a “sexist” or misogynist. About the only word in the English dictionary more overplayed and meaningless than those two words is “racist.”
Sorry, Joel, I have read enough of his posts to say he is a racist. Not because of what he said in this thread, but because of what I have read of his posts in the pasts. But, if I am just talking about what he is saying in this thread, then I will step back and say that he is really a sexist. Giving a man a pass and blaming women for pregnancy is just, well, stupid. No pregnancy without a man cooperating in it.
Feminists, feminists who call yourselves Christians,
So single women, including single Christian women, should not be blamed for failing to keep their knees together. Right. They should not be blamed or held responsible when they become pregnant as a result of failing to keep their knees together. Okay. It’s not their fault that the men they chose to be fathers, even if those men remain unidentified, can’t or won’t pay to support the children. All the rest of us will be responsible to provide financially for these sluts and their rotten spawn resulting from them failing to keep their knees together. Check!
Just one question;
Why in the hell should women resist any impulse not to keep their knees together?
I’m not one but being a Christian sounds like fun! I can sin sin sin and later past my prime I can be a hero by saying I’m renouncing sin. Whoo hoo! It’s a win win religion baby!
The typical refrain of anyone who lives as an animal is that everything that happens is the result of “luck”, or “chance” or even “the will of god”. These same people will celebrate their desserts with meaningless phrases like “I don’t regret being a crack addict, it made me who I am today.” Of course, even if there’s a morsel of truth buried in such excrement, it defeats the purpose. A wise person would emphasize, to anyone willing to listen, that these mistakes were, in fact, mistakes; and, he’d encourage his listeners not to follow in his footsteps. Playing off being a skank-ho single mom as though it was something that she just stumbled into makes the author a laughingstock.
As an aside: Another weasely tactic used by these emotional infants is the non-apology, when they are confronted head-on by someone who doesn’t buy their bee-ess. “Oh, mistakes were made, and I regret making you feel that way… I’m going through a situation.”
As with most things, I think fatherlessness is a root cause of this perpetual refusal to accept responsibility. No one would want his or her father to hear him whine out such lame excuses for the speaker’s own moral failings (provided his father was worth a damn).
Boxer
margaret59 says:
October 10, 2014 at 10:40 pm
.” I think you are a racist,”
That is not a rebuttal of any point I’ve ever made on this site. It’s not even relevant, let alone important to me.
To call some a “racist” these days commonly just means they are a white that not-very-smart liberals don’t like (typically from making arguments those liberals can’t come close to refuting). Really, how ignorant does someone have to be now, to not be aware that different ethnic groups have different average intelligences, inclination to be unfaithful to spouses, frequency of choosing to engage in violent crime, etc., etc.? Anyway, if you want to see real racism, look up stuff written by La Raza types (you do know who those are the Hispanic KKK, with chapters on many U.S. college campuses, yes?), Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, Obola’s longtime pastor Wright (he of the “GD America!” as part of a sermon) and what Chinese and Japanese actually think about anyone else. I just want a place for me and mine to live; there are something like 30 largely minority countries in the Western Hemisphere, so having TWO that aren’t (where me and mine can live in peace) should seem pretty reasonable to anyone that doesn’t deep down want all whites to go extinct.
Oh, and re your belief that sex is primarily for reproduction: if that’s its purpose 1 time out of 2000, and the other 1999 times it’s for another reason, well, I’d say that the more frequent purpose (that comes up a whole lot more often) is far more frequently the main purpose to it. (BOTH primary purposes are essential for human civilization.) It’s a tautology, yes, but one that seems to have escaped you.
Lastly: if a man’s children aren’t “his”, who the heck should they belong to? The government? The NEA? ACORN? The North American Man-Boy Love Association? Hah. My role I took on as a father is more than to provide money for food/clothing/shelter for my children. It also includes guiding their education, informing their life choices, helping them grow as believers in God, being willing and able to commit violence to defend them if need be, guide them in mate choice, help prepare them to be proper wives beforehand, and to encourage them to stick out marriage when inevitably it challenges them (stay true to what their Christian faith demands, or give in to feminist solipsism?). I accepted ALL of those when I sought out the role of a father, and rightly so.
Bango, nonChristians don’t get to define our theology. Not one bit, not ever. As an admitted nonChristian, you literally don’t have anything to say on a Christian discussion board on the subject. (Doesn’t seem likely to stop you, though.)
Boxer, this is just another way to say, My mistakes or sorta errors in judgement made me what I am. (and how wonderful I am!) Lazy thinking, and just trying to avoid any responsibility for one’s choices. Which is just another way for churchians to say that God wanted it to be this way. How silly it is, really.
The comments of Bluedog and insanitybytes22 illustrate perfectly the “Female Void/Omnivorous Parasite” and the “Merged Void” (‘Herd Mentality’?) as coined by Dave Sim.
http://theabsolute.net/misogyny/sim.html
And don’t forget to “Believe (sic) Five Impossible Things Before Breakfast”.
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/tangents.html
These are awesome writings. Make sure you spare the hour or two to read them thoroughly. Enjoy!
Having babies and being a mother is a sacred, mystical journey that transcends biblical morality. Anything in the Bible that suggests otherwise must be from that mean, patriarchal bronze age part of the bible, not that warm fuzzy part where it talks about how Jesus died on the cross so that I could feel good about myself.
“O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.”
Kind of like when a guy is alcoholic but eventually has victory over his sin and is transformed by God, the good feelings in the end trump the fact that when he drove drunk he killed a bunch of people. That was just part of the self-discovery that made him the good christian he is today, so it was God’s will.
Hi, Snowy. I had forgotten how true and apt the “Tangent” essays are. Thank you for mentioning the best one of the lot, for those who have never read it at all.
Here are the “Impossible Things to Believe Before Breakfast”::
“1. A mother who works a full-time job and delegates to strangers the raising of her children eight hours a day, five days a week does just as good a job as a mother who hand-rears her children full time.
2. It makes great sense for the government to pay 10 to 15,000 dollars a year to fund a daycare space for a child so its mother – who pays perhaps 2,000 dollars in taxes – can be a contributing member of society.
3. A woman’s doctor has more of a valid claim to participate in the decision to abort a fetus than does the father of that fetus.
4. So long as a woman makes a decision after consulting with her doctor, she is incapable of making an unethical choice.
5. A car with two steering wheels, two gas pedals and two brakes drives more efficiently than a car with one steering wheel, one gas pedal and one brake which is why marriage should always be an equal partnership.
6. It is absolutely necessary for women to be allowed to join or participate fully in any gathering place for men, just as it is absolutely necessary that there be “women only” environments from which men are excluded.
7. Because it involves taking jobs away from men and giving them to women, affirmative action makes for a fairer and more just society.
8. It is important to have lower physical standards for women firepersons and women policepersons so that, one day, half of all firepersons and policepersons will be women, thus more effectively protecting the safety of the public.
9. Affirmative action at colleges and universities needs to be maintained now that more women than men are being enrolled, in order to keep from giving men an unfair advantage academically.
10. Having ensured that there is no environment for men where women don’t belong (see no.6) it is important to have zero tolerance of any expression or action which any woman might regard as sexist to ensure greater freedom for everyone.
11. Only in a society which maintains a level of 95% of alimony and child support being paid by men to women can men and women be considered as equals.
12. An airline stewardess who earned $20,000 a year at the time that she married a baseball player earning $6 million a year is entitled, in the event of a divorce, to $3 million for each year of the marriage and probably more.
13. A man’s opinions on how to rear and/or raise a child are invalid because he is not the child’s mother. However, his financial obligation is greater because no woman gets pregnant by herself.
14. Disagreeing with any of these statements makes you anti-woman and/or a misogynist.”
hmm, Luke, I hate long numbered comments. Brevity is the soul of wit.
But, I will try to reply.
1) Nope. I actually agree with you here.
2) Nope. I agree again. As long as men are also helping to support the children they helped to create.
3) Nope. Abortion is murder. Full.Stop. Men, also have also no right to kill a human.
4) Nope.
5) Nope.
6) Nope.
7) Nope.
8) Nope.
9) Nope.
10) Nope.
11) Nope.
12) Nope.
13) Nope.
14) Nope.
Some of these make me more cranky than others, of course, lol. But it seems like we agree for the most part. Other than the part that I have heard you say, that it is more important to make white babies, and the part where it is all good to buy ova in order to provide you with offspring that are good enough for you. On that, I totally disagree.
A Personal Account: a Christian Mother Looks at Her Wounded Body As She Grows Old
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=914207
Explaining unwanted attention to men (Five years from now: “I don’t get any attention from men”)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=914050
Margaret, just two questions for you:
Re 3) “Nope. Abortion is murder. Full.Stop. Men, also have also no right to kill a human”
Leaving aside abortion (not really in the mood to touch that one tonight)…
Do you not recognize just wars or just personal self-defense?
I do recognize just war, but it requires a rather high hurdle.
I see why you asked. I did not make it clear what I was saying. Men, also, I meant, have no right to kill an innocent human being. Sorry for not being clear.
Dalrock, I sincerely hope that if Dawn really truly thought things through after reading your kind response to her about repentance (or should I say, the LACK of repentance), that maybe Dawn would conceed that she was wrong about you? I hope that she comes to that conclusion. If she doesn’t, then yes, this is selling sin.
Oh, and re #2: how about changing “helped” to “agreed”? Hopefully you don’t think court-ordered inter-household child support is appropriate in these cases:
a) A 13-YO boy is (statutorially) raped by his 30-something-YO babysitter, which means that he legally could not give consent. Now he owes money (with compounding arrears) such that college or marriage/family are unreasonable aspirations for him.
b) Doctor allows woman to perform oral sex on him, but insists upon wearing a condom. (He NEVER once has coitus with her, anymore than you or I have) She fishes the used condom out of the trash and uses it to fertilize herself with it. He now owes child support to the tune of half or more of his income, which is far above the level the state itself admits is the amount needed to pay for raising a child (given by its foster care reimbursement levels).
c) Old, small, weak, wheelchair-bound partially senile guy in a nursing home is quite literally raped by female employee. This results in pregnancy. She successfully petitions for support, and gets awarded monthly payments that come out of his savings for his longterm nursing home care.
Absent a specific unmistakeable declaration of intent to conceive a child, marriage is how a man normally and historically indicates he was inclined or at least potentially open to a woman conceiving via sex with him, and supporting said conceived children. No such declaration, no reason to believe such intent. (Unless you support felonizing contraception use and ending all “safe place unwanted baby drop-off” options for women, to say nothing of adoption-out rights for mothers but not fathers, that would be a hypocritical position you hold.)
not sure what you are trying to get me to agree to, here? If if is that consent is the only good, then I would not agree?
Okay, Margaret, I’ll word it more directly:
I listed 3 real-life examples of where men “helped” to created children, but did NOT consent to do so. Do you think it was justice that they were ordered by the court system to pay for their being victimized?
If ANY of those you say “No” to, then please tell me why a man (told or implied by his ONS partner she’s on the pill, or at least by her consent to sex in the absence of marriage that he need nor worry about contraception) should have to pay money for a bastard he did NOT agree to conceive.
If you really give a d**n what I think, I will play.
a) NO, the child owes nothing to the adult for the resulting child. Adult has knowledge of the risks, the child does not.
b) YES, this is a doctor, who should be well aware of the risks. Adult male, has knowledge of the risks, totally culpable.
c) NO, This woman is taking advantage of a man who cannot realistically consent. Prison is where she belongs. The child should be placed with a rational relative, preferably. If none exists, then foster care or allowed to be adopted.
But, even though you may think this is the same as a grown man/grown woman having extramarital sex, I do not agree. When men and women have sex, then the rational result may occur. A child. The first consideration, even in a through c, should be the best interest of that child.
I have no idea what a through c might mean, lol. Computer is being not so compliant. I meant to say, the first consideration should be the best interest of the child. Usually, this is a blood relative, father or mother. Next is another relative, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather.
Interesting, Margaret. A man owes CS to a woman with whom he never had coitus. The fertilization occurred only due to her burgling his trash can. By that logic, a female burglar could break into a single man’s apartment, swipe the used tissues between the Playboy Magazines and bottle of lotion he keeps by the side of his bed, do the same thing as the woman in example b), and you would deem him to owe half his income for the next several decades. Does intent mean nothing to you, only consequences? If true, you would surely believe that attempting to kill someone by shooting at them should carry no penalty for the act should their aim be poor and they miss their target.
Oh, and you never answered me if killing in personal self-defense could ever be legitimate in your view..
IF we are dealing with a competent man, then he consents to the chance of a child when he has sex. If, this man is incompetent, then we consider his level of incompetence. Same as for the woman, I think. If they are both competent, then both share equal culpability and equal responsibility for a child that results from their sexual congress.
“IF we are dealing with a competent man, then he consents to the chance of a child when he has sex”
And, what chance was there of a child being conceived when he received oral sex (with a condom on, no less)? I strongly expect a medical doctor would understand that chance to be exactly zero.
Remember, he wasn’t even there when she conceived.
Sorry, I thought I made that clear. Yes, one may kill in self defense if it is necessary. This does not mean that it is necessarily a good thing to do so. Sorry if that is not clear. In case B, we are talking about a doctor, who is clearly able to understand what he is risking. Therefore, he is not deemed helpless?
Most doctors of medicine are of higher IQ than at least 50% of the population. If he doesn’t know that his sperm can be used from a condom to get a woman pregnant, then i guess he is one of those who is not so smart, lol. Get real, if they are thinking, then they know how to manage the condom.
margaret59 says:
October 11, 2014 at 1:37 am
” In case B, we are talking about a doctor, who is clearly able to understand what he is risking. Therefore, he is not deemed helpless?”
The woman stole his sperm out of a trash can! (Yes, she did have a role in getting his body to expel it, but it was never in contact with her body.) He could have had the same result from her knocking on the door asking to borrow a cup of sugar, then going into his bathroom to rifle the trash can while he went to the kitchen to fetch the cup of sugar. If you think that giving a neighbor a cup of sugar reasonably carries a fine of hundreds of thousands of dollars, please don’t ever ask anyone to give you a cup of sugar.
I guess you think doctors are idiots. some are, no doubt. I know who I am giving a cup of sugar to, for god’s sake. And, any doctor worth his salt, knows how to handle his semen. Honestly, this is silly. A doctor knows! He is not so stupid as to not flush the condom. Oh, and last I heard, a cup of sugar is not getting anyone pregnant! Perhaps I missed a memo?
Luke… while it is amusing to watch, you are trying to pin down a hamster mid-spin. That’s like trying to teach a pig to sing.
Probably so, BC. I am actually interested to find out why one trash can burglar deserves hundreds of thousands of dollars, while the other trash can burglar does not. Seems to me that NEITHER does, but, then, I’m a male, pro-MRA, and a scientist, so maybe I’m just naive in expecting consistency in people’s overtly expressed views.
Oh, and if the one burglar deserves the money for the (nonconceiving) sex, wouldn’t that just be prostitution? Last I heard, that was illegal in every state not Nevada.
I find it quite enlightening. Margaret is saying that it is stupid (her word) to trust a woman not to be a thief. It demonstrates that women will almost all side with a female thief over a responsible male. Women like Margaret do more to create MGTOW than men ever could.
for pete’s sake, I didn’t say that. and I have no interest whatsoever in this. I am just speaking theoretically. sigh
actually, sorry, I agree with dhurka. It is stupid to not trust a woman to not be a thief.
margaret,
Do you understand how absolutely INSANE it is of you to (initially) think that any man should have to financially support children he didn’t even concieve? Please tell me you get it. Because if you understand NOW how ridiculous this is….
…of a woman who goes into a trash can or a toilet just to extract a man’s semen from his disposed of condom for the purpose of extracting 18+ years of government ordered child support payments, maybe you will begin to understand that (perhaps) your better judgement is quite often clouded by the feminist imperative? And if you get that, maybe you will understand that is might be best (for your sake, certainly) if you had a Patriarichal man in your life to tell you exactly what to do and how to think things through so you don’t come to such ridiculous conclusions on your own in the future?
I will take to calling them Femiservatives from now on. This is what a Femiservative looks like.
Christian women are the worst. Because they should know better.
Anyone want to bet Dawn was a first-class fornicator back in the day?
Not sure if this was clear: all three incidents I described for asking Margaret “do you think this guy should have to pay child support?” actually happened.
Just wanted to share this link. The article might be worth commenting on: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elloa-atkinson/i-love-my-husband-but-heres-why-i-want-to-cheat_b_5909882.html
“There is no sin, only circumstances that life hands you.”
It is sad that women have deemed themselves passive infants who don’t think they have agency for their actions. Instead of empowerment it has made them infantile.
“I Love My Husband, But Here’s Why I Want to Cheat”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elloa-atkinson/i-love-my-husband-but-heres-why-i-want-to-cheat_b_5909882.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
A penis is not a ballpoint or fountain pen; it does not sign marriage licenses.
Classic. And I may add: carrying a man’s baby does not automatically make you his wife either.
Some fun with quoting:
dhurka:
Margaret:
(emphasis mine)
“With a little girlpower and moxie you don’t need a husband, and your children don’t need a father.”
What makes this statement so painful Dalrock, is that I don’t know any single mother beyond Murphy Brown on TV, who actually wanted to raise children without a husband. The vast majority of women desired a partnership and for assorted reasons didn’t get that. As awesome as men are sometimes they do run off, pursue other things, and leave their children behind. You seem to wish to put all the responsibility and blame on women, when in fact many of them have simply shown up for the job and tried to make the best of their circumstances.
It may be an uncomfortable truth but women tend to follow their leadership and if you take a good look at some of the hypocrisy of that leadership, it’s not the least bit surprising that so many women are lost. There’s a pastor of a church right now who just resigned after telling everyone he has hiv and has been sleeping with members of his congregation. Those are the circumstances many women have to navigate. Your disapproval of women’s failure to navigate our world with purity and high morality is duly noted, but nobody gets extra credit points for pointing out the sins of others, as if Christ is somehow fooled by what is going on here.
^
My bad, margaret59.
More than 90% of the people who end up eternally dead in Hades/Ghenna never intended to be damned.
One prostitute from the gospel washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and dried them with her hair.
But this is not just “feminism”, it is the health-wealth gospel, and the general lack of the sense of sin. No guilt, no repentance.
The question is if the book was merely about self-esteem, would it be any different?
I’m great, everything is alright – with a veneer of Jesus references?
She could have placed the baby for adoption and it would have had a father.
At least the Pharisee who didn’t have his sins forgiven when he thanked God he wasn’t like the publican could recognize the publican was sinning. Today, it is Thank God that he doesn’t care about sin.
insanitybytes22 says:
October 11, 2014 at 5:49 am
“What makes this statement so painful Dalrock, is that I don’t know any single mother beyond Murphy Brown on TV, who actually wanted to raise children without a husband. The vast majority of women desired a partnership and for assorted reasons didn’t get that.”
Here at a manosphere site, we KNOW how that came to be. Feminist-inspired careerism (“I have til my late 30s to look for a husband –35 hits– hey, where are all the good unmarried men???”) and/or out of control hypergamy (where a “6” in her prime sleeps with drunk “8” or “9” men a few times and thinks they’re what she can reasonably aspire to for a husband, not figuring out she’s trying to get 2x full new price for an 8-YO car til she’s clearly face-smacking the wall).
“As awesome as men are sometimes they do run off, pursue other things, and leave their children behind. You seem to wish to put all the responsibility and blame on women, when in fact many of them have simply shown up for the job and tried to make the best of their circumstances.”
Fact check: women file for >70% of divorces, nearly always without proving tradtional (or real) legal grounds. The rate is even higher if the marriage involves minor children sired by the husband.
“It may be an uncomfortable truth but women tend to follow their leadership”
That does NOT describe Western wives’ relationship with their husbands. Are you talking about somewhere in the developing world, or referring to feminist Churchianity women and their “women all good, men all bad” “pastors”?
“There’s one thing I believe fervently, and that is that 90 percent of single mothers never intended to be single mothers.”
That’s what happens when you put faith into the pill.
“You do not have the heart of Jesus–he came to save, not to condemn…”
Woman…know the heart of Jesus.
Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” John 8:11
That last sentence is what modern day feminism leaves off. Jesus didn’t condemn…but He also tells you to quit sinning. That’s salvation.
It is surprising, is it not, that although 43% of Americans (can it really be that high?) are bastards, that the mothers of these unfortunate people need books like Janine Turner’s to make themselves feel good about their situation. No ‘you-go-grrl’ empowerment there I think. One does not even need a Hamsterlator to see through Dawn’s holier-than-thou ‘married for twenty years with five children to a wonderful man’: the equivalent of a Duchess handing out a few Ten Dollar Bills to the indigent and feckless even as she tells the donees of her largesse that they are all wonderful people.
Will I ever forget my mother’s shock and embarrassment when as a small child and being asked by an elderly woman bending down towards me where I came from, I replied (in all intended seriousness) Dr Barnardos [the child orphanage]. I was however a deprived child for I am fairly certain that in the womb I was never played any music by Wolfgang Amadeus although I may well have displayed my free-style disco skills.
There’s one thing I believe fervently, and that is that 90 percent of single mothers never intended to be single mothers.
Gee, I never intended to hurt anybody. I just had a few drinks and went for a drive…. Why is everybody blaming me? You must all hate me.
Again and again, this is clearly a fundamental dogma of feminism: Women have no agency. They are incapable of even understanding responsibility, much less of acting with it in mind. But still they are to be regarded as fully “equal” – to God Himself, actually, if you follow the “logic” of the argument.
I must say, I agree with margaret59. Pregnancy may result from only one of a thousand acts of coitus, but when it does occur it trumps any and all other possible outcomes – or “intentions”. I don’t know how many times I’ve done sex in my life (less than a thousand, I’m pretty sure), but in my case the very first time (age 17, in high school) resulted in a child. A lesson I wish I could have learned in some other way. It takes only one time, and there’s only one way to avoid it entirely. Any sexual indulgence (including the fool doctor cited above, who engaged in a sex act with a woman not his wife) is a gamble, on numerous levels – moral as well as practical. A “gamble” means there is a non-zero chance of “unintended”, undesired consequences. Any person who wishes to be regarded as an adult (in law, the difference between a child and an adult is one word: responsibility) must be aware of this, and prepared to deal responsibly with the consequences.
What makes this statement so painful Dalrock, is that I don’t know any single mother beyond Murphy Brown on TV, who actually wanted to raise children without a husband. The vast majority of women desired a partnership and for assorted reasons didn’t get that.
The point is that an easy way to avoid that is the following: do not have sex outside of marriage. It takes two to tango, here. That is clear sin, period. It is the foundational sin that led to being a single mother for these women and, yes, it’s just as much their fault that they are single mothers as it is the fault of the men with whom they had sex. That’s the whole point. Yes, the men committed the sin of fornication as well, but so did the women. And one of the “pragmatic” risks of fornication is that there is a much higher likelihood that you will actually be a single mother because you are not married.
As for the women who are now single mothers and who were once married, if they were in marriages that did not involve physical abuse, addiction or adultery and they initiated the divorce themselves, then the same analysis applies.
The problem is that books like the one highlighted in the OP simply do not want to acknowledge the sin here. The SIN of fornication. The SIN of the woman in fornicating. No, the focus is on how heroic it is in terms of how she bears the practical consequences of that sin. This is, as Dalrock says, selling sin – the sin being fornication. Instead of focusing on the sin that led to this, and how women can and should avoid that sin, the focus is on how to make the best of sinning. That’s a terrible focus.
Friedan was a humanist and her objective – which developed and refined over her lifetime, was autonomy – for men as well as women. Her advocacy was outside a Christian aegis – it was a secular advocacy. The Christian role is to determine how to maintain the integrity of Christianity while living alongside or inside a larger or dominant secular culture.
When I argue with gender feminists Friedan is who I invoke – where there feminism specifically departs from hers, and her humanism, in ways she warned and argued against. The humanist autonomy of Friedan’s progressive feminism can co-exist with Christian traditionalism. The kind of hegemony demanded by gender feminism will not.
The distinctions are important. Making it impossible to recognize a tolerant center isn’t going to help – it is literally the (typical American) lack of understanding of even recent history that leads to the kind of splitting we have here and the splitting isn’t going to lead to a traditionalist majority so I think it is particularly incumbent on traditionalists to put their inner Burke’s and Kirk’s at the executive head here. Equity feminism is feminism that is safe for the GOP. Progressive feminism – anchored in humanism – is more than those here have a taste for, but it can co-exist with you and Friedan embodied that – that is good for you and for the survival of the values you represent, it is not a threat – it may be essential to the survival of what you believe in. Cicero, Aurelius, Diogenes, … read up – this isn’t new, we’ve been here before. There is only human co-existence, there is no total victory and anyone peddling that there is is a talking snake in a tree, even if he comes cloaked in Great Books.
You’re constantly moving in this vein, and it really is barking up the wrong tree, generally.
There can never be a society which is organized around a “tolerant center”. There will always be a positive force of energy in that society and in its politics — in some defined direction away from that muddled “tolerant center” and towards a pole. The question for any society is “what is that dominant force”. In the West, for quite some time, the dominant force has been progressivism. It moves in a steady direction and follows an obvious logic — the countervailing force, such as it is, is really only capable of slowing it down, because the entire energy of the system is progressive. It’s built into the DNA of the system at this point. So arguing for a “tolerant center” approach merely plays more into the hands of the progressive energy source by de-fanging the real opposition (and the “conservatives” are not a real opposition, but merely a slowing agent that make’s progressivism’s changes more palatable over time), and again allowing the entire edifice to move more easily towards progressive ends. It’s a losing strategy, in pragmatic terms — and pragmatic terms are the basis on which you are trying to peddle it here — and so it should not be adopted.
Look, we understand that our views are not “winning” politically and culturally in the West. Most of us believe that in order for our views to prevail there would have to be some larger socio-cultural change involving things far removed from what we are discussing, and the eventuality of that, and its timing, are both far from certain. But in the meantime, moving towards an “I’m ok, you’re ok, let’s leave each other alone” approach in the context of an entire system that is inherently progressive-leaning in its DNA and in terms of its dominant energy is simply giving up and laying down arms to the destroyers. And that is something most of us are not willing to do, for obvious reasons.
So, no, we will not be allies in that way, bluedog. For while the self-styled conservatives are generally useless and often hypocritical, your political side is the side of the true destroyers and vandals, and we will not willingly enter into any sort of truce with the likes of them.
Good day.
“Again and again, this is clearly a fundamental dogma of feminism: Women have no agency. They are incapable of even understanding responsibility, much less of acting with it in mind. But still they are to be regarded as fully “equal” – to God Himself, actually, if you follow the “logic” of the argument.”
Nailed it. They want to act like children but have the full rights of adults.
Again and again, this is clearly a fundamental dogma of feminism: Women have no agency.
Unfortunately a good number of traditional Christians also believe this, more or less.
“The problem is that books like the one highlighted in the OP simply do not want to acknowledge the sin here. The SIN of fornication. The SIN of the woman in fornicating.”
I’m fine with pointing out both the man and woman fornicate when they commit the sin together instead of taking one side. There has to be an action and reaction when this occurs. Women get mad when you point out they are just as responsible for the action occurring instead of being some unwilling recipient or a robot following a program. Remember the closer you get to the truth…the louder they scream.
I hate long numbered comments. Brevity is the soul of wit.
When that statement takes voice, children scurry to get beneath their beds….”Shhhh, she’s just outside the door”
“Because your constant attempts to shame women are what separates them from Christ and eventually fuels more feminism.”
Shame doesn’t seperate a person from Christ…sin does. It’s isn’t about emotions…it’s about acts.
Shame is one of the many ways to get a person to realize that. (not my first choice…but it has worked for me) So either it motivates a person to repent or causes them to double down and embrace feminism to tell them their sin is okay.
“IF we are dealing with a competent man, then he consents to the chance of a child when he has sex.”
Tell us Marge, do you consent to being in a car crash every time you sit in a car?
We ought to need no more evidence that women, when given the option, will knowingly make evil choices (though not quite the same ones as men) than this: women have exclusive legal control of unborn children, and they choose to have those unborn children killed approximately 1 million times per year.
You can’t blame men for that one, though feminists have certainly tried. If our society was willing to face the evil that is in women’s hearts, people would only need to look at this number to see how monstrous women can be. Sure, men might in rare cases want their own child killed, but the number of men who go to the doctor themselves and have him kill the life growing inside them is zero.
Men and women sin differently, but we all need to recognize the evil that is in us and not try to pass it off on others. Women like the one in the OP want to be independent now but they refuse to take responsibility for the evil things they themselves do. Every woman who gets herself pregnant outside of marriage has hurt her child terribly. Nearly every bad thing is more likely to happen to that child if it doesn’t have a father. And yet we’re supposed to feel sympathy for the perpetrator and not for the innocent who was hurt. It really is like the person said above, as though in a drunk driving accident our focus was on feeling sympathy for the drunk driver, who after all “didn’t mean for this to happen,” and not at all on the innocent victims of that person’s stupid and dangerous choices.
“women have exclusive legal control of unborn children, and they choose to have those unborn children killed approximately 1 million times per year.
You can’t blame men for that one, though feminists have certainly tried.”
Roe v. Wade votes by the Supreme Court justices
Roe:
Harry Blackmun
Warren E. Burger
William O. Douglas
William J. Brennan
Potter Stewart
Thurgood Marshall
Lewis Powell
Wade:
Byron White
William Rehnquist
Reading her e-mail to you, she throws the word “misogyny” at you in the 2nd sentence. Whatever she had to write afterwords I could not take seriously. I have never heard once, any truly devout Christian use the word misogyny in a public setting, and in private only in a hushed reverence implying the sense of the gravity of the accusation. To be so bold in proclaiming it implies a desensitization by the world.
You can blame men for going along with feminism, sure. Some of the evil ideas might even have been men’s ideas at the outset. I mean that the individual acts of evil belong to those who commit them. Just knowing an evil thing is available doesn’t force anyone to commit that evil. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, but that doesn’t make anyone become a prostitute or patronize prostitutes. It may be a very bad thing to allow abortion, but those women made the choice to kill those babies. Harry Blackmun didn’t put a gun to any woman’s head.
“Just knowing an evil thing is available doesn’t force anyone to commit that evil.”
I never said it was. I’m pointing out how exclusive legal control was given to women in this matter. It came from men. And it will be up to men to take this control back.
“This is the way of an adulteress:
she eats and wipes her mouth
and says, “I’ve done nothing wrong.””
“Shame doesn’t seperate a person from Christ…sin does”
Shame is the flip side of pride and pride is pretty much the original sin, so yes, shame is often what separates people from Christ. Do you have any biblical examples of Christ ever shaming women into compliance?
Luke said above, “Here at a manosphere site, we KNOW how that came to be. Feminist-inspired careerism … and/or out of control hypergamy”
You do not always know what you think you know. Feminism did not just spring forth out of a vacuum. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
“Do you have any biblical examples of Christ ever shaming women into compliance?”
“Go, call your husband and come back.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4+%3A+1-26&version=NIV
“Shame is the flip side of pride and pride is pretty much the original sin, so yes, shame is often what separates people from Christ.”
Shame is an emotional reaction to a sin. Either it motivates you to reconcile with God…or causes you to hide in the sin, the world, or rationalizations.
@insanitybytes22 –
Do you have any biblical examples of Christ ever shaming women into compliance?
Plenty of examples of His shaming people into compliance. Matthew 23 (“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!” over and over), John 2 (He used a lot stronger tactics than shame, but calling the merchants’ tables “a den of thieves” is also publicly shaming them), Mark 7 (“Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites”)…
No specific examples of women, no. But unless you’re prepared to argue that women are fragile flowers who can’t handle the kinds of things that men can handle (an argument that leads straight to the natural conclusion “men should run things, and women shouldn’t be voting”), you have no grounds for saying that the tactics Christ applied to men can’t also be applied to women as well. And, of course, Christ was also gentle with the people who were not being hypocritical and truly wanted to repent: the Samaritan woman in John 4, the invalid at the pool in Bethesda in John 5 (whom He told “stop sinning or something worse will happen to you), Zacchaeus the tax collector in Luke 19… So gentleness is also needed. The key is discernment: sometimes a gentle word is needed, sometimes a harsher rebuke. You cannot apply the same approach to every situation.
What you seem to be arguing is that harsh words are never necessary with women, and I utterly disagree. Besides, as I said above, that argument takes you somewhere you probably don’t want to go.
@earl –
Excellent point! Yes, that was deliberately designed to remind her of her sin. I’d forgotten that. It was a gentler kind of rebuke than what He directed at the Pharisees, but that’s because the Pharisees had long been steeped in pride and were hard-hearted, while the Samaritan woman was ready to repent — and so harsh rebukes were not needed to get through to her conscience. A gentle rebuke, but a rebuke nonetheless, was enough to show her her sin.
insanitybytes also known as GG also known as yttik trolled with:
What makes this statement so painful Dalrock, is that I don’t know any single mother beyond Murphy Brown on TV, who actually wanted to raise children without a husband.
Perhaps because you mostly or only are around older women this is true. Boomers as a rule didn’t do this, although I know a pretty unpleasant story or two out of the countercultural world of the 60’s and early 70’s. Stories that made no sense at all until I learned the truth about women via Game.
But let’s leave boomers aside. I know of more than one woman of Gen X or younger who is a single mother by choice, who selected a man as a sperm donor, and who had a child to raise on her own. In each case the woman in question is a child from a broken, divorced family.
Boomers liked to claim that their divorces only were good, that they didn’t want their children to grow up in a house full of fighting. Well, it seems to have not quite worked out that way. Some girls and women who were children of divorce learned to never trust men at all, and thus that raising a child totally on their own was the best way to proceed. Now we have institutionalized that practice with the child support model of marriage, as Dalrock as very aptly described it.
Boomer women are some of the worst when it comes to rationalizing their past behavior, in my experience. Perhaps that’s just my own opinion, though, because so many boomers are carrying so very much baggage from the last 50 years.
So there’s your attention fix for the day, GG. Against my better judgement I’ve fed your hamster.
It would be useful if you were to learn something here, but from what I’ve read elsewhere, you are more interested in the attention of men than learning anything from them.
Earl
I’m pointing out how exclusive legal control was given to women in this matter. It came from SOME men. And it will be up to OTHER men to take this control back.
FIFY. “Some” and “all” are not synonyms. To pick one example: my father and uncles had no authority over the US Supreme court of the 1970’s. Holding them responsible for decisions they publicly opposed, but had utterly no say in, is not only illogical, it is unjust.
Earl, would you care to be held personally responsible for the court decisions that have created gay marriage, merely because you happen to be alive at the time they are issued?
The separation of authority and responsibility is one of the baneful issues of the modern world.
When I was much younger, I came at a priest with exactly this point. He answered it effortlessly, and so eloquently that I wish I had taped him.
Christianity was designed to be a series of paradoxes which, outwardly, don’t seem to make sense. The point of the religion is not to get someone to behave a certain way, but merely to start him thinking critically about the world and his place in it. A large number of people who start down that road come to behave in certain ways, not because they were coerced, but because they voluntarily chose them. It’s a discipline that requires a thoughtful life.
And yes, ultimately, a dude could theoretically accept the mystery on his deathbed, and Christians will thus count him as one of their own, but it’s much better to start living a thoughtful life as a child. A whole life which is driven by self-awareness will end up being more enjoyable and more productive than a life of floundering around.
Boxer
Also, I’d just like to quote insanitybytes22’s first post:
You know why we scold you and some of the others? Because your constant attempts to shame women are what separates them from Christ …
So, insanitybytes22… are you saying that shaming people is bad? Or are you saying that only shaming women is bad, but shaming men is A-OK? (E.g., by scolding them for shaming women). And if so, why the distinction? Or are you saying that shaming people is always bad, except when you do it, because the rules don’t apply to you?
Enlighten me. I’d like to understand why shaming is bad, except when you do it. Or why shaming men won’t drive them away from Christ, while shaming women will. Or some explanation for why you’re not condemning yourself with your own words here.
“Earl, would you care to be held personally responsible for the court decisions that have created gay marriage, merely because you happen to be alive at the time they are issued?”
Personally…no.
Whenever the gay question came up on the ballot…I voted against it. What power I had in my hands I used.
I get your point…I was refuting the point that men had no blame in this matter.
“The point of the religion is not to get someone to behave a certain way, but merely to start him thinking critically about the world and his place in it.”
Exactly.
Flip side…does feminism allow for critical thought or does it get people to behave a certain way? Before you answer that…ask a feminist how they feel about women who stay at home and raise kids.
“So, insanitybytes22… are you saying that shaming people is bad?”
Shaming people is unacceptable. Do you think men are so weak and fragile that I shame them with simple words of disagreement? The personal attacks, the viciousness, the shaming and vulgarity that often comes out of the manosphere is pretty astounding. When you say those kinds of things about other people and do it in Christ’s name there’s a real problem.
Dalrock’s “selling sin” serves what purpose? Do you want single mothers to feel separated from Christ? Do you want them outside of the church? Do you wish to shame them so while they are raising kids they wear a sackcloth and ashes so as to ease your offense?
@Eidolon
Yes. Exactly.
It goes beyond this though. There is a desire by Dawn and insanitybytes to make this about me going after Miss Turner because of her sin of fornication leading to an illegitimate child. Look at mean Dalrock, does he think he is better than her? And yet this isn’t the point at all. The issue is Miss Turner writing a book to encourage the very catastrophe she created for her own daughter. Dawn and insanitybytes would rather whisper temptation into the ears of young impressionable women than warn them of this great catastrophe. They care not about these young women’s eternal souls, the great hardship this will cause the young women, the innocent children who will be harmed, nor the millions of innocent children suffering right now. All of that is a small price to pay to avoid feeling bad, or in feminist speak, feeling disempowered.
It is the second sin which is truly insidious, the sin of encouraging others to follow along in order to avoid feeling bad about (and repenting of) the first sin. This second sin is so ugly that Dawn and insanitybytes constantly try to reframe the discussion away from it. Yet it is the very sin they are engaged in by their attempt to hide it.
God: “You are a stiff necked people!”
Miss Turner/Dawn/insanitybytes: “Hold your head up high!”
“Dalrock’s “selling sin” serves what purpose?”
To point out people are selling sin instead of salvation.
“Do you want single mothers to feel separated from Christ?”
Who cares how they feel…they are either seperated from Christ or not.
“Do you want them outside of the church?”
No…they are as free to go there as I am. Which I make a point to do at least once a week.
“Do you wish to shame them so while they are raising kids they wear a sackcloth and ashes so as to ease your offense?”
The only thing that eases my offense is seeking redemption which was partly motivated by my shame of the particular sin. Perhaps one day they will figure this out instead of wearing sackcloth and ashes (but whatver floats their boat when it comes to penance).
@insanitybytes22
I think what you are trying to say is that life just presents itself to them in this way.
Humanism is a form of solipsism. Autonomy sounds very nice but is anti-family and family is the beginning of a tribe or race; thus’ attacking race is yet another form of being anti-family. One does not have to be a card-carrying Christian to see that Friedan was in the vanguard of that version of Marxism – or Liberalism – known as Feminism which seeks amongst other things to bring about Bastardy.
“There’s a pastor of a church right now who just resigned after telling everyone he has hiv and has been sleeping with members of his congregation. Those are the circumstances many women have to navigate. Your disapproval of women’s failure to navigate our world with purity and high morality is duly noted…”
1) You present an interesting example, because it’s tantamount to the workplace sexual harassment argument that if a superior has pressured or compensated sex with an underling, that superior is more ‘at fault’. So if that’s your point, it’s a decent one and I generally agree. The pastor would be more at fault, even beyond the atrocious tangential fact that he did this with HIV (whether or not cognizant of that at the time) – because he was in a position of being seen by all as ‘spiritually hierarchically higher on the totem pole’ than the women he had sex with, which put them in an awful position when he made his advances. So that guy is a full-fledged dirtbag.
2) You lose me with ‘failure to navigate our world with purity and high morality’. Because – yes, while that ‘pastor with HIV sexing his female congregants’ example demonstrates a scenario in which women did in fact have to navigate a cluster-F situation, there are exponentially more scenarios in which women decide to do whatever the hell they feel like and then use the old ‘I can’t be expected to be perfect!’ fall-back when they get caught in hypocrisy, wrong-doing, or ‘sin’ as Christians call it.
@The Obvious
The fundamental problem with child support is not that it forces men to pay for children they didn’t intend to father. The problem with child support is it replaces marriage.
Edit: The other problem with the argument is it is the same rationalization Miss Turner uses in pretending she isn’t responsible for having an out of wedlock child.
Earl
I get your point…I was refuting the point that men had no blame in this matter.
Ok then, I’ll agree in the abstract. Just don’t hold some random old Kansas farmer responsible for the actions of the USSC of 1971, because he was out running his combine the day Roe was decided. Nobody in DC even cared what he thought.
Aging Boomer feminist GG:
Shaming people is unacceptable.
Thanks for making your opinion on that clear.
@earl
” “Do you want single mothers to feel separated from Christ?”
Who cares how they feel…they are either seperated from Christ or not. ”
I would argue that if they are, in fact, separated from Christ, that the sooner they feel that, the better for everyone. Remember Jenny Erikson’s feeling that there was some beautiful new power in her, giving her the strength to blow up her family. When you’re doing evil, the sooner you feel a disconnect from God the better the state your soul is in and the easier to repent.
“There’s a pastor of a church right now who just resigned after telling everyone he has hiv and has been sleeping with members of his congregation. Those are the circumstances many women have to navigate. Your disapproval of women’s failure to navigate our world with purity and high morality is duly noted…”
This is the same argument you get against submission to male authority.
1. Find a bad man who abused authority.
2. Say “this is what you want women to submit to!?”
Those are emphatically not the circumstances any women “have to navigate.” This was a one-time deal. Only the women in that particular congregation at that particular time had to deal with that. These are events that make the news because of their rarity, just like the husbands who beat their wives or what have you. This is just a fallacious argument used to disarm any possibility of having to listen to any authority. And you notice it’s never used the other way, never used to show how hard men’s job is in leading rebellious women, for example.
Look, if your pastor asks you to have sex with him outside of marriage, don’t do it, and report his actions to the leadership of your church. If they don’t act, then leave and report him to the higher-ups of the denomination. Otherwise, he’s your authority. It’s not complicated. It doesn’t implicate the authority of pastors in general, and it’s not something you have to deal with just because it happened so somebody else that you heard about.
Dalrock to GG
I think what you are trying to say is that life just presents itself to them in this way.
Heh. Well played.
Yes, “It just HAPpened”. Like taking in a stray cat and finding kittens under the bed one morning…where could they have come from?
Once again we see how “some” and “all” can be casually conflated by the hamster.
One preacher in Alabama has engaged in extremely bad behavior, therefore all men are bad except when they are obeying women. Then they are good. Because women are good.
It really is the same as the nonsense Dalrock is responding to in the OP. “Whatever Woman shall decide is good, is good to God” – New Hamster Translation
“I would argue that if they are, in fact, separated from Christ, that the sooner they feel that, the better for everyone. Remember Jenny Erikson’s feeling that there was some beautiful new power in her, giving her the strength to blow up her family. When you’re doing evil, the sooner you feel a disconnect from God the better the state your soul is in and the easier to repent.”
I agree. Beware how some people view shaming though because that is the important part of this story.
Shame is a bad emotional feeling for the receptor and those can be seen as sinful to them so they will hammer that point or something similar. Given retort tactics include crying, insulting, calling you a victim blamer, calling out white knights, throwing the kitchen sink or ban hammer at you to shut you up.
Whereas the flip side of feeling shame because of a disconnect from Christ is a GOOD thing because it can motivate a person to repent.
I agree that shame is a neutral thing. Nowadays feminists are trying to shame women who behave appropriately for being virgins, shut-ins, disempowered, etc. And women certainly can feel shamed even if they wouldn’t feel, in a neutral setting, that the behavior was wrong.
It’s one of those not very useful truths that shame can in some cases be bad. This is usually pointed out irrationally in a situation where the shame is being used to push a person towards proper behavior based on solid reasoning. It’s like if you offer someone antibiotics because they have a bacterial infection and they say “antibiotics are often prescribed for no good reason, in which case they contribute to superbugs and are thus bad.” It’s perfectly true and completely irrelevant to this situation. In this situation the only reason the person feels shamed is because they know, deep down, that the person shaming them is right. You can tell because they resort to an irrelevance instead of demonstrating that the other person’s argument was incorrect.
The lack of repentance is key.
Turner’s book says essentially (paraphrasing) “I had sex out of wedlock, I knew in my head and heart that the father wouldn’t be around. I had my baby. But my being a single mom is a good thing. I wanted the baby and brought her into the world. At least I didn’t abort her. I did a good thing. I didn’t do anything wrong. And if I can do it, you can do it too.”
There’s no repentance anywhere in there.
Repentance would have looked something like this: “I did a lot of bad things. I had sex out of wedlock and I knew the father wouldn’t be there. I had my baby, but my being a single mom is not a good thing. I have to live with the consequences of my sin, and now, because of that sin, my baby has to live with it too. What I did was wrong, and other people should avoid doing what I did — having sex out of wedlock with a man who impregnated me and then left me. If you avoid doing what I did, maybe you — and other people — won’t have to live with the consequences of this sin.”
“Nowadays feminists are trying to shame women who behave appropriately for being virgins, shut-ins, disempowered, etc.”
Or men who are trying to speak the truth about selling sin.
So I’ll reiterate these questions to insanity.
“So, insanitybytes22… are you saying that shaming people is bad? Or are you saying that only shaming women is bad, but shaming men is A-OK? (E.g., by scolding them for shaming women). And if so, why the distinction? Or are you saying that shaming people is always bad, except when you do it, because the rules don’t apply to you?”
“Whereas the flip side of feeling shame because of a disconnect from Christ is a GOOD thing because it can motivate a person to repent.”
Shaming women has never caused them to repent, only the love of Christ does that. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
Listen to yourselves and the hurtful words you say about your sisters, “Who cares how they feel…I would argue that if they are, in fact, separated from Christ, that the sooner they feel that, the better for everyone.”
There’s a catch in Christianity when it comes to men and authority. “He who is NOT under authority, has no authority.” If married Christian women can’t see Christ in you, then it’s pretty doubtful he’s even there.
Tell us Marge, do you consent to being in a car crash every time you sit in a car?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do consent to the possibility of being in a car crash every time I sit in a car. I should think that would be obvious.
My father used the term “woman driver” to speak of anybody who hasn’t a clue what’s happening when she/he turns the ignition key in a car. Perhaps the definition should be expanded to include anybody who doesn’t understand the risks inherent in operating (or riding in) a motor vehicle. Which, to judge from Turner’s book and the myriad similar examples – including views expressed by women in this thread – should probably include nearly all women, who seem to have no sense of the risk inherent in doing sex. Some “one in a thousand” risks are trivial; others are potentially life-changing in major ways; the 1/1000 ratio doesn’t tell the whole story.
I was driving a 30-year-old car until last spring, when it died. I was then amazed to learn how cars have changed in the last several decades. Small cars now weigh more than full-sized ones used to – because women insist they have to be “safe”. (They also all look the same, because car manufacturers have been backed into a corner by all the ever-proliferating government mandates.) And, like everything women want, the results must be forced on everybody, because we don’t know what’s good for us. At the same time, the government keeps mandating greater fuel economy, assuming – as women will – that passing a “law” can change fundamental laws of physics, and cause-and-effect. Feminism has brought us a lot of things besides the obvious abortion, no-fault divorce, etc. It’s turned what used to be a nation of (somewhat) independent spirits into a great big nursery.
“Shaming women has never caused them to repent, only the love of Christ does that. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
Yes. Now what are the ways to snap a person out of their love for sin?
Boomer feminist GG aka insanitybytes aka yttik:
Shaming women has never caused them to repent,
How do you know this to be true?
My Mission
There’s one thing I believe fervently, and that is that 90 percent of convicted felons never intended to be convicted felons. Most young boys, as they daydream about the day when they will start careers, rarely say, “When I grow up I want to commit crimes.” Or, “When I grow up I want to go to prison.”
I wrote this book to inspire these men. I wrote it so that convicted felons of today would not feel alone, troubled, burdened, shamed, or depressed.
The U.S. Census Bureau data published in 2004 reports that approximately 43 percent of men in society are convicted felons; this number is likely higher today. 51 percent of men in America have some kind of arrest record. The wisdom that the men of this book impart to us is that we are not alone. Men have been convicted of heinous crimes for centuries and through tragic circumstances in social environments that, for the most part, pale to any we could encounter today.
Aging boomer feminist GG aka yttik aka insanitybytes:
There’s a catch in Christianity when it comes to men and authority. “He who is NOT under authority, has no authority.” If married Christian women can’t see Christ in you, then it’s pretty doubtful he’s even there.
Borrowing a prototype of Deti’s hamsterlator:
“I only have to obey and respect a husband when he loves me just like Jesus loves the church and until he’s there I can rebel all I want!”
“This was a one-time deal. Only the women in that particular congregation at that particular time had to deal with that. These are events that make the news because of their rarity…”
Eidolon – I’ll play devil’s advocate to that: Discoveries regarding shockingly large plurality of Catholic priests in the late 90s/early 2000s.
Our whole society is organised around shaming men into compliance. That’s all insanitybytes is doing, shaming you into compliance. Tell the unrepentant jezebel to take a hike.
Steve H
Eidolon – I’ll play devil’s advocate to that: Discoveries regarding shockingly large plurality of Catholic priests in the late 90s/early 2000s.
Non sequitur. Nobody claimed that all Roman Catholic men were sexual abusers based on the fact that some RC priests were. Yet it appears to me the old game “All Men Are Rapists (And That’s All They Are)” is being dragged out here.
It’s the old “some” vs. “all” sleight of hand that feminsts are so fond of, because it’s easier than honest debate.
There is no catch in the Bible over men and authority over their wives. Produce it, or shut up you whore!
This is something that largely must be self-directed, hence the effectiveness of Christianity, and secular offshoots of it (like Alcoholics Anonymous). These religious and quasi-religious movements encourage self-awareness, as opposed to enforcing rules with threats of punishment (though Christianity has those too, and they’re effective for the people unable to think deeply).
Shaming people, or similar external pressures, are never really effective at stifling the inner desire for “sin” or unproductive things. The change needs to be internal.
“I only have to obey and respect a husband when he loves me just like Jesus loves the church and until he’s there I can rebel all I want!””
Why would you think so little of yourself? Why would you not trust that Christ reflected in you would be enough to make a woman truly desire to submit?
Thanks for calling me an unrepentant jezebel and a whore, feministhater. You’ve made my point for me.
You’re both, you cannot produce a Biblical quote that states that wives don’t have to obey and respect their husband’s authority.
You’re here to undermine a discussion of like minded men, remove yourself.
hamsterlator translation of female rebellion:
“I only have to obey and respect a husband when he loves me just like Jesus loves the church and until he’s there I can rebel all I want!””
aging Boomer feminist insanybytes aka GG aka yttik:
Why would you think so little of yourself?
Why would you try to change the subject away from rebellious, bad behavior by women?
Why would you not trust that Christ reflected in you would be enough to make a woman truly desire to submit?
Why would you avoid admitting that boomer feminists like you have taught rebellion for decades and have enshrined it as a “right”?
feministhater, gg / realitybytes / yttik is obviously here for the attention. Perhaps she can’t get enough of it over at Alpha Game anymore, so she’s cruising for attention here now.
“Why would you think so little of yourself? Why would you not trust that Christ reflected in you would be enough to make a woman truly desire to submit?”
The obvious rebuttal, one more time. Christ Himself is, in fact, perfect, and a perfect leader, by definition (for Christians). Neither men nor women submit properly to Him. You are saying that good leadership automatically inspires obedience. Therefore, if any of us sin, i.e. practice disobedience to His leadership, either God is not perfect, or your premise is wrong. (Hint: it’s the latter.)
One thing I never considered before is that this premise actually removes free will from the equation. If leadership actually caused obedience automatically then a good leader would essentially remove the ability of others to not follow him. In order to be free we must have the ability to reject even perfect leadership. Otherwise if you hit the right button in us, we would have no choice but to submit. No matter how hard you make it to hit that button, if it’s there, then we are not free. Freedom means we can reject even perfection if we choose.
@deti
There does seem to be a sort of thing in people’s minds whereby they take “what I did was really bad, but at least it wasn’t the worst thing I could do” and remove the first part. So she goes from “at least I didn’t abort my child” to “I didn’t abort my child — I’m better than those people over there. If I can point to anyone who handled my situation worse than I did then I feel vindicated in having done it the way I did.”
It seems that nowadays people feel that, if they did something harder than what they might have done which is more morally correct, they are heroes deserving of great praise. I wonder if one of the peripheral evils of abortion is that it makes women think that because they didn’t exercise that “right,” i.e. because they chose to go through the “difficulty” of raising their child, that they are therefore praiseworthy because they might have taken the easier path.
Reminds me of C.S. Lewis:
“It is hard because so many people cannot be brought to realize that when B is better than C, A may be even better than B. They like thinking in terms of good and bad, not of good, better, and best, or bad, worse, and worst. They want to know whether you think patriotism a good thing: if you reply that it is, of course, far better than individual selfishness, but that it is inferior to universal charity and should always give way to universal charity when they two conflict, they think you are being evasive.”
Because being a single mother is better than aborting one’s child, they come to think of it as actually good, rather than just less monstrous than abortion.
@Eidolon
Look, if your pastor asks you to have sex with him outside of marriage, don’t do it, and report his actions to the leadership of your church. If they don’t act, then leave and report him to the higher-ups of the denomination.
Take a look at what you just said. The implication (considering that women in the congregation were having sex with the pastor) is that the MAN is at fault. This is so wrong on many levels. I have frequently been hit on by married women in church. On two occasions I’ve had married women casually stick a small note with their phone number on it in my pocket as they “brushed” by me.
Anecdotal, to be sure, but the pastor tends to be the alpha in a church setting. AF/BB applies. I seriously doubt that pastor had to ask for sex and I’m willing to bet the vast majority of the women he was banging were married and they took it upon themselves to let him know they were DTF.
Yes, what he did was a sin, but as has been pointed out, it takes two to tango. I suppose one could argue that preaching feminized churchian doctrines like mutual submission and servant leadership is what sent the women in search of anything that had the faintest whiff of alpha, but the point is the guys that are doing it don’t have to ask for it. It gets served up on a platter.
yap, yap, yap.
@insanitybytes22
There’s a catch in Christianity when it comes to men and authority. “He who is NOT under authority, has no authority.” If married Christian women can’t see Christ in you, then it’s pretty doubtful he’s even there.
Perhaps you never made it far enough in reading the Bible to get to 1st Peter 3:1-2
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the Word, they may be won over without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.
Scripture says exactly the opposite of your assertion. You, as a wife, are to submit to your husband even if he is disobedient to the word. Tell me, dear, is adultery disobedience to the word? You were told to submit to him anyway and win him over “without a word” by your chaste and respectful behavior. Even worse for your case, is the conjunction at the beginning of the verse. In the same way as what? It can only be a reference to the discussion of servants and masters in the prior chapter.
You are demonstrating you practice churchianity, the feminist version. Blech.
About shame… have you not read?
” For even if I grieved you with my letter, I do not regret it—even though I did regret it since I saw that the letter grieved you, yet only for a little while. Now I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because your grief led to repentance. For you were grieved as God willed, so that you didn’t experience any loss from us. For godly grief produces a repentance not to be regretted and leading to salvation, but worldly grief produces death.”
Therefore, shame and grief that leads to repentance is entirely godly, but stiff necked anger at being called out leads to death.
@Artisanal Toad
I was assuming the given statement was true for the sake of argument. The statement was that the given situation was something that women have to deal with and that it excuses rebelliousness. Taking the idea that the pastor was trawling for women in a totally unsolicited way at face value, though it really doesn’t deserve to be taken that way, the excuse is still absurd. If the pastor hits on you, all you have to do is say no, leave, and tell the church and/or denomination leadership. It doesn’t sound like he’s being accused of rape, so he didn’t pin the women down or anything. Had they not been willing to go along with it they could’ve done what I said and the situation would have been solved immediately.
My point was that even if that was a situation that average women have to deal with, which it isn’t, if they were committed to doing the right thing it would pose no problem for them and would not necessitate or excuse rebelliousness to legitimate authority.
“You are saying that good leadership automatically inspires obedience”
It really does. No, not blind automatic obedience, but good leaders simply make you want to follow them. It is what it is.
“Why would you avoid admitting that boomer feminists like you have taught rebellion for decades and have enshrined it as a “right”?”
I’m neither a boomer nor a feminist, so I haven’t spent decades teaching rebellion to anyone. My issue that your ostracizing, bullying, and shaming, allegedly in the name of Christ, is like pouring fuel on a fire of rebellion. It doesn’t lead women to repent, it doesn’t bring anyone closer to Christ, and it sure doesn’t teach good leadership. Worse, it doesn’t reflect the teachings of Christ.
I have no problem feeling like a respectful and submissive wife because I am married to someone quite worthy of my respect and admiration. Like I said, good leaders simply make you want to follow them.
“You, as a wife, are to submit to your husband even if he is disobedient to the word.”
Let me state the obvious here. I’m not married to any of you. I am only required to submit to Christ and to my husband, both of which I do quite willingly, with much pleasure and joy.
Submitting myself to small minded men who view Christianity as nothing but a weapon to be used against women, is whole other matter.
What said jezebel is saying is that you’re all hurting her fweeelings with all your nasty words…
Would someone think of the evil jezebels, please, someone, anyone?! At the moment, all we’re doing is chasing them away! The horrors..
If only this one could be chased away..
“Small minded men”. Guess the shaming is done by the shrew after all…
Shut up and go away, you husband needs to discipline you!
@Eidolon
If the pastor hits on you, all you have to do is say no, leave, and tell the church and/or denomination leadership.
I agree with what you’re saying, but you miss the point. You are framing this in terms of the pastor hitting on the women, but I don’t think that would happen very often. I have seen too many situations where it is the woman who is actively pursuing the man they perceive as alpha to accept that he has to hit on them. All the pastor has to be is present and a certain percentage of the women will be DTF. They will find a way to let him know that in no uncertain terms.
I don’t think you even realize what you’re doing, but in framing it as the pastor hitting on the silly women who then fall for it, you’re placing the blame on the man and relieving the woman of her responsibility. In fact, your frame ignores the women who pursue the pastor. He can be aloof and that simply spins their hamster into overdrive. The power dynamics are such that for the pastor to hit on the women, he places his career and family on the line, but the women risk nothing and they can always scream RAPE if it doesn’t work out.
Dr. Barnhouse complained about this (keep in mind this was in the 50’s) that after the sermon, certain women, on gushing about how wonderful his sermon was would stand close, take his hand and press it to their breast as they gazed lovingly into his eyes. At the door of the church in front of everyone.
Typical, another femcunt projecting…
The problem with your projection is that it is you who are using Christianity as a weapon against men, your type continuously don’t follow the Bible. None said you need to submit to them here, they have only told you that you are not to teach men.. anything.
Away with you, jezebel whore!
“The problem with your projection is that it is you who are using Christianity as a weapon against men…”
Not at all. Men who truly follow Christ are often happy men who know their worth because they can see Christ reflected in themselves. It’s also a lovely position of great strength and power. Those who walk outside of that relationship are forced to flail about, shooting their venom at any available target.
Lol, how would you know, are you a man? Are you telepathic? Or do you really think you have the right to determine was is great strength and power. Let me guess, your subjective view is all the is required to deem whether something is good or bad, whether it feels good or not.
My guess is that your view of your husband would change the second he can’t tingle you anymore; and suddenly he would magically become abusive, evil, controlling and all the rest of it. Your despicable type pervade just about every Church in the Western world, you really think your vagina gives you the authority to come here and tell us that we are small minded men.
Following Christ is not an easy path, it is not always happy and it is filled with treachery, false accusations and jezebels, like yourself.
It would seem that men who follow Christ should be easy to pick out for women, from the description you give, why do they keep falling for jerks then? Care to explain, o’ gifted one!
@insanitybytes22
The problem with your position is you’re claiming that the man has to pre-qualify as a super-Christian in order for you to submit to him, and you make the claim that the man who reflects Christ is one that you want to submit to. This is a completely unbiblical position.
Wives are to submit to their husband because God told them to. Period. No other answer. You also conveniently forget about the curse of Genesis 3:16. Women WILL rebel. They will be discontent, unhappy, bored and just plain bat-shit crazy. Yet, the husband is supposed to love them anyway. Rev. 3:19 is one example of how a husband is to love a rebellious, sinful wife. Of course, you gals and your white knights got laws passed to prevent a husband from following the clear guidance of Scripture, but you don’t mention that kind of stuff.
AT, did you miss the part about how the Alabama pastor contracted HIV a few years back, and then developed AIDS, but still continued to have sex with women in the congregation?
Do you see any problem with his behavior?
TFH
At this point, the femtroll is just arguing to receive gina tingles.
To argue with her is to reward her.
Not quite correct – GG / realitybytes / yttik is all about the attention from men from the start.
So “at this point” is the first posting. Although rebuilding the mound is also important.
A whole lot of the people who claim to be Christians do not even understand what the term means. A Christian is someone who patterns their lives after Christ and His words. You cannot reject a clear, unequivocal statement from the Scriptures, and claim to be a follower of Christ. You are not.
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Luke 6:46
“The problem with your position is you’re claiming that the man has to pre-qualify as a super-Christian in order for you to submit to him..”
I’ve never stated that. You’re projecting again. However, unless you can produce a marriage license, I’m pretty sure I don’t have to submit to you anyway, so your point is completely mute.
Moderators Note: No need to argue further with realitybytes. For those who find themselves wishing for more from her, feel free to click on the link to her blog.
“Let me state the obvious here. I’m not married to any of you. I am only required to submit to Christ and to my husband, both of which I do quite willingly, with much pleasure and joy.”
Then go submit to him and let the men continue talking.
What an interesting interlude that was. A fairly good object study of a certain argumentation style: constant reframing. Pretty much incessant reframing in every post. Fascinating, really.
I would say that, having taken a gander at her blog before Dalrock’s moderator’s post (which was a good idea, by the way), she appears to be a semi-reformed leftist who appears to have taken a lot of the baggage from those days with her (perhaps because they seem to have only been a few years ago, from what I could discern based on her writings). Her vision of Christianity is reflected in that of many of the mainline churches: acceptance-based Christianity, non-judgmentalism coupled with a denigration of actual traditional Christians as pharisees. It’s an old, shopworn script, of course, but the interesting thing was watching the posts, one after the other, try to reframe what was being discussed here as that issue of progressive Christianity vs. “pharasaical traditional Christianity”, with a dash of side-splitting-hilarious irony in her deployment of the same rhetorical weaponry she ostensibly came here to critique.
A “troll(ette) in full” indeed!
An interesting article: http://evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2014/10/yes-demons-do-exist.html
A sexually transmitted pathogen can also increase its chances of transmission by disrupting mate guarding. This is the tendency of one mate, usually the male, to keep watch over the other mate. If mate guarding can be disabled or, better yet, reversed, the pathogen can spread more easily to other hosts. This kind of host manipulation has been shown in a non-human species (Mormann, 2010).
Do we see reversal of mate guarding in humans? Yes, it’s called cuckold envy—the desire to see another man have sex with your wife—and it’s become a common fetish. Yet it seems relatively recent. Greco-Roman texts don’t mention it, despite abundant references to other forms of alternate sexual behavior, e.g., pedophilia, cunnilingus, fellatio, bestiality, etc. The earliest mentions appear in 17th century England (Kuchar, 2011, pp. 18-19). This was when England was opening up to world trade and, in particular, to the West African slave trade.
Sub-Saharan Africa has been especially conducive to sexually transmitted pathogens evolving a capacity for host manipulation. Polygyny rates are high, in the range of 20 to 40% of all adult males, and the polygynous male is typically an older man who cannot sexually satisfy all of his wives. There is thus an inevitable tendency toward multi-partner sex by both men and women, which sexually transmitted pathogens can exploit … and manipulate.
insanitybytes22:
“Shaming women has never caused them to repent, only the love of Christ does that. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
Like most nonChristians, (and some Christians), insanitybytes22 has a distorted concept of the love of Christ. It is unloving NOT to help make a person aware of their sin, and if that involves shaming, so be it. The love of Christ points out sin, trying to help the person see their sin, so they can rectify the error of their ways. The distorted view of the love of Christ says that Christ’s love is a licence to continue in sin: WRONG!
MarcusD, a very interesting link, indeed. She failed to note that a significant percentage of chlamydia cases, around 40% if I remember right, are asymptomatic. So there’s no way for a woman to know she’s infected without medical testing. I did not know about the actual mechanism by which chlamydia affects female fertility, that part is remarkable.
The late-Empire Romans had contact with Africa south of the Sahara, Persia, and even India & China. I wonder what STD/STI’s were common in the last two centuries of the Empire? Did they induce sterility?
@AR
AT, did you miss the part about how the Alabama pastor contracted HIV a few years back, and then developed AIDS, but still continued to have sex with women in the congregation?
Do you see any problem with his behavior?
Sure, I see problems. Lots of them, on his part and the women’s part as well. It’s all sin. However, the point I was making was that modern churchianity is at war with masculinity and in such an environment of force-feeding the men a total blue-pill attitude, the pastor becomes the (situational, at least) alpha. He doesn’t have to hit on the women, they hit on him. There is a subtle cause and effect at work here.
AT
the point I was making was that modern churchianity is at war with masculinity and in such an environment of force-feeding the men a total blue-pill attitude, the pastor becomes the (situational, at least) alpha.
I understand that point not only in theory but in observed fact. However, there’s really only two ways to pick up HIV now, either sharing needles with infected people or certain forms of sex with other men. Female to male HIV is reallly not that common. Situational alpha? Or player?
He doesn’t have to hit on the women, they hit on him. There is a subtle cause and effect at work here.
I got that part. It’s just that in this case, there are more facts that you have neglected to discuss.
Feminist Hater – I think she struck a nerve in you. As I said above, there was a semi-legitimate argument she raised, which could appropriately and rightly be countered via consideration and shrewd, factual rebuttal. She lashed out with ‘small minded men who view Christianity as nothing but a weapon to be used against women, is whole other matter’. When you descend to the gutter with ‘femcunt’, you’re just one-upping her ‘small minded men’ ad hominem. I come from a non-Christian perspective, but I think that irrespective of religious/non-religious framework – if you put women in a catch-22, your message and the effectiveness of that message and the legitimacy of that message is compromised. It is better to give women a path forward as to what you want to see in them, i.e. don’t make it impossible for them and reward honesty and integrity in them if/when you see it. Now – Insanitybytes came out of the gates in this comment thread slinging barbs. But, it is wiser to see if there is a nugget of truth in her kvetching and at least meet that point with (deserved) acknowledgement so that your argument thereafter is more effective. Upping the ante with visceral name-calling is what divorcing couples do, and it’s a waste of time.
Artisanal Toad – I disagree. All of us here are well acquainted with AFBB and hypergamy. Obviously, the base tendency of female congregants will be to pursue the lure of the Alpha pastor if the husband beside her in the pews every week, looking up at said Alpha pastor, is a weak man himself. The pastor himself must be aware of this dynamic, otherwise he is blind as a bat to human (and female) nature and unfit to lead a congregation. He had better not take advantage of that situation, or he is a charlatan who is contributing to the destruction of that marriage. Obviously if that married woman throws herself at him, he will be tempted – but it’s on him to deal with it (which may include going public with it even in the face of feminist Churchian bias against him from the outset in such matters). This all changes nothing with respect to the buck stopping with the pastor. The pastor has a higher degree of accountability in any extra-marital activity that may occur. Period.
Deti and Eidolon – “There does seem to be a sort of thing in people’s minds whereby they take “what I did was really bad, but at least it wasn’t the worst thing I could do” and remove the first part. So she goes from “at least I didn’t abort my child” to “I didn’t abort my child — I’m better than those people over there. If I can point to anyone who handled my situation worse than I did then I feel vindicated in having done it the way I did.”’
That is the winning argument which, if it inspires shame, is on solid ground regardless. So any shame it might inspire is merited and effective in either persuading or at least leaving said recipient mulling over, with gnawing dis-ease, the deservedness of it.
“The pastor himself must be aware of this dynamic, otherwise he is blind as a bat to human (and female) nature and unfit to lead a congregation.”
Or in the case of Catholic priest…this decision is made for them. Which given women’s nature I now see the reason behind the celibacy vow.
@AR
In response to your last comment to me, I think it is instructive to google “Juan Demetrius McFarland” and observe the photo. I believe it’s been discussed here before on the differences between STD infection rates when comparing whites to blacks. There is also noticeable difference in behavior. Several years ago I spoke to the pastor and a couple of deacons at a black inner-city church in Birmingham. I visited the church and received lots of hostile looks, but noticed that somewhere around 7 out of 10 attendees were women. The men told me one of the problems they faced was a man with a steady job had a non-stop stream of women wanting to go on the roster in hopes of landing a place where she’d be taken care of. They don’t care if the man is married or not. From experience I can tell you that Montgomery Alabama is not a nice place and the wives of the married men know that at any given time there are at least a dozen women that would like to take their place.
I don’t know if it’s been discussed on this blog, but over at the Chatteau, it has been repeatedly pointed out that if a woman is attracted enough, anything is on the table. You stated that the only two ways to pick up HIV now is either sharing needles or certain forms of sex with other men. You said that female to male HIV transmission is not really that common.
I will agree with the female to male HIV transmission rate being low, but that’s because PIV sex is the vast majority of sex. Anal, OTOH, ruptures delicate tissue in the rectum and causes bleeding, which greatly exacerbates the possibility of the transmission of HIV. Again, if she’s attracted enough, she’ll cheerfully offer any and every orifice of her body. She may even want him to go in the back door because she doesn’t want to get pregnant.
We also don’t know if he was down low either. He could be. You are correct, in that there are certain facts I didn’t mention, but I was trying to keep it simple and on point. Unless you’ve been in some of these churches, you have no clue. If you spend some time in the ‘hood, you quickly realize why just about any black with motivation and ability gets the hell out of there as fast as they can and never returns. You want real opinions and information on what really happens in the hood? Talk to the old men and the old women, who rarely go out, but keep their eyes open. They can see and hear, and they talk.
Dear Marcus:
Interesting article. There are more convincing reasons to be cautious, than possible subtle changes in behavior.
Ladies and gentlemen, playas and ho’s: Allow me to introduce, The Gonorrhea Superbug!
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/super-gonorrhea-drug-resistant-bugs-deemed-urgent-threat-cdc-article-1.1458729
Reblogged this on Honor Dads and commented:
Praising single parents from the pulpit is a little like giving 5 stars to a McDonald’s Happy Meal. It’s food, for sure. But God’s plan for kids is a 5 course gourmet meal.
Earl – fair enough, but just because (and we agree) women’s base nature is decrepit and horrid doesn’t give men a pass from our decrepit and horrid base nature. Case in point: when some terrible driver in a giant new SUV cuts me off in traffic, and my first thought it ‘if i had a gun, and could get away with it, I’d shoot their windows out’ – that is a troubling, dark inclination and in my calmer moments it is clear that this kind of destructive base impulse is unjustifiable.
We have to hold ourselves accountable, even in this modern-day feminist wasteland – and only then can our anti-feminist words and deeds carry weight and pass muster. But I am getting off-topic now and so I rest my case there.
There’s a catch in Christianity when it comes to men and authority. “He who is NOT under authority, has no authority.” If married Christian women can’t see Christ in you, then it’s pretty doubtful he’s even there.
There it is. I guess we know who’s the boss in GG’s marriage.
Insanity – who decides when the husband is following Christ?
Insanity – who decides when the husband is following Christ?
I guess that will be the same person who decides when the husband is loving enough to make the wife feel loved.
Why would you not trust that Christ reflected in you would be enough to make a woman truly desire to submit?
oy vey! I would not presume the woman would submit in your example because God gave women the ability to choose right from wrong just as he gave men. More likely than not she would find some “flaw” in her husbands behavior and that would be used to rebel.
Do you not see that your statement implies that women will naturally submit when the man is properly reflecting Christ. Which in turn implies that when a woman does not submit it’s because the man isn’t right with God. Which means that when a woman is rebellious, it must be the man’s fault.
GG/insanity – you are a feminist. Go make your husband a sammich.
If a feminist “wife” doesn’t “see Christ reflected in her husband”, one likely explanation is that her ability to perceive is seriously flawed. (Time either for glasses or an exorcism for an infection of feminism. Latter could start by deleting her Facebook, ending the Vogue/Cosmopolitan/M.S. magazine subscriptions, throwing out all the romance novels and pants, and cutting off the Lifetime channels/channels that carry Oprah on the cable.) That, or perhaps her wedding was invalid, and her would-have-been husband needs to drop her off at a nunnery. After all, he’ll raise the kids better than she would have, odds are.
Two retorts here:
1) re feminism not arising out of a vacuum: Agreed. Western women became spoiled by the ease Western men created for them, and became greedy for the whole pie, so to speak. Feminism is a subbranch of socialism, yet another something-for-nothing/live by someone else’s efforts scheme. As an example of this, consider how women have reduced the value of marrriage (bring less looks/fertility, are less pleasant, fewer domestic skills or work done) and raised its price/odds of it breaking (frivorce + divorce court rape for innocent husbands). Annnndd, the demand for it by men went down. What a surprise…
2) Re men who have sex consented to the chance of conception inherent in the act: do tell me just what the chance of conception in a relationship consisting solely of oral sex was. How that would be anything but 0.000000, I’d love to hear explained.
Dalrock,
I just posted over on her blog. There is nothing profane or insulting about my post but I seriously doubt she will ever let it (or me) out of moderation. Maybe she’ll surprise me?
She came here to drive traffic and stir up controversy. It gives her a needed shot of sympathy and attention among the cruxtoid social justice femdom crowd. She’ll probably approve your post, just so that she can show all her pretend friends on the internet how “persecuted” she is.
This is why I don’t argue with these types when they come here. They have nothing to teach me, and are usually here to satisfy some masochistic need for abuse, rather than to have an honest argument or debate the issues.
Boxer
@Dalrock
Nice Post.
“”There is no sin, only circumstances that life hands you. “”
This does seem to be the mindset.
Dalrock, when you give commenters like @insanitybytes free rein, the result is always the same: the commenter leaves a trail of puke in the comments, and your community wastes a lot of time responding.
You’re free to run your blog as you choose, of course, but given that nobody seems to benefit when this happens, I can’t help wondering what your reasoning is.
(If you’ve already explained yourself in another post, please point me to it.)
Steve H.,
Why don’t you have a gun?
In my experience, two wonderful benefits about taking firearm ownership, and daily carry, seriously are: (a) learning to depend on yourself instead of “the government” for your immediate self-protection, and (b) an immediate end to the sort of fantasy you describe here.
Splashman,
While Dalrock can (and no doubt will) respond for yourself, I’d point out that some of this (especially the self-revealing of the feministae) is very instructive for the lurkers, who be definition you can’t know if they’ve been quietly reading for a decade, or if they just arrived here for the first time yesterday.
Gack, my kingdom for and edit function!
OF COURSE I meant to write “Dalrock can … respond for HIMself”.
Another one bites the dust… (relationship advice from CAF)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=914345
Happiness in Marriage
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=914328
Which encyclical speaks of Couseling/Mental Health
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=914393
Luke,
> Lastly: if a man’s children aren’t “his”, who the heck should they belong to?
No one. Both the man and woman are responsible for a new life being brought into the earth. The man is not free of guilt either, something that can be forgotten.
That child has been cheated out of having two connected parents, but the selfishness of both.
Neither can ever be a hero in that situation, no matter what Stanton or even those on the other side say. A child should have both parents.
I do not feel a woman has the right to hook a man into lifetime child support, but we know what causes pregnancy and the only way a woman could get that without sex happening is by being around after a nocturnal emission, something I find VERY unlikely if he is keeping himself pure.
Foolish behavior by women doesn’t justify foolish behavior by men. It is more effective to confront the former, but we should not wink at the latter either.
@KP, if that is Dalrock’s reasoning, IMO it’s a high price to pay (hijacking & degeneration of discussion) for uncertain benefit. But it seems I’m an outlier, as I don’t enjoy casting pearls before swine (or watching others do so).
“These single mothers are trying to work out their salvation with fear and trembling”
Oh lawks! My aching sides …
.. a new approved hamsterlation of “pay up, all you dozens of random unknown beta losers (and your families), fetch my tenured-for-life rent-controlled apartment, and you can kiss my ass while you’re about it”, possibly?
I support Dalrock’s decision to let virtually everybody post here. Sometimes, you just have to let a foolish idea die fight for relevance in the arena of wholesome ideas, so that it can eventually die a natural death without it being moderated before it sees the light of day. And, who knows, the purveyors of such ideas might learn a thing or two in the death throes of their ideas.
Moreover, too much moderation makes this site look similar to the ones out there where you can’t get anything through, no matter how factual your arguments.
If anyone thinks an idea is not worth replying to, simply ignore it. This will only hasten its natural demise.
@Splashman Examples are always useful for those new to all of this. Especially since it illustrates what we’ve been talking about. I know I love encountering these confirmational characters. GC/InsanityBytes is exceedingly feminist. Another good illustration of what I mentioned: It’s not the TIA feminists you need to worry about. It’s the one’s denying that they are feminist while living feminism that you have to be able to pick out and worry about (since most seem to not). Insanitybytes is a perfect example of the common feminism we have today.
Case in point:
The Deification of Wives
Her phrases “Christ reflected in you would be enough to make a woman truly desire to submit”, “shame separates [women] from Christ” (remember with women, it’s all about self-esteem), “he who is not under authority has no authority”, and “Men who truly follow Christ are often happy men who know their worth because they can see Christ reflected in themselves.” are best understood in this light.
In her world, A man who “reflects Christ” and “truly follows Christ” is one that wholly and functionally submits to his wife. For she is the one that decides whether she gets to submit or not based on whatever these things mean – usually translated into whether or not he is making her feel loved as her Personal Jesus makes her feel loved.
“who view Christianity as nothing but a weapon to be used against women” clinches her as a staunch feminist.
A question for those who understand cause and effect: Would not children, marriage, families, and society immensely benefit by the elimination of child support and by the restoration of default paternal custody?
I don’t mind if a man or woman comes in with their brand of worshiping the female type Christianity. I think it should inflame the men to preach the truth about it.
If a person truly reflects or follows Christ…they follow the teachings. Remember…St. Paul who is told is ” a slave to Christ” (Romans 1:1)…has more than enough mentions of how a woman is supposed to act in accordance to her husband. It is her job to submit to her husband to become fitting to the Lord…and the husband’s job to love their wife…no exceptions or loopholes. Wives if you want a Christlike man…you play an active role in attaining it.
“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.”
Colossians 3: 18-19
Dear Earl:
You’re assuming that these people come in ready to argue, intellectually. “I disagree with you, and here’s why my interpretation of the text is better/more accurate/more sensible”.
If that actually happened, I’d find it really interesting. Unfortunately, that’s never what femdom cruxtoid-insanity is ever really about. It’s always something else. “I’m mentally ill, and very lonely, and I want to cause some trouble and get some cheap attention, so here’s why you’re all a bunch of idiots/misogynists/assholes”.
The first scenario is always worthwhile. Even if the position is obviously kooky, you can at least sharpen your own wits by entertaining it. The second is always worthless. You never learn anything from people who start fights anonymously for no reason.
Best, Boxer
“Tell us Marge, do you consent to being in a car crash every time you sit in a car and having the accident deemed YOUR FAULT AND YOUR FAULT ALONE, automatically, and in every instance?”
FIFY.
GG/insanity – you are a feminist. Go make your husband a sammich.
Again prompting the inevitable rhetorical question: would YOU eat anything prepared by the likes of GG?
Concrete is more appetizing (and safer) by comparison. I also seriously doubt that GG could even identify the components of a sammich, much less put them together in any form resembling something edible.
Margaret59, if you are reading these comments and still think that , then here are two examples to the contrary, one potential (although the probability of conception would be excessively small) and one factual. As long as women engaging in such practices are doing it with impunity, the idea of MGTOW will be gaining popularity.
^
“… will gain…”
Grammar fail.
I think the idea of MGTOW has already reached a tipping point, and the younger folks, particularly the women, know it, and are panicking.
Splashman,
Over at Althouse, a group of the saner commenters had an informal “once-per-thread” rule regarding one of the notorious bloviators. We wanted there to be some response to this guy’s nasty comments, lest silence be interpreted as approval (or heck, even indifference) by newcomers, but we didn’t want to pile on and let the thread get hijacked. One of the tactics that made it work was to ALWAYS refresh immediately before replying to the bad guy, that way you have more chance of seeing of someone else already beat you to it.
The protocol seemed to work pretty well; maybe Dalrock might suggest something similar here.
feeriker (@ 12:28pm),
Female detractor to Winston Churchill: Sir, if you were my husband, I’d put poison in your tea!
Churchill: Madam, if I were your husband, I’D DRINK IT!
@dhurka
“”Women like Margaret do more to create MGTOW than men ever could.””
^^^5’s
Interesting article. There are more convincing reasons to be cautious, than possible subtle changes in behavior.
Some of the behaviours are subtle, others not so much. Either way, that STDs can lead to changes in behaviours makes the avoidance of N>0 in a woman that much more important. It really is amazing.
Besides that, I expect a lot of STDs (that is, bacterial ones) to become antibiotic-resistant. At about the same time, the feminist movement will be in its 4th wave/neo-Victorian stage, and we’ll be right back to the 1880s (sort of).
Interesting: http://karquigley.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/23-reasons-why-being-married-by-21-was-the-best-decision-i-ever-made-a-response/
@margaret59
“If the father of this child chose to abandon her and the child, then he is a jackass. This does not make her a saint”
I think what needs to be discussed her is that the father didn’t abandon her and the child, he chose not to use her pregnancy as a cause to abandon his wife and other children. She was a young beautiful actress who seduced a very wealthy married man. Yes, he is at fault as well for giving into temptation. But, by all accounts, she has been very well taken care of financially by the man and his very very very wealthy father.
What makes her cheerleading for single motherhood so galling is that 99.9999% of other single mothers will not have these resources available to them. This woman was mildly wealthy by virtue of her own acting career, and now also has use of tremendous resources from the child’s father. So, yeah, it’s working ok (for now). But it’s incredibly irresponsible for her to talk about what a blessing her pregnancy was when other single mothers will not have that life of luxury while they do it.
When I was younger many females of all classes married at nineteen, indeed they were pressuring their boyfriends to marry. For some reason they also divorced – at twenty.
there are many women out there who lived sinful lives
And I am *very* thankful for them, as I know they will do it again, and again. And today almost ALL women are like that and defend their actions – even if they haven’t been caught. I enjoy “sluts” and the “good Christian women” that lie to themselves that they have never “cheated” because it was just that once when her husband was away, and sure she ended up pregnant but her husband doesn’t know so it’s “God’s” will…
I adore female logic which defends women and their slutty actions, since it just means that I’ll be enjoying them for many more years to come… Thank you ladies… I literally couldn’t have done it without you… And I know that I can depend on you to serve me your daughters… Delicious little morsels that they are…
margaret59 says:
October 11, 2014 at 1:21 am
>>A child. The first consideration, even in a through c, should be the best interest of that child.
Hogwash. This is a feminist lie. All decisions should include the best interest of all involved parties. Note that overall the people who claim this also claim a woman has the right to terminate the life of a helpless child which is not in the best interest of that child.
This putting the child before everyone actually makes all children super humans with divine rights. Why give rights to a child who will grow up to be a man who has no rights at all, ever? Stupid is too weak a word.
As tempting as this mantra of the best interest of the child above all else is, it actually makes no sense.
margaret59 says:
October 11, 2014 at 1:56 am
Well, here is one person, me, who does believe most doctors are idiots. The USA is the second most obese nation in the world, mostly by listening to the recommendations of doctors.
I know Just Saying comment is morally objectional to most men here but it is still funny.
“A child. The first consideration, even in a through c, should be the best interest of that child.”
The most unspeakable evil is done in “the best interests of the child” it is used to void the rights of men and women daily.
Anyone that uses that phrase should be shot. Hitler and Stalin used “for the children” to justify atrocities. People will do anything for “the children”
Any one that uses that term is evil, demonic
http://globalnews.ca/news/1608122/the-story-behind-thea-the-12-year-old-child-bride-from-norway/
However, the outrageous story of Thea the 12-year-old child bride is thankfully not real. It is a marketing stunt from children’s development charity Plan International, aimed at raising awareness to the 39,000 children around the world who are forced into marriage daily.
The blog includes posts from children who were married off before turning 18, including Latifa a 15-year-old from Tanzania.
I wonder how these people differentiate between surprising cohabitors with marriage and the above. I guess for them, forcing a couple into marriage is okay.
“…it became increasingly evident that my journey as a mother was to be a singular event…”
BS alert – uses a seven-dollar word she doesn’t know the meaning of (“singular”).
Seems pedantic, but after a while you pick up on these tells from people who aren’t quite as smart as they think they are.
Can’t make this stuff up: https://twitter.com/Salon/status/521436413439782912
Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.
It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.
Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.
Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.
— Bishop Fulton Sheen
Novaseeker says:
October 11, 2014 at 8:27 am
Threadwinner, right here.
What a shame. I watched every episode of Northern Exposure, some of them twice, mainly for the pleasure of gazing at the gorgeous face of Janine Turner. What killer eyes. She should have married some guy and passed those genes on to a dozen kids. Instead, she made one quirky TV show and has spent the 20 years since living off the residual fame, accidentally squeezing out only one daughter whom she’s raising out of wedlock, so most likely setting her up for her own relationship screwups. What a waste.
Cail,
Yes, she is truly beautiful. And she has also aged very well.
Yes a shame that she never married. I didn’t know she was engaged to Alec Baldwin!
Tragic that their engagement was cancelled so close to their wedding day…I shudder to think what may have happened…
ballista74 says:
October 12, 2014 at 6:45 am
“The solution is not putting Christ as the head of the marriage, but putting her Personal Jesus (her) as the head of the marriage. In effect, the wife is to supplant the role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian man’s life.”
The puzzling part is why this arrangement works. I found that trying to supplant God was way too exhausting, and also impossible.
Deception and willful rebellion are what causes people to enter into that arrangement. Idolatry, as illustrated throughout the Scriptures, is exceedingly easy to dive into and hard for people to repent of. But as you say, the arrangement really does not work, as all sin that is sowed reaps its just fruit. The evidence of such things are all around us, documented well on Dalrock’s blog, my own, and many others. Such things will only build until repentance is done or the Lord tires of being merciful and deals with it.
Artisanal Toad says:
October 11, 2014 at 3:36 pm
@Eidolon
Look, if your pastor asks you to have sex with him outside of marriage, don’t do it, and report his actions to the leadership of your church. If they don’t act, then leave and report him to the higher-ups of the denomination.
“Take a look at what you just said. The implication (considering that women in the congregation were having sex with the pastor) is that the MAN is at fault.”
I maybe the only guy that peruses Dalrock’s site that has been through this pastor/wife issue. From my my view, the pastor is always at fault (man or woman).
All I can say is what I said to him. The church is “we are all members of the one body.”
I told him, “You can’t minister to me, how can you minster to any member of the body.”
Publicly resigned the next Sunday.
I don’t know if you have heard of the Village’s newest sermon series (a church you probably know about since you are in DFW), but I would love to know your thoughts and how you feel that pastor compares to Driscoll.
More generally, “modern people” I know sometimes rail against calling a spade a spade, and think that disapproval of a thing weighs down a person and is a sum negative on that person’s life. A person does not make a bad choice to, for example, divorce – divorce is a thing that happens and strengthens your life from hardship. It’s nothing but projection and blame-dodging.
I will only marry a young virgin. I offer no forgiveness for woman’s sins.
Oh Darlock not again! I just cant stop reading your blog entries. It’s like trying to look away from a bad car accident but you just can’t tear your eyes away! You are a successful worker for the system of Anti-christ. You are making Christianity look as bad as they want it to. Are you a Freemason or perhaps a high priest for the Illuminati? How much money do you have because it sounds to me like you made a contract with the Devil to be a covert operator! You will lead so many astray in the name of God while you spew your false version of Christianity. Even worse you live in Texas. The combination of your hate gospel combine with your address will be enough to set the left on fire. Why oh why would you chose to be a detriment to Christianity and an enemy of God. In Your “About” post all you said about your wife is that she is “sexy”. That is worldly terminology! Boaz loved Ruth for her virtue not her “hotness.” You are highly suspect to me! You never tackle the tough questions, you skip to whatever points you want to make an forget about the rest! The writer that took you to task for bashing this book also asked you if you thought some of these women were sorry for their choices and if you thought they may have repented and be saved. You didn’t even address that!
I guess God doesn’t take care of “fools and babies” no more,
God now takes care of “Single mothers and Fatherless Children.”
The Modern Church is the biggest Farce their is!
Read my writing at: http://www.lulu.com/content/e-book/the-myth-of-the-one-woman-man-the-god-honest-truth-about-monogamy-and-polygamy/15335157
I am a woman myself and totally on board with most of what is being said here. Very often, people deliberately don’t mention much less emphasize repentance. People often like to quote Jesus and demonstrate his compassion but they forget that he really was here to save us – from what? From SIN. Sin has to openly pointed out and condemned. People who have repented from their past sins will not feel offended because they were humbled in the past and some who still don’t admit of their sins must be humbled.