Following The only real man in the room I’ve been trying to track down replacements for the Pastor Driscoll sermons which are disappearing from the web. I finally found a replacement video and two transcripts for the sermon I quoted at the top of Fragging Christian Headship. That sermon is the second part of a two part series on men, women, and marriage.
In the end of Part 1, Women and Marriage, Driscoll chastises Christian men who desire a wife who doesn’t come ready made with another man’s child, explaining that God may not wish this. He also explains that today’s unwed mothers (and I presume divorcées) are what Paul had in mind when he discussed “widows” (emphasis mine):
I’ll say one more thing, and that is for those of you men who are single, don’t overlook single moms. Don’t overlook single moms. Paul talks about this at the end of Timothy, where he talks about there are some godly single moms, he calls them widows, who should not be overlooked. But some men are looking for sort of a particular script they have written out. They want a woman just to show up, who meets the criteria and can read the lines. That’s not what God might have for you. Don’t overlook the single moms, and don’t overlook the opportunity to do what Joseph did for Jesus and that is to adopt a child that is not your biological child, and to raise them lovingly as Joseph did for the Lord Jesus. And so, this is a huge part of our theology as well and I would exhort the men not to overlook the single moms.
This confirms that Driscoll wasn’t just drunk tweeting when he made the same basic statement over twitter. To Driscoll, there is a serious problem with Christian men having the unrealistic, and even unChristian expectation that their Christian bride won’t come with another man’s children.
See Also: Newspeak: scrubbing the English language.
Moderator’s Note: A small minority of commenters have recently used any and every opportunity to take the discussion off topic by inciting Catholic/Protestant division. Since this post indirectly references Mary I imagine the temptation to incite division will be higher than usual. If you are part of this small minority, please understand that all but the most uninformed Catholics and Protestants already know that there are differences of belief regarding Mary, and resist the compulsion to announce that you personally disagree with either side.
Also, I’ll probably have a few more short posts and perhaps one longer post this week from the Driscoll content I’ve read while searching for replacement versions of removed sermons. If I do a longer post it will probably be over the weekend.
Pingback: Don’t overlook single mothers. | Manosphere.com
I don’t even want kids of my own, nevermind anyone else’s. Subsequently, back when I was still searching for a mate, there was an abundance of single moms on dating sites.
In Washington, guys who date single moms get the benefit of becoming liable for child support payments for another guy’s kids – wow, sign me up for that! LOL
Pingback: Don’t overlook single mothers. | Neoreactive
This is one where I’ve been so thoroughly indoctrinated in blue pill thinking for so long, that it’s hard even today to fully believe it’s a godly thing for me to pursue the highest value, highest quality woman for marriage. It’s like there’s something dirty about wanting to find someone younger, very attractive, chaste, serious about faith, etc. That somehow I’m judging by worldly standards and not godly ones by valuing things like looks. It’s a lifetime of feminine primary conditioning, including teaching like this, that produces it.
The easiest way for me to see the ridiculousness of this is simply to flip the script: would I ever believe it was wrong for a woman to seek out the highest value husband in every sense of the word? No. Would I ever encourage women to seek out damaged goods and overlook every flaw in order to try to redeem his life? No.
As with all Marxists constructs, simply inverting the roles exposes the fallacy of the argument. But it still takes a while to internalize the right frame.
Don’t overlook single mothers?
William Allen Jordan agrees:
http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/girls-who-called-william-allen-jordan-dad-speak-out-n293301
Is Driscoll suggesting that all those single mothers were miraculously impregnated by God, or that Mary was not? Either way it’s blasphemy, regardless of where you stand on the p/c divide.
Dalrock,
The only single mom I ever “dated” was back in 1994 and I was stupid and desperate. She just wanted to go with me because I scored some $100 Elton John-Billy Joel concert tickets. It occurred to me (after us going to the concert) that…. ewwww, I don’t want this. She’s nuts. Her son was rarely over her place (because he lived with his grandparents so mom could continue to share an appartment with her girl friends and have “fun”), she was working some bullsh-t office job and taking “non-acredited-courses” at some women’s college (for what reason, I have no idea), and her friends threw her a bon-voyage-to-your-twenties party on her thirtieth. Looking back now at what she was then, she was so self-centered. Thank God it didn’t workout.
When I started doing the “on-line-dating” back in 1999, I would say the majority of the pickings I had to choose from were either fat women, single-moms, or a combination of both. If the site didn’t winnow down the women who didn’t already have children, then I just started to assume that if she put her profile on-line, she was already a mother. And when it got around to exchaning emails, it was always the same thing: a digital smile, a digital wink, and a catchy phrase like “…well I’ve already got the kid(s), call it a package deal, a pre-made family!” as if that was some selling point. Needless to say, I never actually dated any these single moms.
I think Driscoll’s problem here is he is automatically assuming the WORST about the men who would care to listen to him sermonize. Basically, by trying to shame men in manning-up an marrying a single mom, he automatically assumes that if you ARE a single man and you aren’t already married, there MUST be SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU and what you should do to fix this problem of yours is to take on the financial burden of supporting a single mom and all her bastard children and just shut the hell up about it. Be grateful. Be thankful you have ANY woman who would consent to maybe having married s-x with you every once in a while in exchange for you working your @ss off to support her. You have sinned too much so you haven’t earned a pretty, thin, virginal wife.
“Young women of the church. Pure, chaste, single. Don’t overlook the middle-aged divorcé. Seriously, don’t overlook them. He may be poor, he may be an embittered, emotional wreck with an alcohol problem. He may have saggy, grey balls and a protruding gut. He may spend his weekends taking his brats out to a McDonalds and crying when their Mom picks them up at 5pm. Maybe he cheated on her, maybe she cheated on him. Maybe he didn’t make her happy. But ladies, seriously: don’t overlook that prime spouse material.”
Men marry virgins and bang sluts. That is the natural course of things that this pastor doesn’t seem to grasp.
“ don’t overlook the opportunity to do what Joseph did for Jesus and that is to adopt a child that is not your biological child, and to raise them lovingly as Joseph did for the Lord Jesus. And so, this is a huge part of our theology as well and I would exhort the men not to overlook the single moms.”
This is all part of the false theology of the North American Christian church. This false theology holds that men’s only legitimate purposes are as husbands to women, and as fathers to children. So if you’re not a husband and/or a father, you have no legitimate purpose and you’re wasting your life. If there are no young single childless women, or if you cannot attract a young single childless woman, then it’s your duty, your solemn obligation, to offer yourself up as a “living sacrifice” to a baby mama. You have a duty to marry that woman and give her status and respectability. You have a duty to support her and her (not your, HER) child with your money and your labor.
She, on the other hand, has no concomitant obligations to you. She has no duty to submit to you as head of the house; no duty to respect you; no duty even to be kind and good to you. And the child has no duty to obey you. You are not its father, a fact that the child and its mother will remind you of every day. . You are not to expect obedience or impose discipline on the child. You have no right to those things. You have no rights; you only have duties: to get the money and finance the lifestyles of your new “wife” and “child”.
And if you’re not doing any of this, if you balk at this, then you, single man, need to check the “condition of your heart”. If you don’t want to offer yourself up to an unattractive single mom with a child who isn’t yours, then you might not really be a Christian. Because if you were a Christian man, if you really loved God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, you’d do this. You’d jump at the chance to serve God and marry one of these women. But since you’re not actively seeking one of these needy, worthy baby mamas, you’re not really a Christian and you don’t really love Jesus.
Is Driscoll suggesting that all those single mothers were miraculously impregnated by God, or that Mary was not? Either way it’s blasphemy, regardless of where you stand on the p/c divide.
This is precisely the interpretave error he is making. I also don’t get the feeling it is an accident.
To leap from the idea that Joseph married a “single mom” to this notion that single men are commanded to marry single moms in church is actually heresy. (Or that “widow” doesn’t actually mean “woman whos husband died.”)
It is very poor exegesis and he knows it. He is not stupid.
bonobo: PERFECT!
You know, more and more, I DON’T think these words were intended to be read by single men at sites like this. It is not meant for sincere beta men of the manosphere. Discoll is not taling to any man in the manospehre with these words. I really believe these words were intended for thuggish-@sshole-AMOGs who have notch-counts of their own already in the 50s, have been in and out of prison, and who now (suddenly) discovered Christ and were redeemed. These words are for the men physically attractive enough to get a woman (any woman) to want to f-ck him, but not necessarily marry him. I think Discoll gets it that the single moms really need to lower the bar way down to get ANY husband and financial provisioning, Driscoll is just trying to get these two parties…. together.
Yes, his words are for men who have lived a life filled with serious trouble, much of which they brought on themselves. These words are not for the nice Christian guys with no self-esteem who are too short and too ugly to ever get laid, the majority of the MRM.
Bonobo, that is pretty funny.
“ I really believe these words were intended for thuggish-@sshole-AMOGs who have notch-counts of their own already in the 50s, have been in and out of prison, and who now (suddenly) discovered Christ and were redeemed. These words are for the men physically attractive enough to get a woman (any woman) to want to f-ck him, but not necessarily marry him.”
No. You’re presuming that for most such men who come to Christ, their conversions are insincere. You’re assuming that these men are analogous to the “reformed sluts” who “are tired of the playas and the games” and “want to do it the right way this time”.
These guys who come to Christ REALLY DO come to Christ. They’re in church and are sincere about it. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t waste their own time. Guys like this don’t come to church to put on a show for other people; they do it because they really have turned it around.
@IBB
It isn’t just unmarried men. Driscoll makes it clear that he shares the same contempt for husbands and fathers.
That’s fine. If you want to believe that then, fine. Say these guys are sincere. I’ll buy that, they are sincere. Either way deti, Driscoll wasn’t talking to you when he said man-up and marry that single mom. He was talking to THIS guy….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Gun_Preacher
…and guys like him. It just so happened that Sam Childers had already married the stripper/pole-dancer before he went to prison, but most of these guys don’t. These are the guys Driscoll is trying to “shame” IMHO. I don’t think he’s trying to shame YOU (or people like you) into manning up and marrying a slut, I really don’t. To be perfectly honest deti, I don’t think people like you (or the majority of the manosphere) are the least of Pastor Driscoll’s concerns. Of course, I could be wrong.
Dalrock,
I agree. But that is not what your post TODAY is about. Yours is about Driscoll trying to shame men into marrying single moms. If he is already a husband, then this post does not apply. I am just identifying who I BELIEVE to me the men Driscoll is shaming, exactly. I would say that if Driscoll knew the majority of your posters here, he would probably say that his shameful words are NOT intended for your audience.
IBB @ 11:20am:
“Yes, his words are for men who have lived a life filled with serious trouble, much of which they brought on themselves.”
The irresponsible men who’ve lived a life of self-inflicted trouble should… marry a provably unfaithful wife and raise another man’s kids? Isn’t that the whole self-inflicted bit right there?
“You’ve done wrong, thugboys, now keep it up!”
IBB,
Other than your hunch, do you have anything to base your opinion on (MD targets the “thuggish-@sshole-AMOGs who have notch-counts of their own already in the 50s, have been in and out of prison, and who now (suddenly) discovered Christ and were redeemed”
@GunnerQ
By the same logic, if the hull of your boat is leaky and the motor is unreliable, it would be absurd to seek quality life jackets.
It is interesting how Driscoll’s more inflammatory sermons seem to be fading off of the web. All the more reason to make sure that they continue to exist in a linkable form.
Also the conflation between divorcee’s, babymommas and widows isn’t just Driscoll, as I have mentioned before there are churches that send men out to do yardwork, repair work, painting, etc. for “widows of the church” but some of them were never married. Blurring distinctions / definitions is one of those little games that get played when a policy is to be changed by stealth.
Either Driscoll knew quite well what he was doing, or he was so far gone down the AMOG trail he couldn’t see his own folly. I’ve held each of those positions at one time or another during the Driscoll drama, frankly it doesn’t really matter.
Bad, destructive, advice is bad, destructive advice whether it comes from malice or blindness.
And again it is interesting that Driscoll’s sermons containing bad, destructive advice are fading out from the web. Almost like someone’s trying to cover up something.
Because that’s not the type of person I’d advocate “princesses of the kingdom” to marry, if I were MD.
Further, it’s not who I’d compare Joseph to.
Christianese Translation: “Being a cuckold is actually a blessing from the Lord”
@innocentbystanderboston says: You know, more and more, I DON’T think these words were intended to be read by single men at sites like this. It is not meant for sincere beta men of the manosphere. Discoll is not taling to any man in the manospehre with these words. I really believe these words were intended for thuggish-@sshole-AMOGs who have notch-counts of their own already in the 50s,…
Yes, his words are for men who have lived a life filled with serious trouble, much of which they brought on themselves. These words are not for the nice Christian guys with no self-esteem who are too short and too ugly to ever get laid, the majority of the MRM.
You have it 180 degrees backwards.
These words were specifically directed at the nice-guy/beta-providers that attend church, because these are the men that, in Driscoll’s world, these women need to marry to get the women’s life back on track.
Marrying a reformed alpha, a-hole, thug won’t get the single mother’s life back on track, because the provisioning ability (money, income, education) to provide for the woman and her kids and get her life back on track.
The nice-guy/beta-provider has the ability to provide for the woman and her kids, and thus improve her life.
Driscoll is telling the nice-guys in his church to become the white-knight and swoop in and save the damsel in distress–those poor unwed mothers.
Still my favorite:
Your Constitution provides that there shall be no establishment of institutions of religion and over here there have long been calls to dis-establish The Church of England. Whatever the merits of disestablishment one clear advantage of establishment is that the only person allowed to or at least listened to on matters spiritual is The Archbishop of Canterbury (and sometimes the Bishop of York and sometimes The Bishop of Rochester, who, incidentally, being of Indian origin is the only person who can get away with criticising Islam). As The Bishops are all members of The House of Lords and thus very much part of the establishment that fact largely restrains them from the sort of rabble-rousing or playing fast and loose with the scriptures that your super-Pastors sometimes indulge in. The stipend – by the way – for a member of the cloth is a mere £23,000 a year (not enough I think to tempt an ambitious man) and grace and favour accomodation. Any person setting themselves up (as Driscoll and many before him) did would gain the retort ‘Who do you think you are The Archbishop of Canterbury?’. His Grace recently made a speech about the poor. Whatever it was he was saying about them I am entirely sure it would not offend the readers at Dalrock.
I remember when I first read that comment comparing today’s single mothers to widows. I can’t tell you the amount of misunderstanding and harm that statement of his has caused young men looking for a godly wife.
Imagine how much differently his statement might have come off if he had said it like this:
I have something to say about the single mothers in this congregation. If you wish to seek a husband, we want to encourage you in this endeavor, but you also need to first accept that, unless you were married and your husband divorced you for unbiblical reasons, you share half of the blame for your circumstances. If you divorced him for unbiblical reasons, then remarriage except to this man is not acceptable. If you are deliberately preventing the father from seeing his child and merely using him for child support, then you have no business looking for another man to abuse.
Either way, we love you and call you to repentance like the rest of us, so that you can be forgiven and saved.
Forget everything you’re told in society and our bankrupt culture. They’re all fools. You need to realize the reality of the situation and adjust your expectations accordingly. Your problems are not the fault of any man except for the father.
In seeking a husband, you are asking a man give up his freedom and independence, as well as reject all other women, to care for and love not only someone who didn’t preserve the purity of the marriage bed, but a child that is not his. You are asking him to possibly compete with another man for his child’s affection as the father-head. You are asking him to voluntarily choose to take on the responsibilities of another man as a father. In an indirect way, you are leaving him vulnerable to feeling like he was cuckolded. Keep that in mind.
You need to appreciate the fact that any man who marries you will take great risks doing so. He has legitimate reasons to be afraid of what you can to do him through the power of the court system if you decide to do so – though know if you do so you will be promptly excommunicated from this church. If you meet a godly man and are attracted to him, you can alleviate these reasonable fears by demonstrating you are not the irresponsible woman you once were and that you have the maturity and wisdom to be a good wife and accept his authority as the head of the household.
You have no right to expect any man to marry you if you are not willing to do all of these things.
As for the single men here today looking for a wife, I will not tell you what to do when it comes to choosing who to marry. Outside of biblical guidelines, it is between you and God. But if some of you are capable of taking on the additional responsibilities and feel called by God to marry a single mother, you will be a great blessing to the woman and her child. We understand the apprehensions you might have. To help alleviate them, we want to assure you the church leadership here will give you any support you need to be a godly leader of the family and defend you against any ungodly attempts to usurp your authority. But there is to be no judgment or shame for the men who in good conscience believe they are not capable of handling these responsibilities.
To you single women, make no mistake. There are real consequences for sinful sexual behavior and we will not subsidize, enable it, or reward it. Something to keep in mind.
Anchorman,
Nothing at all. But think about it, it makes no sense for Driscoll to be talking to anyone (here) at Dalrock’s site or any sincere-wholesome-single-hardworking-beta-Christian men who are either too short, too fat, too ugly, too smelly, too whatever to find a nice, thin, pretty, virginal wife to marry because… the sincere-wholesome-single-hardworking-beta-Christian men aren’t going to settle for a single mom. Driscolls’ words fall entirely on dead ears. More to the point (and this is the biggest point) the men here already know that all marrige is marriage 2.0. So right off the bat, Driscoll knows he can’t sell marriage to you guys. You know too much. You already swallowed that red pill (ate from the tree of knowledge that Driscoll would have commanded that we are NOT to eat.)
No, his words (in this context at least) are meant for the blue-pill AMOG @sshole ex-cons who discovered Christ and trying to get their life back on track. You guys already have your lives on track.
@Bonobo – PERFECT.
@IBB – I can see his underlying premise in that he wants people to be married, and therefore happy(ier) than they are. And this is the make up of society now and his church (that he had).
But unfortunately – this is what happens when good intentions are filtered though the eyes of someone with a personality disorder, I would say a dead ringer for NPD\possible sociopathy, I have met his type several times in a church leadership setting and they all behave the same way and its always truly dire, behaviours inc. aggression from the pulpit, berating (men mostly), inflamed accusations, shouting etc.
His inability to understand simple scripture is incredible. His congregation must be a total mess by now as in that environment your mind must warp.
That’s some turbo-charged exegesis there. Paul was not talking about baby-mommas fresh off the carousel (and maybe still willing to take another lap or three… wink, wink). Paul was talking about women whose husbands were physically dead… he certainly did not equate churchian sluts with honorable widows.
In the case of Mary and Joseph: they were betrothed, and a man in such a relationship is bound to marry the woman unless she disqualifies herself. Fornication is a disqualifying act, and her pregnancy suggested fornication. The unique and divine nature of the pregnancy had to be explained to him by an angel, so that he knew that she had not actually disqualified herself despite the appearance: she was still a virgin, and thus still “wife-material.”
We’ve all encountered this: the idea that a Christian man has no right to expect the woman he marries to be a virgin. That continues to boggle my mind. Of course he has that right, and he has every right to walk away from any woman who isn’t one. He doesn’t have the right to refrain from loving her as a Sister in Christ if she has repented, but I don’t see any Biblical obligation to turn one of them into a wife.
Add to that the false teachings about mutual submission, and the fact that most churches will turn a blind eye to divorce (if the wife initiates it), overlook rebellion and even adultery by wives, and assign all responsibility to husbands while stripping them of all authority, and we have the perfect storm of bad theology.
And what about discipline within the home? Who makes decisions regarding the children? It has to be either the father or the step-father, although one could make the case that either the father or step-father should make those calls depending on who the child is with at any given time (although why a man would marry a woman, the father of whose children is alive, is a mystery to me). The one thing we can say with certainty is that the mother should have – at most – an advisory role to whichever man is making the final decisions. As for me, if I were contemplating marriage to a woman who had custody of another living man’s child (I know it’s crazy, but bear with me), I would have to know that she knows that I would be the head of the house, and of everyone in it. If she marries me, then she cedes headship over the children to me as well, and would be obligated to enforce and support my decisions regarding the children whether she agrees with them or not. If she can’t accept that she has no right to contemplate marriage. To do otherwise is to withhold the submission which is the husband’s due.
IBB,
It just doesn’t follow. given his other statements. I haven’t seen him reference those guys in that context in the past or since.
He’s targeting the good-guy, betas, who are Churchianed up from their latest men’s retreat.
How do I figure? Because he’s done it in the past and knows they’re the ones in the pews, not the other guys.
Rollo, I’d fogotten that Driscoll pronounces “shame on you” to men who … don’t place themselves under accountability. That’s a really nice irony, given his own refusal to be accountable to his own accountability board, his own church leadership, or anyone else.
It’d be interesting for someone to read most of this back to him.
Anchorman,
Then he is wasting his time. Not only is he a fool, he is also probably someone with a personality disorder (like minesweeper said.) Even in my bluest of blue pill days, I was still hard working and would have made an excellent provider for a single mom, there was NFW I ever would have been guilt shamed into marrying one. I wouldn’t have listened to that crap from the pulpit. I might not have walked out of the building but I wouldn’t have altered my behavior, either.
@innocentbystanderboston You know, more and more, I DON’T think these words were intended to be read by single men at sites like this. It is not meant for sincere beta men of the manosphere.
You may be right, but it’s getting interpreted to mean beta church men, just look at the responses to the tweet.
Matt 7:15 addresses Driscoll directly.
“it makes no sense for Driscoll to be talking to anyone (here) at Dalrock’s site or any sincere-wholesome-single-hardworking-beta-Christian men who are either too short, too fat, too ugly, too smelly, too whatever to find a nice, thin, pretty, virginal wife to marry because… the sincere-wholesome-single-hardworking-beta-Christian men aren’t going to settle for a single mom. Driscolls’ words fall entirely on dead ears.”
IBB, you obviously have not seen the inside of a Protestant church. I have for the past 30 years. Said churches are literally filled to the brim with such men. These men really do believe what the preacher says every day from the pulpit. They’re serious about walking out a Christian faith as their pastors explicate it. They are good but woefully misinformed and confused men. They don’t know the first thing about what women find attractive, and they are looking to a pastor — their pastor, a good man with a pretty wife and lots of kids and a love of Jesus — to tell them about what women find attractive. They want what Pastor has. They want a “godly wife” like Pastor has. They hang on every word Pastor says about it.
These men hear what the Church women say about how they “just want a nice guy who will treat them right”, and they believe it hook line and sinker. They believe every single word that proceedeth from the mouth of Woman, because preacher says they should. Because they believe what the preacher says about women: That women never lie, that women are “more moral” than men are. They absolutely 100% believe that all women, every woman, all of them, they just want to be wives and moms; and if they aren’t wives and moms it’s because bad men screwed them over.
Libertarian Anarchist
Bravo! I would love to hear something like that from a pulpit. One quibble, though. You wrote:
… But there is to be no judgment or shame for the men who in good conscience believe they are not capable of handling these responsibilities.
That implies that insisting a bride be a virgin is a sign of weakness (… not capable of handling the responsibilities…). I would change it to something like this:
… But there is to be no judgment or shame for the men of good conscience who choose to refrain from dating and/or marrying you because of your situation.
I’ll co-sign deti’s post.
Other than the fact that he wrote “literally” when he was speaking figuratively, I’ll co-sign as well.
😉
This is off the topic but might be important to the board’s owner. Last night, I attempted to open this website at home using my iPad. I was blocked by Norton, which claimed it was a malicious site. When I selected details, it said there were no detectable threats but I still was prevented from opening your site. This also happened a couple weeks ago. You might want to check with Norton to see what is going on. It could be nothing or it could be some SJW trying to cause trouble for you.
Larry, did you check if other wordpress blogs are blocked?
deti,
I haven’t been inside a Protestant church with young people. Well, Grace Chapel in Lexington MA had a younger congregation (and I was there once) and ht epastor spent all his time making fun of Rush Limbaugh, but other than that, no. I have been in many Protestant churches (said as much on this site before) but I have never heard from any pastor the likes of Driscoll. Or Stanton. Or any of them. And with good reason.
The Protestant churches I have entered (throughout my life) have all been filled with old people. And when I mean old, I mean 65+ old. I would be the only young-single-male in the building, the only one. Literally, the only one.
So hearing that kind of preaching from the pulpit, I never heard it. It would have made no sense to me because… well…. you can’t shame old blue haired women and men (all of whom were already married or widowed) into manning up and marrying a single mom.
No, I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have the kind of experience many of you here have had with the man-up shaming from a pastor. I never heard of any of it until I discovered youtube. I never had a church member ever try to encourage me to marry a single mom. The majority of the pastors I have known in my life were pretty…. well… wimpy and frail… appealing to older and sensitive people… not at all the likes of a Driscoll.
And the Protestant churches I’ve attended, there really weren’t any single moms in them. One time (when I was a 19 year old deacon) we had a single mom, and she left after just three weeks. I wrote about that experience at my blog. But I think she was the only one.
And the Protestant churches I’ve attended, there really weren’t any single moms in them.
Bring a dead cat to LCBC in Central PA.
Swing it above your head.
Try not to hit one in central PA’s largest church (three convenient sites with the weekly service piped in via closed circuit TV!).
Lyn,
“He doesn’t have the right to refrain from loving her as a Sister in Christ if she has repented”
That’s a pretty big IF. My experience, that’s a very slim minority of the women out there in churches nowadays. Unrepentant as the day is long. A guy in our church, solid guy who led several missionary trips to Costa Rica and one to Burma (which is some real hardcore stuff considering it is literally open season on Christians in Burma) was out on a date with a woman who had given up her child for adoption several years ago from her past relationship with a thug-buddy. When he found out about her past, he kindly told her that he could not pursuit a relationship with her because the Bible spoke out against being unequally yolked. She went on the church forum and blog and blasted him. The church elders tried their best to cover it up, but several of the guys in our congregation knew what was going on and applauded this dude. No one is entitled to a marriage, NO ONE. It is not a given. Heck, FOOD isn’t even a given for “man does not live on bread alone but on every word from the mouth of God”. I’ve found that one of the hardest places to stand for God is in the church itself.
No thanks. I’ll take your word for it. But your experiences were not mine, that is for sure. I couldn’t find ANY woman to marry in the churches I attended, not unless I’m willing to marry an 81 year old widow.
I agree. That’s better wording.
I would consider dating a single mother, and then if I was satisfied with her reasons for being a single mother, I might even consider marrying one, but here’s the deal. I’ve gotten into using online dating sites in order to reach and maybe meet more women, and many (most?) of the decent looking single mothers I’ve seen still list that their man should be 6′ tall and / or make at least 75K per year. Some of them even still even have strict age limits. I don’t meet those requirements, so I usually don’t even bother to message them, and when I do, they don’t respond, anyway, so their past “mistakes” notwithstanding, they still have high standards (and not the good kind of high standards either) for the men they want to date. I wonder if they’re going to find what they’re looking for, and I have to wonder if those men are actually going to be good to them.
I agree with you, with one caveat: it is true that former sluts are not owed Christian husbands, and layabouts are not owed food, but Christians are commanded to love one another, despite our faults.
Bonobo says:
January 26, 2015 at 11:12 am
“Young women of the church. Pure, chaste, single. Don’t overlook the middle-aged divorcé. Seriously, don’t overlook them. He may be poor, he may be an embittered, emotional wreck with an alcohol problem. He may have saggy, grey balls and a protruding gut. He may spend his weekends taking his brats out to a McDonalds and crying when their Mom picks them up at 5pm. Maybe he cheated on her, maybe she cheated on him. Maybe he didn’t make her happy. But ladies, seriously: don’t overlook that prime spouse material.”
Where is my thumbs up key? It doesn’t even have to be a divorcee. I know more than a few jobless and minimally employed single guys that would love to marry. I’ve yet to hear anyone encouraging this type of an arrangement. As usual only the man must tow the line.
they still have high standards (and not the good kind of high standards either) for the men they want to date.
That’s the problem with the West (and likely beyond).
We only view relationships and marriage through the lens of satisfying personal needs.
There is little to no discussion of glorifying God in online dating (I tried it for a year or so a few years back). This is true even on christianmingle.com. That’s another site brimming to the top with divorced moms looking.
Is there anything “wrong” with having the standards of physical features, money, or whatever…well, no. However, when women (and men) telegraph those are priorities, it shows where their priorities are.
Likewise, if a man says, “No single moms. Raise your children and then we could date.” It signals his priorities both for parenting and that he wants to avoid a common pitfall in relationships (You’re not my dad!).
In the end, an act should proceed from faith and seek to glorify God. Dating is no different. However, you wouldn’t know it from today’s climate (and I was just as guilty in perpetuating the shallow nature of dating).
Hank,
When I did the on-line dating. I thought it was great, fantastic. I loved it. The reason why I loved it is it took away the hardest part about dating, not knowing if the woman you are approaching is even approachable. The fact that a woman put a profile up on a dating site meant that she infact WAS approachable. Made my job so much easier.
If I may offer some advice, instantly disqualify any woman who has any kind of income requirements. That is what I did. Just bypass all their profiles instantly, regardless of what they look like or their circumstances. There are wayyyyy too many fish in that sea to have to deal with women flaunting their financial hypergamy to force you to jump through their hoops. And that is not saying that you don’t make good money. What you make has nothing to do with it. It is merely regarding her financial credentialling as a red flag.
Love one another doesn’t necessarily mean coddle each other nor does it mean that we have to always be tender in our application. It certainly doesn’t mean that we have to refrain from speaking cold words when the only thing that will wake them from their slumber in their sin is a cold draft of water based on Truth. If I had a sister and she was a slut who changed men like you change your oil, then I’d let her know and hold her responsible. I’m also my brother’s keeper, Lyn. Which means I also have a duty to other men in the church not to see their futures torn asunder because someone couldn’t keep their legs closed for the “hawt guys”. The resolve isn’t to become one of them, the resolve is to hold our “sister’s” in stern responsibility, accountability, and yes, punishment. The opposite of love is not hate..it’s apathy. If we let them galavant around and not say anything, that is definitely the opposite of doing what we are commanded. To correct them, and yes, that means calling them out with cold blunt truth, is loving them.
Yeah, Driscolls words are to the beta males (who are in the majority) in church. (I can only speak for Protestant churches.) They are among his target audience. There is so much in this post and in the comments here that I agree with. I am a stepfather to another man’s child and it is exactly as you say. The kid, either with or without words will remind me that I have no say in the matter, as he continues to be as bad as he wants to be. I am beginning to just accept this truth, that he’s not my kid, he’s someone else’s kid and as a result, I should not be so concerned about the outcome. He’s only beginning to talk to his real fatther (email, in another country) and we’ll see where this goes. His mother is more on the side that I should help her and discipline the kid, but if she wants to build up with one hand, she’s tearing down with the other with how much crap she tolerates and lets him get away with, essentially rendering anything I might do ineffective anyway. In fact, it is essentially futile to try to do anything regarding parenting or discipline in this situation.
@Anon Reader
Driscoll’s issues with authority is one of the short post topics I plan to write about this week.
If I may offer some advice, instantly disqualify any woman who has any kind of income requirements.
Ha! A few posts back I made a comment about my experience with this when I first arrived at Fort Bragg (my first army duty station) in late 2002. I was divorced and joined the army late (29 years old).
I could not believe how much things had changed in 10 years.
Girls would post openly, with no shame:
“Do not contact me if you are no E-7/O-3 or above. Also, I only date combat arms/Special Forces”
Junkyard,
You may already know, but be very careful. Although not my step-children (my biological children), my ex constantly set me up.
She’s talk in private about needing to get tougher.
One of our children would misbehave. “We” hand down a punishment. She would then back it off a day later, when I wasn’t around. She’d always rationalize it some way, but the end result was that she always looked like the more reasonable one and I always came out as a hard case, because I’d come home, find the child on Xbox or whatever, and react accordingly.
In the same way, she’d wind me up about a teacher doing this or that. I’d go to the school to square the situation. She’d backdoor me through emails.
Just be careful.
“These men hear what the Church women say about how they “just want a nice guy who will treat them right”,”
Actually I didn’t say it correctly. What these good, but woefully misinformed and gullible men hear from their pastors and from Church women, is that they all want guys who will treat them right and pray for them and pray over them, and lead them in devotions and prayers, and who will go to church with them three times a week.
These women say “A guy who prays is hot. A guy who loves Jesus is hot. A guy who reads the Bible is hot. A guy who leads devotions? That’s hot.”
These guys say “OK, so I’ll be a guy who prays and loves Jesus and reads the Bible and leads devotions. And then a girl here will fall madly in love with me and want to have sex with me and we’ll get married and we’ll live happily ever after. Because praying and loving Jesus and knowing the Bible and leading devotions is sexy, right? It’s attractive, right? And I know this because the pastor who I love and who loves me told me so. And I know this because the women at the church who love me told me so.”
“Wait, pastor. Wait, church women. I see Muffy and Sally and Jenny over there. Muffy dates Frank Fratboy, who used to go here but I haven’t seen him in a while. And Sally is sleeping with Harley McBadboy, who still attends here. And Jenny sleeps with F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, who doesn’t even attend here. What’s going on? Do those guys pray and love Jesus and read the Bible? I don’t think so.”
What? Oh, Frank is a good guy, he’s just kind of misguided. Harley is a good guy, he attends here. Wish he didn’t ride that motorcycle of his. He’s going to get someone killed someday. And F*ckbuddy is a bad man. Jenny’s going through a phase is all. Girls who date guys like F*ckbuddy are just stupid. Listen. You just do what we tell you to do and you keep on keeping on, and someday ALL the girls will see what a great guy you are!! Remember: guys who pray are hot. Guys who love Jesus and read the Bible are hot.
“Ok.”
Driscoll’s exegesis is lousy. I think we all see this. The sermon at my local church was on Mary this sunday (I’m reformed) and it was about how unique this — as Mary said to the angel: I can’t get pregnant: I’m a virgin. It’s not about raising bastards, or being divorced.
I think widows in particular need mercy and respect. Their husband died. Particularly those whose men fell in the wars of our nation. Their state is honourable. and given that they are fallen and won’t stick to the rules of the charitable roll (which was to live in celibacy) Paul suggested they remarry.
The others…. Meh. Not recommended for my boys.
This old divorced fart? Most women have a past. I look for someone who has lived in singleness for YEARS without a man, without a track record of thug boyfriends, and with children left over from their marraige alone. And I watch how she handles the kids.
And her faith. Most divorced women will be disqualified on multipe grounds. But I’m not going to marry someone who now truly hates divorce and loves God. And I look at their actions, not their words.
Deti @ 26JAN2015 1323
All of this is Truth with a capital “T”
I get it. I remember hearing stuff like that as far back as the 90s (I was married then).
But there has always been a little light inside me–one that caused me to internally roll my eyes and go “yeah right.”
I attracted my first wife (who was chaste) by being exactly that bad boy. I was on N=6 when we started going out. I was in a band. I had a tatoo. I was NOT in college. She paid no attention to the dorm guys at Pepperdine who all went to devotionals on weekdays. Then I would pick her up Friday and bring her back to school Sunday night.
This never struck me as “game.” I was never the least bit threatened by those guys, because they had no idea how to make a move.
What I DON’T understand is the willingness to believe this crap in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.
Anchorman,
“We” hand down a punishment. She would then back it off a day later…”
So very true. In what ways would you recommend being careful?
Hey Dalrock,
If you’re still looking for Driscoll’s material, there’s an archive that’s pulled together most of the content that was on the former Mars Hill website, including just about all of the sermons. I don’t know how long it’ll be up, but right now you can find it here:
http://marshillbus.com/marshill/media/sermons
There’s also a site that someone’s assembled with links to multiple locations containing saved versions of older Mars Hill material in mpg and other formats that you can save and keep for yourself. That’s at:
http://www.marshillwas.com/
Hope it’ll be of some help. If you need more examples of Driscoll lunacy, you might check out his “Where are you?” sermon on December 18, 2011, where he once more berates the men of his church for being “weak little boys” that can’t live up to the example the women are setting for them and expecting of them. You can get a pretty good idea of the direction he’s going in with a line he drops off towards the end of the message (at about the 53 minute mark):
“. . . And let me tell you the truth. When it comes to getting older, single women are like wine. They get better with age. And single men are like milk. It’s true! And any single guy who denies that is proving my point.”
Just about sums it up.
Remember: guys who pray are hot. Guys who love Jesus and read the Bible are hot.
They aren’t looking at it this way. The narrative is that girls will naturally want to do the right thing, unless some man tricks them. “Hot” is never even part of the equation that is presented. They tell you that if you are doing the things that a Christian man should do, the girls will fall in line. If they don’t, you must be doing something wrong (cause the girls sure aren’t doing anything wrong).
I say if you are a Christian, do what a Christian man should do as unto the Lord. You are better off when girls who want the bad boy don’t want you. Better no woman than a bad one.
crimsonviceroy says:
January 26, 2015 at 1:15 pm
Love one another doesn’t necessarily mean coddle each other nor does it mean that we have to always be tender in our application…
No argument from me, Brother. I’ve never been one of those guys who equates love with permissiveness or “niceness.” I’m usually the guy being criticized for realizing that sometimes the most loving thing one can do is to enforce consequences.
“This never struck me as “game.” I was never the least bit threatened by those guys, because they had no idea how to make a move.
What I DON’T understand is the willingness to believe this crap in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.”
A couple of reasons. First is threats. “If you dare to hurt one of those sweet innocent paragons of virtue, you’re going to pay.”
“If you have sex outside marriage you’re going to hell and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
“You do what I tell you or I’m kicking you out of the house and cutting off the pursestrings. College? Forget about it. You’ll be lucky to be working at McDonald’s for the rest of your life.”
Second is gaslighting. “You’re not really seeing what you’re seeing. Your eyes are lying to you.”
“Those girls are just stupid. You don’t want one of those girls. You want a nice girl. Nice Christian girls think guys who pray and love Jesus are really hot.”
“You don’t have the experience I do. You don’t know what I do. I know what I’m talking about and you don’t, because you haven’t seen what I’ve seen.”
“Muffy and Sally are just immature and stupid. Harley and F*ckbuddy are just scumbag liars. They don’t love you. But I do. I’d NEVER lie to you. I’ll ALWAYS tell you the truth.”
So very true. In what ways would you recommend being careful?
Set very clear guidelines.
Personally, I’d completely re-shift your focus in the relationship (with regards to the child).
Punishment is not sadism. Parents don’t punish because we get pleasure from it.
We want the child to practice better decision-making skills the next time the situation presents.
more often, a punishment has no logical connection to the infraction. Hit your brother? No TV for a week. Huh?
Reshift to better decision making and more logical consequences. Hit your brother? The child has created a debt, of sorts. He must make up or pay the debt before the situation is restored. The child must do a mundane chore the other child was responsible for until the bruise heals or to some point. If the child refuses, he loses privileges.
But, you say, how does reinforce decision making at all?
Because you work through different scenarios ahead of time with the child/children. Engage them in the process so they have “buy in.” have them lay out the logical consequences and sign a contract with the details.
Here’s a sample: Child A wants the game. Child B has been playing with it for an hour already and doesn’t want to stop. The hour before Child A declared he wanted it doesn’t count because no claim was made. To resolve this, Child B makes a time split. Person who gets the game immediately gets to play for an hour. Person who waits gets 1.5 hours. Child A gets to choose which option he prefers. this ensures Child B makes a fair split, otherwise Child A will take the clearly better option. Likewise, Child A can decide on instant gratification or delayed gratification for longer time.
The important thing is this. As a step dad, you can always run into, “You’re not my dad” and if she doesn’t cut that off at the knees, you can end up in bad situations. What this does is enable you to resolve disputes as an authority figure, teach him better decision making, and takes away arbitrarily ending punishments because the child agreed ahead of time to the consequences.
Sorry for the long post. I really struggled with this issue for years until I found this groove. Since then, I’ve really improved things with my children and no longer get trapped by the ex.
“Positive Discipline,” by Jane Nelson, goes into the logical consequence and contract idea in more detail. I suggest checking it out.
Does anyone really think that a thuggish, neck-tatted AMOG would sit and listen to Driscoll for more than 30 seconds? What he’s asking is not for the to convert to Churchianity, he’s asking them to convert to emasculated beta. I guess some guys go for that sort of thing.
Personal update:
I went to the VA today to get some clarification about some paperwork that arrived at my house last week. Apparently I died recently (nobody tells me anything…). That makes my wife a widow… I guess, in case anyone is looking for a virtuous woman with no children.
Rollo Tomassi: You pretty much nailed it. When you’re a white knight pastor, every guy is a Hosea who needs to fulfill God’s will and marry the Gomars in the church.
Apparently I died recently (nobody tells me anything…).
Looks like a somewhat unusual variation of “the husband is always the last to know”.
This gives you a golden opportunity to deploy a famous Mark Twain quote, don’t waste it.
I kind of see it this way. The dark triad (Of Frank, Harley and that other guy) all are getting some “the wrong way” by leading poor women astray, so they go to Hell. You don’t want to get women that way (no really, you don’t). The Stantonian construction here is that “good” men are to outcompete these dark triad types for the pure souls of these poor deluded women. ‘Good” men are failing women because they are not being dedicated enough to Churchianity, by praying, attending and Bible studying their way to the women’s hearts. Surely if we just do as they prescribe and double down on baby Jesus meek and mild we will overcome the female absconding serpent.
Maybe telling them to shut their pie-hole, marching out of the place and never looking back would be a better strategy. Turning “their” sanctuaries into Sunday-morning nightclubs would earn them a scourging from Jesus, surely it should earn them a deaf ear from men. (And telling Churchian men about this is the Gospel I preach).
My father told me everything I needed to know about single mothers.
‘Son don’t clean up another man’s mistake.’
Thank you, Anchorman. I will check all of this out, including the book.
‘William Allen Jordan agrees:’
I saw that story on Dateline last night. Some alpha that guy was…he was pretty much the definiton of ‘player type’. Then they brought up how that state was trying to bring in the law ‘rape by deception’.
It already exists…it’s called the Sixth Commandment and all the sexual sins that are encompassed under it.
This all boils back to the premise that no sex is free and that some man must pay… who is it going to be?
Driscoll actually said this???
“Don’t overlook the single moms, and don’t overlook the opportunity to do what Joseph did for Jesus and that is to adopt a child that is not your biological child, and to raise them lovingly as Joseph did for the Lord Jesus.”
I hate to be the guy loudly and conspicuously pointing at the nekkid emperor, but from a logical, moral and theological standpoint, raising the bastard hellspawn of some douchey underemployed DJ isn’t in the same ballpark as raising the Son of God. It isn’t even the same sport.
What kind of @sshole tries to make an assertion like that?!?
I went to the VA today to get some clarification about some paperwork that arrived at my house last week. Apparently I died recently (nobody tells me anything…).
Condolences on your unexpected and premature death.
At least it’s less embarrassing than my co-worker who discovered he was actually Female from government paperwork.
A good number of the Churchians. Another example:
Jesus was part of a blended family
Man up and marry those slutty single mothers!
‘What kind of @sshole tries to make an assertion like that?!?’
A man with an agenda.
There is one difference between Mary and every other single mother on the planet. Her seed came from God, the others seed came from another man. Joseph also wasn’t left in the dark either…he was told where the child was from. Raising the Son of God on Earth during His formative years to me is a great honor for Joseph to have been known by.
Making this comparison isn’t even in the same solar system.
Lyn,
If you need a eulogy service, I’ve done some good ones in the past. Hey if anything, that means your wife can collect life insurance..with not taxes deducted! That’s a win!
D-
Again, my pingpack feature seems to only be working intermittently.
http://courtshippledge.com/2015/01/college-red-pill-truth-for-teen-boys-parents-past-history-and-real-vs-fake-repentance/
Yeah, CV. The paperwork was for her to file for widow’s benefits. Odd thing, though – the letter was addressed to me. That’s the gub’mint for you. This isn’t the worst thing of that sort that’s ever happened to me by a long shot – once a military hospital got some medical records mixed up and told my wife I gave her Chlamydia. Drama ensued. We subsequently deduced that she had been born with it and that it had probably been passed down in her family for at least two or three generations through childbirth. So we had some very awkward talks with her family telling them to all get tested. Eventually we found out that it was all a paperwork error and nobody actually had it. We still laugh about that.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand. A lot of baby-mommas and people who ought to know better say what IBB alluded to up-thread: “…well I’ve already got the kid(s), call it a package deal, a pre-made family!” I find this to be eerily similar to cuckold fetishism. (Don’t look it up – it will turn your stomach), but the idea that men should view a wife’s sexual experience with other men – and even bastard children – as a net positive is so alien to me that I can’t even begin to get my head wrapped around it.
“All these various mangina ideologies, whether Churchianity, race-nationalism, or lefto-‘feminism’ are very natural allies of each other.”
yes they are –
“I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.” ~ feminists, manginas, Churchians all share in jealousy… Add in envy with delusions of persecution and grandeur plus a tendency to use shaming tactics with angry, rabid like reactions designed to silence information and opinions which oppose their own absolute and non negotiable ‘truths’…. BaptistChoirboySurvivor™ and F*ckbuddyRockBandDrummer both agree ~ manginas, Churchians and feminists are natural allies of one another.
[I keep race-nationalists out of this because genetics and biological evolution precede politics, religion and culture]
Did you ever read this post?
Chasing Amy, The Quest for the Righteous Fox:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/08/chasing-amy/
The article I reposted was from April, 2003.
Joseph doesn’t “man up” and marry a despoiled woman. His initial good behaviour is that he plans to divorce his unfaithful betrothed quietly (so she can marry her lover with her reputation mostly intact) rather than publicly shame her. It’s certain he was feeling pretty angry and humiliated about the whole affair. Which is why God sends an angel to Joseph, to affirm the girl’s faithfulness and explain the incredible extenuating circumstances.
In contrast, Hosea is commanded to marry a harlot, as an object lesson to Israel. But note that even when he takes her back as an act of mercy, there is discipline (see Hos 3:3).
Dear Ballista:
Which is pretty much what’s being said, every single time.
I’m considering converting to Christianity, just so that I can get up at some point and give my own “single mom” speech to the congregation. I wonder how it’d go over?
Boxer
I’ll try to say it without being Catholic about it this time: the stupid thing here is that Jesus wasn’t anyone’s “biological child.” Joseph wasn’t cuckolded. Joseph didn’t raise some other man’s child; he raised the child God gave him and asked him to raise as his own. So not only was there no baby-daddy in the picture, but Mary was still a virgin at that point. Joseph married a virgin, and she had a baby whom Joseph raised as his own, and there was never any worry about paternity or alpha widowhood or any of the other fun stuff you get with a single mother.
And of course, the fact that the baby was God and His mother was “full of grace” and they had angels guiding their steps means they were so far outside the norm of human experience that it would be presumptuous to compare ourselves to them anyway. Might as well say we should all keep lions as pets because it worked out for Daniel.
Our objection to the single mother isn’t primarily that she has children. That’s why widows are generally seen as a special category. The main problem is what the children of the single mother represent: that she’s already had sex and carried another man’s child, which has bonded her to that man in a way that can’t be undone, and the child has a human father who’s still in the picture. Also that she either got pregnant out of wedlock, showing poor self-control; or that she divorced the father, a huge red flag. If the guy died, that eliminates a lot (not all) of those issues, so a widow can be acceptable in ways that a divorcee/unwed mother can’t.
The closest normal human analogy you can get to the Holy Family would be a young widow who married as a virgin, got pregnant right away, and then her husband died. Along comes another guy who has a chance to marry her before the baby is even born and raise it from birth as his own. While that’s not the ideal situation, I could see that working out. However, it’s also very different from the standard single-mother scenario, which carries far more risks.
Dear Lyn:
Carnal/trashy women boast among themselves as to the quality of men they can pull, much as playas do. One example:
pic.twitter.com/CTCCL2HI7K
I didn’t want to embed this, because it’s slightly nsfw. Hopefully it will just appear as a link.
Boxer
Sorry pastor. I won’t marry a single mom. Every part of Me cringes at the thought of paying for another. Man’s kid. I want my kid, not another man’s kid. I refuse to wife up a slut who didn’t give good men the time of day. She will pay for her choice. Anyone with foresight could see this coming. I don’t give a damn about her child. I’m so sick of the shaming of men that I stopped going to church. There was no escape. Take two steps and someone at church was intergating me about why am I still single. Have you talked to single mom’s they say. . Even on father’s day the pastor said to man up and date a single mom. He claimed God would send the single mom’s a husband. This was Robert Morris at gateway. It made me sick. Making premises that single men must deliver on. Not my problem. I want a good woman. Not the town bicycle that everyone rode hard for free. . The men’s groups are the same. These men cry and say happy wife happy life. They say if momma ain’t happy no one is and other beta mangina sayings that indicate a woman is blameless. I had to stop going to escape the shaming. It was as endless. Walk in the door and it starts.
The solution is for the church to tell single young fertile women to not overlook the average nerdy guy to marry and have a baby with after they get married. . I won’t hold my breath for that to happen.
I would just like to point out that when Joseph found out Mary was pregnant, he was all set to divorce her/break the marriage contract, as was perfectly legal for him to do under Hebrew law.
God had to send a freaking angel to get Joseph not to do so and explain Mary wasn’t a slut.
So yeah, if God sends you an angel explaining 1) how you should date/marry this particular single mom and 2) how she’s really not a worthless whore, then, by all means, date/marry her. Other than that, you shouldn’t.
Yes. They’re also directed toward the married men and boyfriends in the audience, who need to be reminded regularly where their place is in the family hierarchy — pulling that cart for their (by definition) deserving woman.
The solution is for the church to tell single young fertile women to not overlook the average nerdy guy to marry and have a baby with after they get married.
Money he does make.
Not enough this would be.
Tingles he must bring.
And you’ll notice, the angel didn’t try to shame him into marrying her despite the pregnancy. He didn’t say, “How dare you divorce her and put her out in the street? She needs you! The child needs you! It’s your duty as a good son of David to take care of her, so get with the program!”
but the idea that men should view a wife’s sexual experience with other men – and even bastard children – as a net positive is so alien to me that I can’t even begin to get my head wrapped around it.
Strong human nature can be.
Go against this fail you will.
for their (by definition) deserving woman.
All women deserving they are?
When one would not be?
@Junkyard Dawg, Anchorman, & Cail Corishev
It is often a HUGE shock for women as their children get older and the father gets more involved in disciplining the children. Men can be much harsher than women, and can be especially tough on boys. With a stepchild, the problem is accentuated, because the mother often wasn’t with the child’s father long enough to witness this dynamic. If the child was illegitimate, it’s pretty much guaranteed that she hasn’t experienced this.
The unwed mother figures that it would be wonderful to have a daddy for Little Timmy, because she has a fantasy in her head about what kind of daddy Little Timmy deserves. No mortal man can ever live up to that vision, and her hypervigilance in making sure that Little Timmy is treated fairly will kill the marriage, because Mommy doesn’t really trust “daddy” to acquit himself with honor as a step-parent unless she is supervising him.
Lots of personality and character traits are largely genetic, so if the child is illegitimate, he almost certainly has both a biological mother and biological father who were high in impulsiveness, and low in “future orientation.”
Little Timmy will set a bad example for his younger half-siblings, and he will bring loser friends over his younger half-sisters to date.
Very best wishes to those of you who are raising step-children. It is much tougher than raising kids of your own.
Keep in mind, the average evangelical church has a lopsided ratio of women to men, particularly single ones. These women aren’t happy they aren’t married and I’ve heard the hamster wheels spinning personally. What’s more, single moms, like many people in trouble (my own conversion falls into this category), turn to the church when things go south. The churches I’ve seen are very excited about the possibility of ministering to a single mom. That mom can also easily become a long term burden to the church, even financially, if no husband presents himself.
It’s easy to see the incentives pastors have to try to get what single men are in the church to marry the people in these categories.
Cail Corishev @ 4:47 pm:
“They’re also directed toward the married men and boyfriends in the audience, who need to be reminded regularly where their place is in the family hierarchy”
That’s a big one. Potential frivorcers like to hear there’s a safety net of (more) dupes ready if they fail to trade up after pulling the trigger. If Pastors would instead teach that men shouldn’t marry single moms then the Threapoint would lose a lot of punch. At a minimum, wives would see their husbands as much more difficult to replace.
Lyn87 @ 2:28 pm:
“Apparently I died recently (nobody tells me anything…).”
Lucky! That’s the biggest tax writeoff there is. (Not so much for your next of kin, of course.) You should milk this for all it’s worth, like the rock star on death support in “Restaurant at the End of the Universe”.
I should go so far as to say that any Christian man who is unmarried and a virgin (which numbers a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT MORE than their female virgin peers) should NOT marry any woman who has had a N count greater than 0. If that means they are single conceivably for their entire life, than so be it. The exceptions to that rule are rare enough that they are not even worth noting. Trying to vet a widow to make sure she’s not an alpha-widow is just as much as work as dealing with the modern Churchian slut.
Good point, Cail,
Since they were betrothed, Joseph was obligated to marry Mary unless she disqualified herself (such as by losing her virginity). When the messenger angel Gabriel informed him of the divine nature of her pregnancy, he was – among other things – telling Joseph that he was still under obligation to marry her under their laws and customs. She was not “sullied” – her situation was unique (unlike the single mothers at Mars Hill).
The message was NOT that he should marry her because either she or the child needed a man to ManUp[TM] and assume responsibility for them. Knowing what he knew at first (before Gabriel told him) Joseph was perfectly within his rights to walk away from the betrothal, and fully intended to do so. A man who finds himself in a similar position today is equally free to walk away. And the Driscolls of the world can’t even point to pre-contracts like the one that existed between Joseph and Mary: he’s telling men they are not RealMen [TM] unless they actively court these women, knowing they would come to the marriage bed pre-ruined.
The unwed mother figures that it would be wonderful to have a daddy for Little Timmy, because she has a fantasy in her head about what kind of daddy Little Timmy deserves. No mortal man can ever live up to that vision, and her hypervigilance in making sure that Little Timmy is treated fairly will kill the marriage, because Mommy doesn’t really trust “daddy” to acquit himself with honor as a step-parent unless she is supervising him
True this is.
Seek everything — end with nothing
But see the reason they will not.
CV brings up an interesting point, upon which I will go on a tangent:
Young widowhood is far less common than it used to be. In the bad old days before modern medicine, people would drop dead due to all sorts of things at all ages. Plus, people used to marry much younger, since adulthood was usually considered to begin at puberty. There might be a relatively large number of young widowed women to choose from for man with the wherewithal and desire to do so. A man might well know of several women who were widowed in their teens or early twenties. Such a woman would pose relatively low risk, since the social strictures that hemmed in rampant sexuality were still in place, and her husband was literally dead.
But today, young marriageable widows are few and far between – vastly outnumbered by alpha widows (with or without their thug-spawn in tow). And of course most of the social strictures are no longer in force (sadly, even in many churches).
Why would a man marry a woman who already has children? Well (at one time) there was good reason for it (culturally) but people miss that today because they don’t understand the history behind it. Consider the fairly tale, Cinderella.
In March, a live action movie of Cinderella will hit the box office. In March, a Broadway production of Cinderella will be at the Gammage Theater here in Phoenix Arizona. We have tickets to the show already. My family pays good money to watch live theatre. Okay, so why was Cinderella tormented at home? Well because her mom was only her step-mom and she put her own daughter’s first. Okay so how did that happen? What was the “Genesis” behind that horrible situation? Well Cinderella’s father married her step mother when she was a very young girl because Cinderella’s mother passed away at such a young age and her father understood that it was critical for his daughter to have a new mother, even if it meant marrying a woman he didn’t love, an evil woman not deserving of his love. Thus the (quite often untold) story of Cinderella. I certainly hope we get that part at the beginning of the movie and also the play that I will soon watch, but I seriously doubt well ever see it.
Now I said that to say this. If someone sincerely encourages you to marry (forget just date, marry) a single mom, a good response would be something along the lines of “….well, I would but I didn’t yet bury my first wife, nor do I have any children who long for a mother whom I must replace.” If that person doesn’t understand the point you made (and they wont) tell them the story of Cinderella. Because that was THE REASON why men (any man) would marry a woman who already had children. Were it not for him thinking about what is in the best interest of his OWN children, there would not have been very many marriages for single moms.
I’m Protestant (Lutheran). Never heard any advice from any of the pastors on who to marry.
I didn’t marry until I was 40, and I wasn’t a player. Just had multiple issues, parents were really shy too and likely inherited that, plus 99th percentile on SATs which apparently makes things harder. Lots of stuff to overcome.
Even as lame as I was, why would any single guy be dumb enough to fall for this message? I knew the single moms were discounted merchandise. If looks were all that mattered, I’m sure I could have done better there than the one I married, but I had no interest. If I’d tried the unmarried market for a number of years and couldn’t nail anything down, I would go that way but not before.
Had one cousin that married a single mom. At least she just had one and her daughter was a teenager when they met. I guess it worked okay, they had a kid together and are still together. Stepdaughter went into the service and proceeded to get knocked up herself. Wife was a loudmouth who salted the job market earth in the town they were in, so they eventually moved back east to her home state so she could actually find a job. But my cousin had a couple of broken engagements and maybe he couldn’t do any better.
So now I’m going to be a single dad at almost 50. No idea where I will go from here. Divorced hookup culture doesn’t appeal even if I knew what I was doing. I’ve got three young ones, probably a lot in my age bracket won’t be interested. Not sure about trying blended family, seems too hard. If I did get remarried I couldn’t do it with anyone who was an unmarried mom or hadn’t made a good faith effort at her marriage, which is going to knock more candidates out.
I don’t know if idiot soon to be ex will marry the guy she left me for or not. He’s never been married or had kids. I have no respect for any stepfathering he may attempt. Don’t care, I’ll have the kids close to 50% and will provide the religious and much of the moral education anyway.
This is redundant, but it bears repeating. The whole idea of valuing single moms is the epitome of undervaluing or even disavowing the men who made those women into moms. Fatherhood is pretty much the water cooler joke nowadays, so it is too much to ask man-cave churches to actively seek to save the male half of these unions. I guess churches need men like a fish needs a bicycle.
God bless you Striver.
Lyn,
The only widows that I can honestly think of that are in the age group where re-marriage is conceivable are army wives. You probably have more experience than I do. But from what I know from the chaps that work out here in our local army base, once a wife gets the official folded flag of her fallen husband, either she will be too grief-stricken or she will be someone who was planning on divorcing or cheating on the guy when he was alive so she’s ready to move on to the next guy. Either way, that widow thing is a sort of canard because the only widow’s that I have seen remarry are the ones that are senior-aged. Young widows, as you say, are hard to come by. The only potential exception are wives of fallen armed service personnel and good luck walking in the shoes of a fallen American hero. Sure I can help the widowed wife out as Scripture commands us to do, but that doesn’t mean matrimony. Then again, many widowed wives help themselves…to another man’s bed and another man’s wallet.
Since I was a very young boy and then in my teenage years, I understood God’s promise through his son, to me. I accepted freely his promise to me and then my obligation to follow his word for my life. So here I am some 40 to 45 years later, divorced, had two kids, the ex wife exemplified the true Biblical Harlot, maybe she is a little better today, but I have stayed single for the last 17 years. When my son decided to take a page from my book and start to consider God’s promise to us, he started going to church, and I would go from time to time with him. It is good for a young man to go to church with lovely young ladies perhaps searching for the same promise of God, but their mothers, oh my, I could not step into the foyer of the church without being mugged by these women. If they had ever accepted the Lord as their Saviour, it was not evident. The only missing item in the foyer was a dance pole. I no longer go to what used to be the House of the Lord, everyone is deaf there, if only they were dumb, we might have a new biblical parable. The ministers are no better, they are run by their harpy wives who have no understanding of scripture and see themselves as the only religious and social arbiter in that building and that God has called them to that purpose, they are wrong, and the church is empty, except for the nearly dead and maybe the newlywed.
I wonder why these Pastor types never talk about single mothers reconciling with their estranged baby daddies? Seems far more prudent and the right Christian thing to do, forgiveness, honouring commitments, responsibilities etc.
Seems like modern churches are agents of serial polygyny.
I wonder why these Pastor types never talk about single mothers reconciling with their estranged baby daddies?
Money the issue is.
Church betas do have.
Thugs do not.
CV,
There aren’t that many young military widows, either. The total number of soldiers who died from all causes in Afghanistan and Iraq over the course of 13 years was around 6800 – and many of those were not married men, and ever fewer of them were married to serious Christian women… a drop in the ocean in a country with over 300 million people. With regard to your trepidation: I don’t know about marrying such a woman unless one is a vet oneself – I’ve never been much of a “civilian,” even when I wasn’t actively serving. (As a retiree I am entitled to be addressed by my rank for life.) Still and all… all things being equal, a military widow seems like a much better bet than a baby-momma. But as you noted, good luck finding a good one and making it work.
I hate to engage with “Yoda speak” but:
Increases in tithes will Churches have when drug dealers they receive.
Many are the perks financially of gambling and prostitution.
Whore the “Church” is.
This makes Mark Driscoll’s fall look like the result of God’s work in getting rid of hireling shepherds.
Johncomelately, that is a very good question. Pastors would probably dodge it by claiming they couldn’t exhort women to “unequally yoke” themselves to nonbelievers (and ignoring the fact that calling faithful Christian men to marry “reformed” sluts who will never be called out on their sins is ALSO a form of being unequally yoked).
Rather than calling single mothers to marry their babydaddies (who may not be any more interested in marrying the babymomma than she was in marrying him), I would suggest that churches tell single mothers that if they do not marry the father of their child(ren), then they will be expected to remain absolutely celibate and to glorify God by bearing the difficulty of being a single mother without complaint and without envying the advantages that the wiser, married women possess.
What if she has children from more than one man? Which “baby daddy” is she to marry, the first?
@James Rogers
”The solution is for the church to tell single young fertile women to not overlook the average nerdy guy to marry and have a baby with after they get married. . I won’t hold my breath for that to happen.”
The solution is to change church culture so it doesn’t turn men into simps instead to help instill masculinity in men as well as attract more masculine men hence solving the problem stated above.
Otherwise its akin to asking men to marry an obese woman out of duty.
@ballista74
”The Bible shows us that fatherhood is much more than simply being the father of a child. Biblical fatherhood involves setting a godly example for our children and blessing them as our Heavenly Father has blessed us.
…
Like Joseph, God might be calling you to an untraditional path of Fatherhood. Maybe you and your spouse have created a blended family. Our idea of how we want life to go is not always God’s plan for our life. God’s plan is purposeful and perfect; during this Christmas season I encourage you to be the father your children need you to be, whether biological or other. Use Joseph as your example. God has called you to care for your family. Fulfilling His calling is the highest of achievements. ”
Fox news, leftism 30 years old.
What if she has children from more than one man? Which “baby daddy” is she to marry, the first?
Based on OT instructions on not taking back an ex-wife you’ve divorced after she’s slept with another man, and the NT instructions to maintain the status quo after becoming a Christian (staying married; staying a slave; etc), I think the last one, not the first.
The first one may be with someone else at that point, and I don’t think there’s any gain from trying to undo a number of relationships to try to “fix” things. At least the most recent man had an idea of her baggage when he slept with her.
@God is Laughing:
I’m laughing too! I can picture the Breaking Bad guys attending a service and leaving a gym bag full of cash. All of it to be spent on single moms!
@Striver
Is your ex-wife a Lutheran, too? I know the Wisconsin synod and another synod that has mostly descendants of Norwegians are very hard core about divorces. The guilty party gets excommunicated from the pulpit on Sunday morning, and the innocent party is eligible to have a church wedding if they ever remarry. I wouldn’t give up on getting remarried, either while your kids are young, or perhaps later when they are grown. If you’ve got the custody settled, the level of chaos in your life should begin to decline soon.
@crimsonviceroy & Lyn87
I have an incredibly extroverted male cousin born about 1960. When his 50th birthday was coming up, he told his wife NOT to organize any party at all for him, because ALL of his friends were dead. Massive heart attack, skydiving accident, probably car & motorcycle accidents, etc. Due to the decrease in smoking, there are not nearly as many men dying of heart attacks in their 40s and 50s as there used to be, and the advent of paramedics and LifeFlight helicopters have made car accidents less likely to kill off young men. But more men participate in various types of extreme sports these days, and they often keep up with those sports even after marrying. There are many unwed mothers and divorced mothers for every widow, but the widows aren’t as rare as you might think.
That no one would ever feel any corresponding “need” to encourage women not to overlook “dead beat dads” is a greater indictment of Western Civilization’s legal and social enforcement of marriage and family than anything you’ve written, Dalrock.
@lyn87
(As a retiree I am entitled to be addressed by my rank for life.)
…
Does that still apply after they think you’re dead? 🙂
@lyn87
(As a retiree I am entitled to be addressed by my rank for life.)
…
Does that still apply after they think you’ve died? 🙂
I expect most here would agree that at the end of the day (Driscoll’s) he wasn’t removed because of his abysmal failure to preach true to the scriptures but because of his tyranny over his board and various personal conflicts and offenses within the ‘church’ hierarchy. Then there was the scam to promote his worthless book to the best seller lists. If it wasn’t for that he would still be going strong. Driscoll’s message to men is of course no different fundamentally to Stanton’s or the bulk of the ‘churches’, just with harsher language. God help the unfortunate young men who find themselves trapped in genuinely horrible marriages or the divorce aftermath after following the advice of these sorry excuses for teachers. I’ve seen the results with my own eyes too many times. It makes me wretch. And then there’s guys like me who we’re saved from such a fate. I Thank God and also the various men I’ve met who told me the truth, men who we’re mostly heathen.
innocentbystanderboston,
I hear you about the salary requirements. I think I’m already avoiding those women online to a certain extent if their requirements are unreasonable (i.e. out of my salary range). I’ll have to pay more attention to what I do with the ones who have a salary listed that is within what I make, although I’m not sure how much longer I’ll be doing this. I think I’ve emailed about all the ones in whom I was interested in my state and four states surrounding it on Match.com, and my membership ends next month, anyway. As of now, I have no plans to renew. However, I also recently signed up for a paid account on ChristianMingle, since I caught a special in which the price was only $7 / month for six months. ChristianMingle’s not as heavily used as Match, though, so the pool is much smaller, and I don’t have high hopes for it either.
I wanted to mention, too that I can’t get on board with your theory about Driscoll’s message being aimed at thugs, though for one simple reason. Thugs don’t tend to have the kind of life script that Driscoll mentioned. A life script would be more of something a responsible man who cares about the future and not just the moment would have.
Fox news, leftism 30 years old.
Yep! Conservatism = previous generation’s leftism. On example is feminism. Feminism is the norm in society. Women’s roles that are widely accepted today were scoffed at in previous generations. The majority of conservatives who deny feminism today live, breath, and promote the very feminism their ancestors despised, and call it equality and freedom. When I used to watch Fox News all I saw were feminists on the left vs feminists on the right. Both sides were in the”man bad, woman good” camp (except one guy – Marc Rudov).
That this question is not a joke, is a general indictment of the era.
Deep doodle
On ‘Sexual’ Morality by C.S. Lewis Doodle
@Laura,
I grew up Missouri Synod and am now ELCA. Soon to be ex went to church with me, joined my church unprompted, but is not religious herself and quit going when she separated.
She has committed adultery and on that basis I should feel morally okay with eventual remarriage, even though I forced her to file because I couldn’t stomach her refusal to put any work into our marriage for the sake of the children.
I’m here because despite her conservative Republican politics, deep down she has many characteristics of feminists that are discussed on boards like this one. She’s 10 years younger than I am, and so went to college in the mid-90s when the hookup culture was more prevalent.
I’m a nice, accommodating guy, not very dominant, but neither was my father. Different times now. My mother was smarter, more educated than my father, but was deferential in certain ways as people were back then. As far as my STBXW, it would have been like the Taming Of The Shrew to get her to be deferential. She’s obsessed with winning every issue. If I was aware of those issues, I wouldn’t have tried to game her or something, I would have looked for another partner.
As far as remarriage, I do know that through my divorce support groups there certainly are marriages where the woman is the more dedicated and the man walks away. So despite the tenor of boards like these, there is still hope.
couples counseling – http://www.justiceschanfarber.com/marriage-why-women-leave-cheat.html
Yeah that’s it, more touchy feely and serve her better….though a lot of the women seem to agree….
When I used to watch Fox News all I saw were feminists on the left vs feminists on the right
Either side make sammiches for the men they did?
Don’t overlook the single mom
These are not the women that you are looking for.
Move along.
That no one would ever feel any corresponding “need” to encourage women not to overlook “dead beat dads”
Resources they have not.
But tingles they may create.
Decision to make.
Choose poorly they will.
As I like to say
“Let us put aside beliefs on Mary for now, after all, a lion called Modernity has been gnawing at our collective leg for about 300 years, and I’m sure we’d all very much like to thrust a sword through its neck.”
With regard to Fox News, it is no news, and affording it any special status is ridiculous. Fox is part of the yellow press, fraud democracy machine. The only difference between Fox and other channels is that the others are quite literally propaganda outfits, whereas Fox trounces them in the ratings by bringing on the most inflamed idiots it can find (so long as they buy into the general overarching lies of liberal democracy) to have a fight with each other. Fox is formatted better, has prettier faces, and much more yelling…
But it is not really a news source. It’s bought and paid for by the Republican Party in most ways, and favors what the party’s consultants want. Not once have I seen anyone on that network, or for that matter any network, challenge liberalism directly, not left wing Democrat party politics, LIBERALISM.
The only place challenging liberalism remains, the Reactosphere.
“These words were specifically directed at the nice-guy/beta-providers that attend church”
This. This in spades. This ^ 1000.
Anybody who thinks otherwise has no clue as the the demographic of the Mars Hill congregation, at least in the greater Seattle area.
husband refuses to quit inappropriate web-cam girls
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=942314
NFP related question
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=942354
Family size and happiness
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=942294
@Hank Flanders and Innocent Bystander
Wouldn’t it be possible for the women to sort for “employed full time” rather than specifying a minimum income? A young relative of mine recently got married, and then rather quickly filed for divorce to end the marriage because her husband had no job (other than being in the Army reserves) and did not plan to ever get one. He said that being in the Reserves was too stressful for him to hold down a job on top of that. I have no idea what goes on in the pre-marriage classes at church these days.
@Striver
Just when I think that I have all the acronyms figured out, you lob out a new one. What does STBXW mean?
@Dalrock
Nice Post Mr.’D’.This Driscoll is such an idiot…….”Driscoll chastises Christian men who desire a wife who doesn’t come ready made with another man’s child, explaining that God may not wish this.””…………..Ya right!. To me there is a big difference between a “single widow with child”..and a “single mother”.I know a widow with child.Her husband was killed in a car accident.Would I “overlook” her as a woman?…NO! That is a circumstance that was beyond her control.Would I overlook a single mother…YES! She has some bastard spawn out of wedlock because she was too stupid to swallow!…..and that is not my problem!
Pingback: Yes the reformed have a Marian theology, Joss Whedon. | Dark Brightness
Go here and type the word Christianity in the search box at the top of the page. Read reason #5 in the post you’ll see.
It explains what Driscoll and countless others do to men as service to their master.
@Striver I’m thankful for Dalrock and the work he does here.
I do not know @Dalrock in real life, but there are other role models that I have spent a lot of time with in person including Mike Cernovich
His work has encouraged me along with other role models like Rollo Tomassi. He’s been happily and faithfully married almost 20 years. His insights are effective in the situation you have found yourself in at this moment. I’d recommend you acquire his book “The Rational Male” right now.
If nothing else, visit TheRationalMale dot com and find the post from January 18, 2015 “She Turned On Me” — You’ll be reminded again that you’re not alone in this. There are almost 700 comments under that post because so many men have been affected in a similar way that you have been. There is hope, Striver.
That this question is not a joke, is a general indictment of the era.
It wasn’t a serious question, Boxer. I’m always intrigued just a little by that suggestion for myriad reasons..
@Laura
STBXW = Soon To Be Ex Wife
@Elspeth
The question is serious. Many men have heard that exact same question pounded at them whenever they assert the words of the bible. In stead of the deacons, elders, and even the preacher standing up for the word of GOD, they imagine the most implausible situation…
A beautiful young girl 16 year old was duped into having sex by a nasty, mean, brutish, drug dealer. He told her he would love her, but instead, he gave her a child and left. This was completely his fault, she cannot be blamed in any way. Her parents wanted to press charges but she never told them who it was, she still loved him and knew he would come back.
She turned her life over to Jesus and the church welcomed her with open arms. No one dare condemn her actions, after all no one was without sin, how dare they cast stones? She found a nice young man in the church to date. While dating him she was fooled again and fell for a new man; this time a drummer in a local band who had a habit of hitting her. She knew that he loved her and that he just needed her help to work out his anger issues, and only she could tame him.
She continued to date the church boy until she showed. Unfortunately he had never had the guts to pressure for sex so he knew it wasn’t his. The pastor, the deacons, and even his own wretched mother suggest that he marry the girl, even when he told them he had never even had sex with her. Luckily he had some friends who told him how stupid this was and he left her. The church asked him to leave. They asked her and her two bastard children to stay….
This is the woman they want you to marry. Always remember this. This is who they would have you attempt to turn into a wife. A slattern, a jezebel, a whore. To your preacher, your pastor, even your mother, you are nothing but a pack mule, a beta resource, a tool of production. You are Uriah, set to fight, and die, and be cuckolded at the pleasure of Alphas and all women.
Do not ever accept this. If you can’t tell them to their face what horrid monsters they are, then just walk away.
Pingback: Driscoll, where do baby-mamas come from? | Dalrock
Laura
Wouldn’t it be possible for the women to sort for “employed full time” rather than specifying a minimum income?
I wouldn’t have a problem with that if it were offered as an option. There’s nothing wrong with seeking a man with a good work ethic. I think a woman would be rather foolish if she didn’t, taking into account that some men are in ministry, but there’s still a work ethic to be found there, too. However, when I see any woman specify that her man make at least 75K or 100K per year, that tells me everything I need to know about her. It’s even more amusing when she’s a single mother. Does she really think listing that minimum salary is going to help her get ANY man, let alone one who actually does make that much money?
The solution is to change church culture so it doesn’t turn men into simps instead to help instill masculinity in men as well as attract more masculine men hence solving the problem stated above.
Good luck with that. Masculinity and churchian culture are 180 degrees out from each other, just as biblical literacy and churchianity are polar opposites. No churchian CEO and his board of directors will tolerate either one of these for a microsecond, as both represent direct threats to the power/personality cult that fuels such leadership.
Anchorman,
Is there anything “wrong” with having the standards of physical features, money, or whatever…well, no. However, when women (and men) telegraph those are priorities, it shows where their priorities are.
Yeah, I really have no problem with women wanting men they find physically attractive to a certain degree. My point goes more to the realism of their requirements. Considering that only 15% of American men are 6’ tall or more, I’m always amused when women 5’2” to 5’4” still have the 6’ requirement or something close to it, and this goes even quadruple when the woman has kid(s) or is average or below in looks herself.
That already low number of men is going to be reduced even further in order to accommodate women’s personality, availability, and loyalty requirements, and I get can’t help but roll my eyes when reading articles like this (although I’m not sure whether to blame the author of the article or the women who fill out the surveys), because they don’t seem to line up with what we see in reality: http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/43587-the-most-important-thing-men-don-t-know-about-single-women-but-should
As was stated in that article as well as others, women consistently rank a man’s sense of humor as the number one trait they find attractive, but personally, I have little problem making women laugh once they actually take the time to talk to me or be around me. The fact is that women are going to have to invest a little time to find out if a sense of humor is there, which I’m not sure they do as much as they should if they actually value a man’s sense of humor as much as they say they do.
Hank Flanders,
I read the article you linked. The first thing I noticed is that is was written by Shaunti Feldhahn, who has a very poor track record in this area.
You’re correct about her myopia, of course. She makes the classic mistake of believing women when they say what they want as opposed what they prove that they actually want by their actions. She stumbled across a point relevant to this thread without realizing it, too. She admitted that these “good girls” were going for the bad boys now (because they’re more in-your-face and do more approaches), but she tells the GoodMen [TM] that they can be next in line if they get their act together. Gee… thanks, Shaunti, I’m sure all those nice guys who’ve been watching the “good girls” run off with thugs, d-bags, and bass players are just chomping at the bit to be permanently tied to the town pump.
Then she trots out this infuriating little gem:
It may or may not be what she most wants, but she’s going to spread her legs just the same. That’s Driscollism-in-a-skirt. “You see, Mr. Rejected-Nice-Guy, that church girl who is banging the bad boys don’t really want to… she’d much rather be with you, but you’re screwing it up because you’re not as adept at “stirring something in her” (which is Churchian-speak for, “Gives her tingles.”) Miss Feldhahn is offering the worst of both worlds: she blames good men for the sexual choices of bad women, and her solution is indistinguishable from secular Game techniques (“You have to learn to stir something in her like the bad boys do.”) And to top it off, her advice boils down to, “Be yourself, only better,” so the beta pack-mules can rope these carousel-riders into long-term relationships. Yeah… good luck with that.
The comments in this just has me in straight disbelief. Are you guys serious? Cause I really hope you’re not. Just because a woman has had a child or children by a previous male does not make a slut or harlot or whatever word you prefer to use. What about the men that knocked them up? Women get a lot of sh*t for something that involves two people.
Some women fall for the bad boy but a majority of them don’t. Some women fall for a guy who is actually decent but he’s either just looking for sex or is already married.
Both sexes have to be responsible for their actions. Women shouldn’t just let any man tell them some bullsh*t and think he’s the one & men shouldn’t be out in the world putting their organ into anything with two legs and not wanting to take responsibility for the life that he had created then marry some other women and now want to play the role of dad.
Well, obviously, some good girls go for the bad boys, but in my experience, the pretty and wholesome Christian girls simply stay single for a long time, while continually rejecting the good Christian guys in her life. This scenario mentioned by that lady (with whom I’m not very familiar):
He walks over and says, “Look, I really enjoyed meeting you. If you’re not seeing someone at the moment, I’d love to get together for coffee or lunch after church sometime.”
Now, let me ask you: What does that approach say to a woman’s secret question? His confident approach to her, his attentiveness, his thoughtfulness all say, “Yes, you are special.”
might work if the girl’s already attracted to the guy doing the asking, but if she’s not, she’s likely to be indifferent to all of his attentiveness and misplaced confidence at best and consider them “creepy” at worst.
It’s just not been my experience that women give you a chance based on the amount of confidence you and thoughtfulness you display. It’s been my experience that women give you a chance based on the amount attraction they have for you already.
@crimsonviceroy wrote: “I should go so far as to say that any Christian man who is unmarried and a virgin (which numbers a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT MORE than their female virgin peers)”
Is there a lot solid statistical evidence of this? I’ve only found one study so far that showed that 5% of men 25-40 were Virgins while only 2% of women in the same age bracket were Vs. Also read an article from a psychologist who said he frequently had patients who struggled with virginity or involuntary celibacy, almost all were males.
I don’t overlook single mothers because I don’t even give them a first look to begin with. I just dropped 6 large on a skydiving rig. I will get infinitely more enjoyment out of that expenditure than I ever would or ever wil by wasting 6 large on a used up thug spawn in tow slattern.
Give a single mother the man she deserves…..NONE!!!!!
@cdw 100
“”I could not step into the foyer of the church without being mugged by these women. If they had ever accepted the Lord as their Saviour, it was not evident.””
I used to have this problem at the Christian Church that I attend.Women used to flock to me.Then I put on my Kippa. They lost interest very quickly.A few years back I went to a “singles picnic” put on by the Church that I attend,along with 3 other Churches.All the men that showed up were good looking,well mannered,gainfully employed etc.The women that showed up were divorced,divorced with kids or hopeless fatties.There were no matches made that day! I remember talking to my Pastor about that.That was when he started to see the light and become red pill.I know that he would never give a sermon about “marrying those single mothers”……only if they are widowed!
@ChildOfRa
If the fact escapes you, these comments you don’t like are typed by Christians. Since when was sex before marriage a part of Christian tenets?
If G-d comes to you a dream 3 times and tells you to marry a single mom, go for it. Until then this guy is nuts. Widows=Single mom, only in hell
I take it back, he isn’t nuts, he is actually evil
@ChildofRA
“”The comments in this just has me in straight disbelief. Are you guys serious?””……….Yes!…very serious.I will personally vouch for the congruence of the “regular posters” on this blog.
“”Just because a woman has had a child or children by a previous male does not make a slut or harlot””………………….if she is a widow?…I will agree! If she is never married?….that makes her a “booty call” that is probably trying to trap the man into child support payments.This does happen…..seriously it does!……I almost forgot……big daddy gov’t support! What year are you living in?…..and on what planet?
“”What about the men that knocked them up?””……………………What about them? She will have him in family court in a heartbeat….and social services will be issuing her a monthly cheque………Now I will bet you are getting jealous of all that free money?
“”Some women fall for a guy who is actually decent but he’s either just looking for sex or is already married.””…………………she should use her better judgement………”already married”????……..Hmmm….that booty call thingy again!
“”Women shouldn’t just let any man tell them some bullsh*t and think he’s the one””…………………Really?…….Have you met any modern wimminz lately?…..hell,I could convince them that the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese!……….get your head out of your ass!
For someone like ChildofRA to jump in out of the blue with that sort of tripe must mean she hasn’t been here very long. Anyone who’s been here more than a day or two is well familiar with the very valid reasons why a woman’s “complicated” sexual history and/or bastard children lessen her standing in the mating market.
It’s true of men (to a lesser extent), but frankly the 99.99999% of the culture that treats men as beasts of burden and exonerates women of every flaw – every minute of every day – is taking care of pointing that out without any further help from us.
Then again, if she had taken the time to get the feel of this place before she vomited all over the thread, she would have known that blame-and-shame will earn her ridicule rather than respect.
Lyn,
“Good luck finding a good one and making it work.” That can be said about unmarried single women too, my friend. What I’ve been espousing all along is that the grand majority of single Christian men out there have only one thing within their sphere of control…how they can accept this truth about the women of our age. The fact of the matter is that no matter what single Christian men do to try and relieve their situation, the choices lay in the hands of women and whether or not they want to continue making the same mistakes over and over again or repeating mistakes of their peers and forebears.
Oh, are we feeding the ignorant troll now? Can I submit my troll food for analysis?
Calling a single mother a “slut” is a little unfair to all the sluts who are smart enough to use contraception, which is cheap and readily available. Calling a single mother a “harlot” is really unfair because harlots actually negotiate payment for their services instead of giving it away for free – and they don’t try to extort payment from people without giving a service in return, either, unlike the single mother who expects “the community” to pick up the slack for her bad judgement. Single mothers are either dumb sluts or entitled narcissists who think that their desire to have a child trumps their children’s right to both parents and their best interests (to be raised in a two-parent household).
So I suggest it’s most proper to refer to single mothers as “stupid sluts.” For the alliteration. You could always go for “narcissistic child abuser” but I’m guessing most single mothers end up that way due to lack of foresight (aka, low intelligence) rather than actual personality disorder.
CV,
We remain on the same page. I am so glad that I’m not a young man in the meat-grinder any more. There weren’t very many “Righteous Foxes” in my dating days, either (I only met one and I married her post haste), but the girls who weren’t were probably closer to N=3 than the more-typical N=9 (or more) that we see today.
Personally, I still think anything over N=0 is too many: anything else is quibbling about differences of degrees of badness that can only be measured by a micrometer, but still… it’s got to suck out there.
I haven’t read all the discussion, but I will note that my own experience raising someone else’s children did not go well at all. (My wife and I adopted a sibling group of 4.)
They maintained their loyalty to their birth family, and especially the birth father and no amount of good work changed that. That is a bit different case, though I will bet the core issues are similar and a father stepping into the role of a step parent will often never really be a father no matter what he does.
It is not right to set people up for failure.
Libertarian Anarchist,
Your comment up above is the single best comment I have seen in a long time. It gives caution, wisdom, admonishment and grace all in one. I can not tell you have shocked I am to read someone put it out there in such a way. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
Pingback: On The Same Page | Donal Graeme
Driscoll chastises Christian men who desire a wife who doesn’t come ready made with another man’s child
Then God can take care of the little b*stard – because I sure as h*ll wouldn’t. Women are cheap and plentiful – why would any man want to saddle himself with another man’s kid? Sure, have sex with women with kids if you have a need and she’s attractive and available, but NEVER think of it as anything more than it is – a booty call to get your rocks off. All you are to her is a sucker if you get stuck with her. Yes, it’s not nice – but that is life…
@Just Saying
>Sure, have sex with women with kids if you have a need and she’s attractive and available
Obviously God gives you free will, and you are able to use that free will to do this. I advise you not, based on the Bible 🙂
Even ignoring the Bible however, your position does not make sense to me. Why would you want to degrade yourself by having sex with an unworthy woman who has been passed around to a bunch of guys before you? And if she is willing to be a booty call for you, I would find it difficult to believe she is caste. Regardless of a need to treat others with respect, at least start by respecting yourself. YOU are not some worthless person, good only for some woman’s sex outlet. You have great value, so act like it! 🙂
Maybe my sexual desires are lower than what other guys have… although I really doubt it. I just don’t see the self-respect in putting my penis in a woman that has already had 5 other guys there. Maybe you are “supposed” to just ignore the degradation to yourself and just focus on her breasts?
That’s my one major issue with the believability of “The Big Bang Theory” sit-com. They portray the guys as willing and eager to be the 47th guy to sleep with Penny. Say what???
Dale
hmm… should young women (you know, in the prime of their lives) ignore single dads?
Pingback: The Aperture and its Pretenders | v5k2c2
Pingback: Are pastors and churches doing a good job of preparing women for marriage? | Wintery Knight
He’s saying “how dare you be like Adam”.
Why should I act as if I were less than Adam? He says men are to worship Adam?
Ridiculous, he is.
Pingback: Cuckstianity. Mary the single mother. Most Holy Chalice. Part 1. | entropyismygod
Pingback: A day for cucks. Time to burn. Entropy is my god. – entropy is my god
Pingback: Cuckstianity. Mary the single mother. Most Holy Chalice. Part 2. – entropy is my god