Feminists have long struggled to define their driving sense of discontentment. Understanding this sense of discontentment is critical to understanding feminism itself. If you don’t know what feminists are devoting their lives in reaction against, you won’t understand what feminism is really for. But as I mentioned above, even feminists struggle greatly to define exactly what they are rebelling against. Betty Friedan famously dubbed the burning sense of feminist discontentment “The problem that has no name” in her much cherished book.
Feminism at its core is about a feeling of envy for men. Feminists don’t deny this, but they claim they are merely envious of men’s position in society. Freud was closer when he coined the term penis envy, but even this only captures a part of the feminist dysfunction. It isn’t so much that feminists wish they had penises, it is that they deeply resent the fact that God made them women. It isn’t just about penis envy, but vagina revulsion.
Feminist icon Germaine Greer made headlines earlier this year when she rejected trans women as real women. Her wording in this rejection was incredibly telling; she didn’t object to trans women on the basis that they had been born with penises, but that they didn’t know what it was like to “have a big hairy smelly vagina”.
You’ve come a long way, baby.
At first glance this is a very peculiar way for a feminist to make this argument, but feminists have been surprisingly open about their struggle with self loathing for a very long time. They have long blamed the patriarchy for making them hate themselves as women and claimed that their goal as feminists was to overcome this self loathing. This comes out in a variety of ugly ways, but very often this involves feminists doing disgusting things with menstrual blood. In 1970 Germain Greer famously tried to mask her own self loathing in her book The Female Eunuch with the statement:
if you think you are emancipated, you might consider the idea of tasting your own menstrual blood – if it makes you sick, you’ve a long way to go, baby
Whether it is claiming a penchant for the taste of menstrual blood, wearing it as lipstick, or painting with it, feminists give themselves away in their try-hard attempts to deny their self loathing.
Drippy vulnerable femaleness
Butch feminist A.K. Summers wrote a comic for Mutha Magazine titled Nursing While Butch. She writes about her fear that breastfeeding would make her feel like a “brood sow”. Her fear was that breastfeeding would be like pregnancy (emphasis hers):
That it was going to keep my drippy, vulnerable femaleness front and center.
Summers explains that much to her relief breastfeeding actually made her feel like a man. Being able to breastfeed gave her a super power, like Superman.
One might be tempted to write this mindset off as only applying to butch lesbian feminists*, but as I showed above a sense of disgust at having a vagina and drippy, vulnerable femaleness is a universal part of the feminist experience. Moreover, you will find the same kind of revulsion towards motherhood expressed by straight feminists. A different Mutha magazine article, this one by Suzanne Cope, describes a very similar feminist loathing at the biological reality of motherhood. In Confessions of an Unsentimental Mother, Cope describes feeling relieved when told she had miscarried:
I began mourning my changing social life, home life, and let’s face it, body, to have this child.
Which is why when the doctor told me I had a miscarriage a few weeks later, I did not cry, or feel anything other than relief.
It turns out she hadn’t miscarried after all, and this brought up Cope’s own feelings of fear and resentment of the thought of being seen as a woman, as a mother:
I swore I would not be defined by my pregnancy. I was not a vessel. I cringed when my belly stared showing, and when colleagues, who once asked about my research and teaching, began inquiring after my health. I felt my identity start to slip through my fingers as my child grew more and more apparent to the outside world.
Similar to Summers seeing breastfeeding as turning her into a brood sow, Cope describes pregnancy as turning her into a vessel, and at times feeling like she was “host to an alien”. And again, there was that drippy vulnerable femaleness (emphasis mine):
And then, at almost 32 weeks pregnant, my water broke. At first I figured this new leakage was one more unfortunate symptom of a growing, and increasingly inconvenient, pregnancy.
But this particular form of drippy vulnerable femaleness was a sign of mortal danger to her child. Cope carried the same feeling of resentment and self loathing even into the hospital as the doctors and nurses worked desperately to save her unborn child:
In a moment, my life was redefined. I could no longer resist being seen as a vessel, for that was all that I was inside the hospital walls. I was no longer called by my name, but referred to as “Mama” by the rotating shifts of nurses who woke me every few hours to check my vital signs, and those of the baby. My new reality, forced upon me weeks before I thought I had to be ready, was rife with compromise.
Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.
Last year feminist Amanda Marcotte cemented her position in the Ugly Feminist Hall of Fame with her infamous rant against babies and motherhood.
You can give me gold-plated day care and an awesome public school right on the street corner and start paying me 15% more at work, and I still do not want a baby. I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding. No matter how much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness.
…
I like drinking alcohol and eating soft cheese. I like not having a giant growth protruding out of my stomach.
…
This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion. Given the choice between living my life how I please and having my body within my control and the fate of a lentil-sized, brainless embryo that has half a chance of dying on its own anyway, I choose me.
…[what a woman] wants trumps the non-existent desires of a mindless pre-person that is so small it can be removed in about two minutes during an outpatient procedure. Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.
When feminists like Gregoire and Valenti tell us their resentment is merely against what they see as the humiliating role of women, they aren’t being fully honest. They aren’t just objecting to serving others by making sandwiches and wrapping presents, they are objecting to what they see as the humiliating fact of being a woman.
Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder
Feminist rebellion is at its core a rebellion against beauty. The common expression is that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, meaning that there is no such thing as beauty. But this implies that there is no God, and that fallen men are the only beholders who can perceive beauty. If we understand that there is in fact a Beholder (with a capital B), we can understand that beauty is in fact very real and immutable. With this in mind, we also know that the very thing feminists rail against the most is beautiful to God:
Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
It is important to note that feminist self loathing doesn’t just apply to women who consider themselves feminists, and it isn’t even limited to women. Modern Christian men and women both loathe what God finds beautiful, in a profound rejection of God Himself. We can see the fruits of this loathing in the theological cross-dressing which is so delightful to modern Christians.
Feminist self loathing; men’s auxiliary brigade
While men like Jenner clearly lead the men’s auxiliary brigade, they are not alone. We can see the same self loathing in Christian men seeking out pastors who will figuratively castrate them, just as other men seek out a leader who does so physically. We also see this in the modern Christian loathing of husbands and fathers.
Whatever the expression of rebelling against God’s order and creation, and whether done by man or woman, it is all ugly and will always only bring pain and discord.
*While not all feminists are lesbians, The Other McCain explains that the two are more connected than many would expect.
Pingback: Feminist self loathing | Neoreactive
If d1cks weren’t so easy to clean, women would have less to b1tch about. Women envy men our convenience. Male hygiene is easy. No menses. No pregnancy. No breasts to worry about being too small or too large. We are less prone to STDs. A condom doesn’t have side effects like the pill does.
Pingback: Feminist self loathing | Manosphere.com
Brothers! Have you heard the Good News? Christ died to expose White Privilege! So sayeth the President of the UCC:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-john-c-dorhauer/an-open-letter-to-white-m_b_7857790.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Feminist hatred and jealousy of men are corrosive to the soul. Rotten to the bone. As Scripture points out, a human isn’t salvageable when they develop such bad traits. This is why feminists are beyond help. Think about Planned Parenthood. Infanticide and the sale of baby parts. Words cannot express just how horrible this really is. Yet feminists are in lock step with this perversion.
“The problem that has no name”
Envy…
… which leads to coveting.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Stop coveting my maleness.
“For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.”
Reblogged this on gaikokumaniakku and commented:
Sometimes Dalrock combines terseness, readability, and insight. This article is an example of Dalrock at his best.
pseudological/irrational/imaginary postmodern make-abilities, identity politics & sexualization, with or without a god, the great betrayal of being yourself, of truth, freedom, justice, peace, of children’s future, humanity, and, love..
This is a very insightful article.
I’ve often thought that part of the “problem that has no name” is the sense of discontent that comes when someone doesn’t know Christ. Without Christ, much of motherhood and housework is drudgery. But doing these things in service to the Lord gives them meaning and value.
@ Dalrock: Please assemble / compile your best thoughts into a book.
Tremble at the thought of the sharkgina.
I remember a few years back on the very far left CBC, Germaine Greer was interviewed and after that Salmon Rushdie came on and told the female host that why did he have to follow Greer. The host asked him why and he said something along the lines that she isn’t a true or serious author. Well said Salmon. Amanda Marcotte says babies are demanding? I guess as a feminazi, she never did grow up.
Dalrock,
Good essay. The most important part of it was this sentence.
Of course they rebel against it. They MUST rebel against it. Because there IS beauty, the ugly woman knows that she is marginalized in society. Being a woman is only good if she is beautiful. Alas, many women aren’t.
Rush Limbaugh said it best with one of his 35 undeniable truths of life:
If there were no ugly women, there would be no need for feminism. Its as simply as it is. Alas, there are ugly women (many of them.) Their looks (from they day they were born) are just physically repulsive. And for these poor women, there is just not much they can do about it. And they look around at all the pretty or even just the plain looking women succeeding in life because they have the attention of men (something they themselves have never had, and never will.) Ugly women could only DREAM about the chance of having one, just one man (any man) chase her and make her feel… special. But there are none.
The opposite of love most certainly is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference. And men feel nothing but pure indifference towards the ugly woman. The ugly woman is not shunned but she is invisible, ignored, excluded (the way ordinary women treat our very own “feministhater” most likely.) If men won’t have them and make them whole… then who will?
Feminism.
Feminism fills in for men for the ugly women that men simply choose to avoid. Feminism empowers the ugly woman. Feminism gives the ugly woman a purpose to live, recognition, and (quite often) money (either through government directly or by way of legislation to force the hand of the free market.) She becomes feminist NOT because she agrees with any of its inane principles, but instead, because she feels she has nowhere else to go. God allowed her to be born ugly. In her mind God rejected her, left her 90+ years of hell on earth. If He did that to her than he is either a vengeful cruel God, or there is no God. Might as well turn to feminism.
Pingback: Feminist self loathing | Reaction Times
This has to be the saddest excuse for the existence of feminism – In creating feminism, these women have made their situation impossible. No one will want an ugly feminist – with a kind and gentle heart they had a chance to show far more than the surface skin, they had a chance to show Godly virtues which remain long after surface beauty fades. Now they have nothing. The virtues are gone.
Germaine Greer has been embarrassing us Australians for too many decades. Recently she was interviewed and said that she wanted to write about “women…who have spent their lives working for a cause (feminism)… only to be abandoned by those they love…” – which is exactly what occurs when you’re not nice to people!
I would agree wholeheartedly with IBB on ugly women needing feminism: NOTHING is redeemable
-in hating being born female
-in abortion;
-in HATING childbearing – a gift from God to enable us to bring new life into the world;
-in menstrual blood lipstick (sicko);
-in the lesbian practice of penetrative sex without a penis present (painful, sick sadistic and therefore evil)
It wasn’t the menstrual blood article that turned my stomach Dalrock. It was the articles of Suzanne Cope and Amanda Marcotte. It shows that the ancient hideous deity Molech (http://biblehub.com/topical/m/molech.htm), who demanded infant sacrifice in exchange for selfish power. That Ms Cope seems married is a problem. This indicates that her husband doesn’t take her views seriously, when in fact if men stopped marrying feminist women, it would go a long way to sending them the signal that such attitudes are unacceptable.
Well Jess, it is whatever it is. I have known quite a few truly ugly women and (well) just smiling and being pleasant didn’t help them with men, not one bit. For all the time that I have known them, there were no men in their lives other than the occasional man who would have non-committed s-x. And very often these women would be willing to take only that because that is all that men would offer. At least for that very short duration (a few minutes in the day, or maybe in the week) where the f-ck buddy visits, a man is focused on her.
I suppose it is possible for an ugly woman to be happily married to a good man but I haven’t known ANY of these situations, personally. Perhaps this happened more in the past when we had much larger percentages of people married. But when only 49.2% of people over the age of 18 are married in the United States (and that number is ever declining) the numbers are drastically stacked against the ugly woman.
the non-existent desires of a mindless pre-person that is so small it can be removed in about two minutes during an outpatient procedure. Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.
Says the Mindless, Self-Absorbed Non-Person whore.
I John 4:3
The quotes from those feminists just further confirm to me that the single most accurate word to describe feminists is “joyless.” I realized this fact last year I guess was when I read an article probably on the Huffington Post or something from a feminist wife and mother who was complaining about the upcoming Christmas activities she was going to be expected to do such as cooking, decorating, and wrapping presents. Feminists, at least the hard-core ones, really seem to have no personal joy if their writings accurately reflect the way they view the world.
IBB – Agreed that we have entered an age where the inner person is not valued the way it should be. Good women are hard to find and Marriage has been set adrift. I think we will find that God is not amused.
“It isn’t so much that feminists wish they had penises, it is that they deeply resent the fact that God made them women.”
Bingo. This is the heart of the rebellion. As in the beginning, when Eve went Independent because God was cheating her, holding out on her, keeping her down. Not letting her sit on his Throne. Hm there weren’t any Presidents or Congressthings or College Deans back then… who ever could have told her that?
The ‘ugly woman’ thing applies, but is only tangential. The core of the rage is that God is a father, and our Father, the source of masculinity and maleness itself. He is not our Space Mommy. He’s not half-feminine. Females are the weaker vessel, subject to male authority. They are not an inferior vessel. But females are encouraged, incentivized, and instructed to resent God, and to resent boys and men, and thus they require Equality and Egalitarianism and endless supremacist ‘laws’ to feel better about their own self-created, self-embraced inadequacy. And weak (and worse) males are right there to help them ‘level the playing field’.
This is why books like ‘The Shack’ have been so popular, especially among women. The New God could look like — and be — Oprah Winfrey or Sonia Sotomayor or Aunt Jemima. Meaning that (Blessed Be!) females finally get to be God. And masculine. And male. With endless ‘rights’ designed to make up for millennia of nonexistent oppression under that mean male God. Because God must be whatever we demand, not what he is. And if he isn’t, well, we will destroy the family and the nations and the world — and his servants — in our spite and selfishness and envy.
We all have the same choice really. Try to obey, or rebel.
It’s obvious feminism is a rebellion against the oppression of their wombs, patriarchy is the fantasy these loons have concocted to escape the biological reality that it is a function of their own bodies that oppresses them, they are literally left holding the baby.
Imo it would be fair to say that if reliable contraceptive was to vanish, about 9 months later so would feminism.
Jess,
The inner person is not values at all, not for men (at least not in day and age) and CERTAINLY not for women. The outside looks, are everything.
Everyone in the sports world that wants to be “politically correct” and for empowering women, is talking about the Women’s UFC champion Ronda Rousey. And with good reason. The reason of course is how she looks….
She is drop dead gorgeous. Sure, women’s UFC is ridiculous. Her record is not the reason why they pay attention to her. No one cares that she knocks other women out in 20 seconds. They pay attention to her ONLY because she looks the way she does….
…which is really a testament to how shallow our society has become. .
No one cares that she knocks other women out in 20 seconds
Not other women, certainly, and this is true of every women’s sport. Dikesketball (a.k.a. the WNBA) is a prime example. No men want to watch butch lesbians play fifth-rate basketball, and neither do any women. Why else would the WNBA rely for its survival on subsidies from real professional basketball (the NBA)? If women were interested, they’d be coming out to WNBA games in droves, leveraging their SIW economic might to make Dikesketball self-sustaining and profitable.
As for women and the WFF, while some men might get a vicarious sexual thrill watching hotties like Ronda Rousey pound on other women, they don’t consider it a serious sport.
Just for fun….. “I could never marry anyone who…”
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=970939
when the abused becomes the abuser
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=971001
How should I go about getting to know girls better?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=970985
Excellent post.
In the original story, Cinderella was not the beautiful girl depicted in the movies, she was rather unattractive. Enough so that even her father preferred her two step sisters over her. That’s why the brothers Grimm chose to totally ignore him. What Cinderella did have was a surpassing inner beauty, which the prince (a Christ figure) was able to see. Someday maybe they’ll make a movie reflecting that.
@innocentbystanderboston
“I suppose it is possible for an ugly woman to be happily married to a good man but I haven’t known ANY of these situations, personally. Perhaps this happened more in the past when we had much larger percentages of people married.”
I’ve seen many.
It existed in the past in times of arranged marriages (at least in some subsets of population).
It is common now in time of de-facto polygyny, which by definition gives (ugly) women access to much better men than themselves (although shared in some cases). It can be seen at least for 30-something or younger. Maybe not in the US but where I live it works.
Manjaw lets it slip. The top and tail of the whole miserable business.
“Given the choice … I choose me.” Well done Amanda, we had noticed.
The sacred Meeeee!, and none other.
Bye bye, have fun with YourSelf.
This is what happens when you spoil your kids rotten, then?
germaine greer loved it when her nipples hardened looking at all these delicious boyz in tha lockerroom, its just another sexual frustrated pedologic child abusive fembot!
ray, GeminiXcX,
“The core of the rage is that God is a father, and our Father, the source of masculinity and maleness itself. He is not our Space Mommy. He’s not half-feminine. Females are the weaker vessel, subject to male authority.”
“Feminism at it’s core is hatred and jealousy of authority; and since the ultimate authority is God — and God is masculine — then the masculine must be hated. . . ”
Bingo!
“Leftism is about the overthrow of the father”:
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-book-that-has-influenced-me-most.html
theasdgamer says: July 25, 2015 at 4:33 pm
“No menses. No pregnancy. No breasts to worry about being too small or too large. We are less prone to STDs. A condom doesn’t have side effects like the pill does”.
-If women lived as Scripture told them to – with marriage in mind and joining to a husband when married – most of these problems would disappear.
IBB: It seems Ms Rousey might get her wish to fight “men” since Fallon Fox, a transgender UFC fighter is now in the League. As usual, though, if a man dares to peak his mind about this, he gets suspended:
The Police State marches on.
Growing up in feminist households, where the lie of equality is gospel, and there is no study of the Word, waking up to Truth can be especially confusing for a time, for a woman. She marries a masculine, Christian man, is influenced by him as he helps her mature, and learns that all she’s believed is wrong. She learns that the raging hormones leading to irrational thought is not acceptable, is not to be celebrated, and needs to be held in check (no one has ever told her that before in her former “you go girl” world).
I remember saying to my husband, “I’m so envious of you, you wake up in the same mood everyday.” There is much to envy of the natural tendencies of men. The steady moods, the rational thought, the discretion and calmness that seems to be part of their makeup. I’m sure I’m not the only woman who, in the midst of trying to change the poor behavior, rebellion, depression, and anxiety (without SSRI’s), cried out to God, asking why he made me this way. Very few stop to listen to the Answer. And everything is possible with Him.
@Seriously Serving
I’ve often thought that part of the “problem that has no name” is the sense of discontent that comes when someone doesn’t know Christ.
I’m glad you said “know” and not just “believes in”. Many believe but do not know and still remain envious and covetous. His willingness to transform us into the women He created us to be remains unsought with them. The joy they could experience is within their reach but they refuse it and use all kinds of justifications and rationalizations to remain in the mindset they are in. If you listen closely, you’ll hear, within those excuses, how this time God made a mistake and didn’t create her right (medical excuses usually “hormone imbalance”, “clinical” this or that etc), or He refuses to answer her prayers ( read: give her what she wants without her having to do the work to transform her heart). That she does everything “right” as a Christian and still nothing works. And, since she’s followed the prescribed formula to a “t”, God’s promises are a lie. Never mind that she asked a human what the formula is instead of the Word.
With secular feminists, their self-loathing is obvious and almost comical. With Christians who claim to be anti-feminism yet only seek truth and instruction from humans (in order to blame them when it doesn’t “work”) their self loathing is tragic and makes a mockery of the Word. God can handle our anger and confusion but to for a woman to claim she’s done all she can do and nothing helps her, spits in His face and informs Him that in her opinion, He messed up.
I’m not so sure… I haven’t that many of your blogs but this one https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/womens-morphing-need-for-male-investment/ seems to be something of a masterstroke. You say ‘young women are the rockstars of the dating world’ … the graph in question seems to be about right to me. SMV is power, power corrupts, it especially corrupts the young and impressionable… the wishful thinking, when the hormones are at their most active. The ‘carousel’ *is* surely intoxicating, and recall Jane Austen:
Jane Bennett – “It is our vanity that fancies admiration [all the flattering lies etc] means more than it does”. Lizzie: “And men take care that it should!”
There’s the recipe for resentment… very, very, extreme resentment.
This is really a great essay: poignant, logically tight and beautifully written.
ray writes:
Do you have a source to support this strange contention of yours? I’d prefer something from the King James bible. At this point I’m convinced you’re either a Mormon, or you’re simply writing your own scripture, that parallels the D&C.
Masculinity is an animal quality, found only in creatures that sexually reproduce. The Christian/Jewish god is beyond all that, being neither masculine nor feminine. He is not a man or a dude, in any respect. It’s disrespectful even to think of him that way.
Regards,
Boxer
https://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/penis-envy-is-it-real/
“I’m so envious of you, you wake up in the same mood everyday.”
“You mean, irascible until I’ve had breakfast and coffee?”
Heh Tarl.
If he is irascible, it’s would only be for the 2 minutes it takes for me to get his bulletproof coffee (serves as breakfast too) in his hands. 🙂
I haven’t known men (I could be wrong) to go through times of having an indescribable “something doesn’t feel right” mood. Where he has to search to figure out if it was a bad dream, hormonally influenced, or something that genuinely would make anyone feel off/sad/irritable etc. I’ve learned when this happens to me to go through a mental checklist of possible causes, I pray about it and I overtly change my behavior to not fit my mood so no one else in our house has to be affected by it. I’m not saying that men are never in a bad mood. But when they are there’s usually something they can pinpoint as the cause.
The “feminism is for ugly women” meme doesn’t explain the beautiful women who were, and are, feminist. Gloria Steinem was one. There are many others. It simply is not *true* that beautiful women are not feminist. In fact, even today, after the “spoils” of the sex war have largely been won by women and where most young women don’t identify with the label, they do nevertheless identify with the “fruits” of feminism, and so are de facto feminist.
The whole “only ugly women are feminist” meme is more or less completely wrong. Today pretty much ALL women are feminist, de facto, whether they wear the label or not. IBB’s wife is a feminist, too, de facto — she is a high-earning professional woman. That would be impossible without feminism, so regardless of her political views, she is de facto a feminist, full stop. Not a knock on her specifically, but just an example of how almost all women today are de facto feminist, regardless of how they look.
What feminists will never realize is the fact that their gaze is only pointed toward the top 1% of men in power.
They look at male celebrities, professional athletes, politicians, and other members of the glitterazi and genuinely believe this freedom is experienced by all men.
It’s not, and it never will be.
Most men are perpetually *below* the status of the average woman, and this underclass of men are often willing to eat each other for a chance to bed a woman.
@Boxer: To say it is disrespectful to think of God as male strikes me as an odd statement when he always identifies himself with masculine words: “Father,” “Lord,” “King,” “he.” In all his analogies, he takes on a male role. One could argue about the reason for this, but I find it presumptuous to talk about God’s reasons for doing something. I think of him as male because that is how he has chosen to identify himself.
When you take the idea that he is neither male nor female to an extreme, you get into the feminist nonsense of praying to “Our father-mother which art in heaven…”
P.S. Sorry, I can’t point to a particular Bible passage that says “God is male.” Which is what you wanted in the first place.
dubbed the burning sense of feminist discontentment “The problem that has no name”
The simple fact is that women are never happy with what they have – that is the “burning discontentment” and it’s name is simply – envy. Women envy whatever they don’t have – if they are married, they envy single women, if they have children, they envy women who don’t, if they don’t (have children) they envy women who do. So it is only logical that they envy men most of all since we have what they never can – time to do what we want. We can have several families, or do what we want, for a simple reason – men CAN BE CONTENT with what they have. It is that simple – that is what women envy the most, the fact that a man can be content with what he has. He may have nothing from her perspective, and it doesn’t matter – because he can recognize what he has and be grateful for it. I mean look at what Feminism has done – destroyed the career path for many men, so what do men do? Enjoy the fact that they can work when they want, and have even more time to themselves.
It is that simple – when you look at everything Feminism advocates it’s all based on envy of others, and trying to be something they can never be – happy with what they have. Only the women that basically recognize this and place their fate into the hands of another can be happy. Sure they will fight against it, but recognizing that they are getting ONLY what they deserve frees them. Which is the opposite of Feminism – which is why it (Feminism) will always fail. But it actually gives men all of the power – without the price of actually having to ever “take care” of a woman – women recognize that to be happy they have to give all of the power to another, so subconsciously they have given the power to men while railing against it. It used to be there was the price for this power, and men would pay it – today, men can get what they want (young women), and need (sex), without the cost (marriage). So enjoy – men have been freed from paying for young women, at the price of when they are older – we can have young women all of our lives with no cost of marriage, divorce, or children – as long as we don’t buy into what Feminism advocates – use women, enjoy them, but move on to a new one to enjoy. At my age my father had me, was in deteriorating health, and bills out the ears as he struggled to provide for a family – because he played the game. Whereas I have plenty of money, young women in my bed when I want, and want for nothing – because I never bought into the Feminist drivel.
That is why almost 100 years after Feminism started women are less happy because it (Feminism) doesn’t recognize that the problem is internal – and tries to fix an internal dissatisfaction via external means which can never be done. So enjoy women when they are young, but don’t buy into the poison that comes as they age. Enjoy the cream – but pour out the sour milk… Maybe they will figure out their problem – probably not, but as a man, it doesn’t have to matter, as long as you enjoy and young women are oh-so-enjoyable…
The “feminism is for ugly women” meme doesn’t explain the beautiful women who were, and are, feminist.
Indeed it doesn’t. But it does explain the rather plausible assumption that plain-looking and ugly women are, on average, more likely to lap up feminist ideology than beautiful women. After all, we’re talking here about dogmas based on a sense of grievance and victimhood.
Right on Dalrock, I remember about this time last year was when I really started reading up on the history of feminism, where it came from, why it came about at all… and it was undoubtedly clear it came solely from women being discontent and letting that discontentment grow into anger, bitterness, and resentment.
They do hate beauty, they do try to undermine it and redefine what God creates to be beautiful – even extending as far as to women themselves (fat acceptance culture, dehumanizing beautiful women just because of their face or shape). They purposefully work to create a cult of ugliness so that beauty no longer has any value.
But beauty does have value, it DOES have importance. It reflects God Himself.
This is an amazing video (kinda long but really worth it if you have time) from inforwarrior’s blog, explaining how our world has sought to destroy what is beautiful and replace it with what is ugly. A documentary:
I don’t blame you for thinking that “he” implies that g-d is a dude, as this is the main thrust behind feminist education and has been for generations. It’s inaccurate, though. “He” is the epicene pronoun, not the masculine pronoun. If you’re talking about an indefinite horse or dog, for example, you’d use “he” whether it turned out to be a male or female. For that matter, almost anything with an animate aura (sailing ships are one of the few exceptions) are “he” in middle english (which is the language of the KJV).
No, he doesn’t.
Again, if you believe this because it makes you feel good, that’s fine, but you’ve provided nothing to source this contention on. Please give me chapter and verse in KJV where g-d describes himself as “a man” or “male”.
He’s not a man. He’s the creator of men (and women too). He defies all such petty conflicts as male-female.
And when you take the idea that “he” implies maleness, you get into the feminist nonsense of creating phony English words like “hir” or “xir”. I was born in North America, and can speak proper English, and can read the KJV, which was written in plain language. God isn’t in any “male role” in that book. He’s in the “god role”.
Best,
Boxer
Dear RandyJJ:
It’s all good. It’s sort of a sore spot for me, as my people have their own mythology in which the Mormon god is most definitely a dude (with a plurality — though no more specific information exists) of sister wives. This is one of the definite divergences between Mormons and Christians. I’m sure it makes the idea of god more approachable, but I don’t find it authentic. If g-d were just some dude, I’d expect him to knock on my door and have conversations with me in person. Since he has never done that, I suspect that if he exists, he is a good bit more mysterious.
I also think it’s dangerous for those of us who adopt an anti-feminist patriarchal stance to adopt feminist tactics. Thinking of g-d as just another member of the blue team (as opposed to the pink team) creates an artificial intensity in the conflict we’ve got going on. If god’s a dude, then its easy for us to project our own fears and anxieties onto him, which might make us feel better, but doesn’t make our collective situation improve.
Best,
Boxer
I’m personally glad that Marcotte has no plans to reproduce. Her incomprehensible ugliness will, if we’re lucky, end with her.
The term “misogynist” is projection on just so many levels.
@ Boxer, Funny that God (who isn’t male) keeps referring to His “bride” Israel as a harlot who has run off after other lovers. That is one analogy I can think of. Jesus Christ also has a bride and referred to God as Abba (Father).
If there is a mistake in Christian understanding concerning the nature of God it’s that He’s a perpetually tolerant cuckold. Talk about men making God in their own image…..
“Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee. For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.” Deut. 4:23-24
Novaseeker,
Point of order counselor. I did not say that feminism was only for ugly women. Neither did Rush Limbaugh. I only said that feminism was created to emplower the ugly woman. If there were no ugly women (and there never WERE any ugly women) we wouldn’t have feminism to begin with. The fact that beautiful women may or may not call themselves feminist or they may or may not take advantage of some of the many privileges that our secular laws and law enforcement give to the feminist imperative, does not change the fact that feminism was never really intended to empower THEM. They were already beautiful. They already had “an edge” in life by having the power to get whatever they wanted, from men.
We have already been over this. I didn’t say it was only for ugly women. I am saying it was created for ugly women.
I don’t know that my wife is all that “high earning” (whatever that means) but since when was a woman being a working professional outside the home, automatically a feminist? Sorry, not buying that. I do very little (almost no) housework and when I get home, dinner is on the table. If that is modern feminism, I’ll take it. 🙂
Hellshound,
This is exactly right. With feminism, we are talking about victimhood here. You think a morbidly ugly woman looks at Ronda Rousey (and any of her nude pictures where she is obviously very proud of her body) and thinks that Ronda is in anyway a “victim” who needs feminism to empower her? Ha! Check you privilege Novaseeker. (smiles) Just kidding.
Spike, I don’t think Ronda will ever fight Fallon Fox. I don’t care that Fallon Fox has he wee-wee lopped off and got a ‘gina carved between his legs instead. Fallon Fox is a man. Period. Full stop. Fallon has a man’s physical strength and Ronda (no matter how physically powerful she is) is a woman. Ronda is not stupid. Ronda is not going to fight Fallon Fox, at least, I can’t even imagine that happening….
…nor could I ever imagine any circumstance where the UFC forces Ronda to fight Fallon. Ronda would lawyer up and win in court.
@Sarah’s Daughter
>I’m not saying that men are never in a bad mood. But when they are there’s usually something they can pinpoint as the cause.
I’ve learned that if I am in a bad mood for no apparent reason, I need to clean my glasses.
The dust/dirt causes eye strain, which causes a very small amount of continual pain / discomfort. Small enough that it does not intrude on my focus on my work, but enough that I start to get upset.
Within 20 seconds of cleaning my glasses, I am back to normal 🙂
Boxer is absolutely correct that spirits are neither male nor female. This includes God.
As Boxer points out, “he” is the default pronoun in English, rather than “it”. So the Bible uses “he”, simply from that.
There are three reasons I can think of that we may tend to view God as masculine, apart from the pronoun however.
1) God uses the marriage relationship as a metaphor for his relationship with us/Israel. In so doing, God casts himself in the role of the husband, with Israel being the bride. God the Son continues this, referring to the church as his Bride. Hence Jesus also being cast in the role of husband/male. These are metaphors only however, rather than a physical reality.
2) God the Father (Josh 24:14-15), God the Son (Matt 28:18-20), and God the Spirit (John 14:25-27-teaching/instructing) are all shown to be in authority. And in our physical world, males have authority over women in some roles. Examples are Husband/wife (Col 3:18-21) and in the church (1 Tim 2:11-12). The old testament priests were also all male. Again, this is not proof that God is “male”; it is simply confusing a correlation for evidence.
3) God the Son (aka The Word), when made into flesh, was made as a man (John 1:1-3, 1:14, 1:18). This says nothing about his God nature however; it only speaks to the human nature that was added to his God nature.
I think the biggest reason feminists may see God as male, is #2. They may focus on authority, as if that forms part or most of the value of any person. And since they are fixated on authority, they assume God must be male.
On a related note: Many people incorrectly view compassion and love as “female” attributes. I say this categorization is incorrect based on evidence. This Amanda person is so selfish that she would a child if he gets in her way. 1.5 million times each year, just in the US, other American women do so. Men, not women, volunteered to go to another continent, risking death and injury, to stop a people they did not know from being slaughtered in WW II. (Yeah, sure, you may find a couple women who volunteered for front-line combat, but 99% of these volunteers were men.)
With the incorrect view that compassion, kindness and love are predominantly female attributes, rather than attributes we all are called to have (Col 3:12-14), God could be viewed as “female” too.
Argh! In the last section, I meant to say “This Amanda person is so selfish that she would a KILL child…”. The 1.5 million refers to US abortions each year (2008 CDC data).
Barbarossa said as much in his response to the sows of “The Talk” howling about the Catherine Kieu incident. Penis Envy is more than just something out of Urban Dictionary.
I remember reading that the Holy Spirit from Hebrew was used with a feminine gender. Is this true?
In fact, even today, after the “spoils” of the sex war have largely been won by women and where most young women don’t identify with the label, they do nevertheless identify with the “fruits” of feminism, and so are de facto feminist.
Yep! People seem to forget that feminism is the norm these days. It’s woven into the law, school curriculum, TV shows, movies, and society at large (polite and otherwise). Your average Joe and Jane ARE feminists, even if they don’t identify with the term. A lot of people tend to draw the line some where after 1st wave or second wave feminism when they label a set of principles to be feminist.
The fact is that the suffragettes were feminists, the sixties bra burners were feminists, the nineties pro lesbians were feminists, and today’s average everyday citizen is a feminist. Most people believe have been taught to believe that women were oppressed by men in the bad old patriarchy days and that women still are oppressed by men in some form or another (emotional abuse, neglect, etc.).
….a sense of disgust at having a vagina and drippy, vulnerable femaleness is a universal part of the feminist experience….
In these days of advanced surgical care, I am confident that feminists can easily get rid of their vagina and drippy, vulnerable femaleness. They can even get a rubber penis implanted where their va-jay-jay used to be located. What really is their problem?
No one hates women as much as feminists.
“feminism was created to emplower the ugly woman. If there were no ugly women we wouldn’t have feminism to begin with”
I don’t know, I see feminism as an authoritarian power grab. People from all walks of life have always sought to seize power. If you think most feminists really care about other women, ugly or not, I think you are being far too generous.
Over the last 12 months of discovering red pill (largely due to this blog) and migrating predictably from the blue end of the spectrum to red, it has struck me that ultraviolet might be more fitting than blue. Most blue pill men are blind to their state – particularly christian men – as it is simply not visible to them.
Purple has interesting connotations because it is actually left of blue on the spectrum – not between red and blue – and seems to be the color of choice for feminists and lesbians, for reasons I neither care about nor have time to research – it is simply an observation. Where there is short, spiky gray hair, dangly earrings, an absence of makeup, and ugly dispositions, loose fitting purple clothing is almost sure to be part of the wardrobe.
Perhaps most pivotal for me in this gradual awakening has been contemplation of the passages in Genesis 3 and 1 Cor 11 about the nature of the woman’s sin contrasted with the man’s. The woman was deceived. The man was not. The man was reprimanded for listening to his wife (Gen 3:17). The woman’s confession in Genesis 3:13 is telling: she listened to the serpent. The woman actually believed she could be like God and that something was being withheld from her to which she was entitled. Envy fueled Eve’s sin. Lust probably fueled Adam’s, because he knew what separation from his wife meant.
Eve’s curse was pain in childbearing, The rest (“…yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”) in Gen 3:16 is – in my opinion – simply an observation God is making about how a women will behave now that sin is at work: they will be discontent, they will thus usurp and lead from behind, but men will rule over over them regardless. A curse is a result of sin – it is not God piling on more propensity to sin – which we manage to do just fine all by ourselves.
The Old Testament has repeated warning about men marrying foreign women because it invariably led to the worship of foreign gods and idolatry. It was Solomon’s downfall, Samson’s downfall, and although it was not solely the reason for Ahab’s downfall, it certainly amplified it (1Kings 16:31-33 “It came about, as though it had been a trivial thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went to serve Baal and worshiped him. 32 So he erected an altar for Baal in the house of Baal which he built in Samaria. 33 Ahab also made the Asherah. Thus Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him.”) God knows this propensity in men to go along with their wives. It is usually because going along has both a carrot and stick: the carrot is the implied promise of increased access to sex. The stick is the implied threat of denied access.
Genesis 21:12 is the favorite prooftext for today’s cult of wife supplication: “But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.” Two inconvenient truths are never discussed:
1. The command for Abraham to listen to his wife in this instance came directly from God. It is not the establishment of a general principle – it is precisely the opposite: a word from God to make an exception to a general principle.
2. About 13 years prior, Abraham had again “listened to his wife” and she took him down a path that was not God’s will. It thus created the very problem he was now dealing with – Ishmael. Interesting that Ishmael was not directly a problem to Abraham. It was the effect it had on Sarah, and in turn, the effect Sarah’s incessant protesting had on Abraham.
Dalrock is spot on here. Feminism is really nothing more than the woman’s original sin left to full fruition – while convincing men (or perhaps more correctly, men convincing themselves) that it is in their best interests to go along to get along.
Your average Joe and Jane ARE feminists, even if they don’t identify with the term. A lot of people tend to draw the line some where after 1st wave or second wave feminism when they label a set of principles to be feminist.
Yep. Feminism is so ingrained into every single social and economic structure that almost everyone is a feminist if they are not extremely countercultural in an intentional sense. Most people, as you say, draw lines somewhere and say “this (obviously feminist thing) is not feminist, but this other (obviously feminist thing) is feminist, and because I embrace the former and not the latter, I am not a feminist”, when in fact both are feminist things, and the person is a through-and-through feminist in praxis, regardless of whatever their “thinking” is. Many people see feminism as an ideology only — it is not. It is a praxis, it is a set of life practices, all of which further women’s economic, political and sexual power. Almost no-one has clean hands, in that almost everyone is doing something that furthers one of those power bases for women — be it their wives, their daughters, etc. It’s the scope of the problem — almost everyone is a de facto feminist.
Amanda Marcotte, as some may recall, was one of two people selected by John Edwards to head the “liberal social media outreach” part of his campaign. The other was Melissa McEwan. The schadenfreude was quite satisfying after Edwards was clueless enough to select two rabid dogs and then react with shock when they behaved like two rabid dogs.
Marcotte – ever the contortionist – insists she resigned.. In fact, she was fired.
Their “apologies” are also interesting studies in the art of the non-apology: “It was never our intention to offend anyone. If you were offended, it is your fault for being too sensitive.” Yeah, right.
Some thoughts:
“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
That being said, scripture uses masculine pronouns over and over again in reference to God. In the Gospels alone, Christ uses the term “Father” in direct reference to God nearly 160 times.
“I and the Father are one.”
While God the Father is spirit, and not a man, He chose a masculine form in order to reveal Himself to humanity. God has revealed Himself through His Word to be the father (not mother) of those who hear His voice and are filled with His Spirit.
Likewise, God the Father has revealed Himself to us through His son, Jesus Christ, who is constantly referred to with masculine titles, nouns, and pronouns in the scriptures. Jesus (who is the First and the Last) walked on the earth as a man (male human).
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
The prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New Testament refer to both God and Jesus Christ with masculine names and titles.
In addition, the scriptures from Acts to Revelation also contain nearly 900 verses where the word theos—a masculine noun in the Greek—is used in direct reference to God.
Which brings me back to “the problem with no name.”
Envy of maleness.
How did we get here? There is a law of consequences (sowing and reaping) that many live as though they are unaware of. Weturned our collective backs on God and His ways. Wedidn’t train up our children in the way they should go.
“God will abandon sinners to their own choices and the consequences of those choices.” – John MacArthur
Welet evil men and women have their ways without realizing that they would not tolerate us just because we tolerated them.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
Now the children of the children don’t even know about the God of the Bible, let alone believe He exists. All sorts of strange and / or perverted ideas have taken the place of the Christian tenants that once held Western society above the moral sewer in which we are sliding into.
“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” – Alexander Hamilton
And the freedom that comes with self-restraint and righteous living not only has been lost, but forgotten. And traded for that freedom are the chains that accompany self indulgent depravity.
“The lost enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded and are therefore self-enslaved.” – C.S. Lewis
You have to serve someone. Everyone is a slave. The question is to who. Feminists haven’t won their freedom. but they were given what they asked for.
@Novaseeker
With exception of the fringe lunatics, such as Greer, your garden variety feminists (i.e., the majority of the west) are quick to point out that they aren’t like those unreasonable fringe elements. They simply want equality. Of course, they have never read – much less studied – the Founding Sisters and thus serve as highly useful idiots. Reading comments to stories and posts dealing with male/female issues in places that are not overtly feminist yields very predictable verbiage. A commenter will self-identify as a feminist, but quickly defend this as something only unreasonable people would oppose because it is – after all – only about equality.
Damncrackers
>I remember reading that the Holy Spirit from Hebrew was used with a feminine gender. Is this true?
I think you are correct, but it does not mean what you (likely) think. The idiot feminists started misusing the word gender, and unfortunately the misuse has become common.
Gender is a grammatical concept, completely irrelevant to the sex of the animal or person being discussed. Gender is not equal to sex.
In French, the gender of the word will switch to match the sex, but that only “works” in languages with only two genders. Other languages, such as Greek, Russian, and I think Spanish, have three genders. Neuter, or middle, is the third. In those languages, some objects/animals can be identified as neuter/middle gender, which obviously could never be thought to match a sex. Well, unless you are a confused trans* whatever person.
The Russian word for man, “mushcheena”, has the form of a feminine gender word. They label it as a masculine gender word, likely to refrain from having people, who do not understand the difference between male (a sex) and masculine (a grammatical gender), get upset. But that word declines (changes its form) exactly as a feminine gender word. All of which is completely irrelevant to the fact that a man, in sex, is male.
Weirdly, I think Rush Limbaugh still has the best assessment of Feminism – “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
The Bible offers a predominantly masculine language for God, but not exclusively. God is apparently not ashamed to be compared to a mother in some metaphors (Hosea 13:8; Isaiah 42:14; Isaiah 66:13; Psalm 131:2). God-as-a-woman is implicit in a few other metaphors (Psalm 123:2-3; Matthew 13:33; Luke 15:8-10).
Paraclete is a masculine noun in Greek but is, interestingly, sometimes treated as a neuter noun. In Hebrew/Aramaic, however, Spirit is feminine. (And the Spirit of God appears right at the beginning of the Bible, as it moves over the waters at the start of Genesis.)
Why are these few feminine images scattered about? Clearly God as Father and God as Son are by far the more important metaphors. Only men are given official authority in the Church, too, and men are the leaders of their household. So, why are these few feminine metaphors scattered about? They must be purposeful. I have theories, of course.
Weirdly, I think Rush Limbaugh still has the best assessment of Feminism – “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
This implies that unattractive women never had access to mainstream society to begin with. Would someone please give me an example of how unattractive women did not have access to main stream society in the mean ol’ days of patriarchy?
Did these women not have access to mainstream society?
@TFH
Correct. They are so busy frantically assuring everyone that they are for equality that they never bother to question the underlying assumption because it would be deemed so offensive to most. The differences between left and right are largely discussions of how equality should be implemented, not whether it is in fact a desirable end state. MRAs are generally party to this thinking as well, and employ a live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword logic that doesn’t question the premise of equality – only the way in which the scales have been tipped unjustly in the process.
Paraclete is a masculine noun in Greek but is, interestingly, sometimes treated as a neuter noun. In Hebrew/Aramaic, however, Spirit is feminine.
Although the Hebrew the word (ruach) is feminine and the Greek word (pneuma) is neuter, this is not thought by most linguists to have significance for the sex of the person given that name.
As noted above, there are biblical cases where the pronoun used for the Holy Spirit is masculine, in contradiction to the sex of the word for spirit. The New Testament refers to the Holy Spirit as masculine in a number of places where the masculine Greek word “Paraclete” occurs, for “Comforter”.
The ancients understood that gender was a matter of role, not equipment (we used to understand that too – so much for PC being enlightening). In the Bible, wisdom played a “feminine” role (maintainer of the universal “household”) and has no bearing on the masculine incarnation of Jesus as Wisdom (it follows that Jesus is the Wisdom of God since He is the Word of God that became flesh). Indeed, in ancient times widows were allowed to assume “male” roles to survive and were considered as “male” in role by others. Obviously the Spirit just as readily engages “female” roles without being female.
THF: The notion that Rush Limbaugh is ‘against feminism’ to any greater degree than his coinage of the appropriate term ‘FemiNazi’ implies that a large fraction of Republicans/Conservatives are against feminism. They are not.
My impression is that they have created a feminist straw man to be attacked while quietly affirming and agreeing with the real life feminism we all have to put up with daily.
Pingback: Modern women unhappy with their female bodies | Julian O'Dea
My impression is that they have created a feminist straw man to be attacked while quietly affirming and agreeing with the real life feminism we all have to put up with daily.
Precisely.
They are against “radical feminism”, while being in favor of advancing their daughters (and for men their wives and sisters) educations, careers, finances and empowerment, in favor of no-fault divorce (just in case), push their daughters into masculine pursuits like sports and shooting guns and the like, all while saying they are against “feminism”. It’s a joke. These people ARE FEMINISTS, in practice. Almost everyone is, other than outliers who embrace a truly countercultural lifestyle.
You can quite easily judge what denomination of feminism someone is simply by getting them to define what they think ‘patriarchy’ means. It’s when they describe it like some kind of conspiracy theory that you need to be weary.
Genesis 3:16 ESV
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Part of God’s curse on the woman was that, since she tried to act in headship and usurp the authority of her husband, God thusly locked her in it. Now females desire all things male, and desire to control all things male, and yet, the more they get of it, it just produces more hatred, both for themselves and the weak men that they can dominate. It also clearly produces the self-loathing that Dalrock alludes to, the deep resentment of having even girl *parts* and all that comes with those parts. The curse is that they are consumed with a never ending desire for maleness in all its forms, yet the rejection of their fundamental biological and sociological roles makes them miserable in the long run as well.
So basically women are screwed until they get back in submission to God’s Word. They have zero chance of happiness any other way, but it takes most of them over half their lives before they figure that out.
So basically women are screwed until they get back in submission to God’s Word. They have zero chance of happiness any other way,
Nicely summed up.
but it takes most of them over half their lives before they figure that out.
Way too generous IMO. Most of the women I know over 50 still haven’t figured it out, or if they have they aren’t admitting it.
Way too generous IMO. Most of the women I know over 50 still haven’t figured it out, or if they have they aren’t admitting it.
Probably right on that one, I was just thinking of the handful of women I know that seem to be (relatively) happy. They are submissive to God and their husbands; only one of them is young.
But based on what Sarah’s Daughter says:
I remember saying to my husband, “I’m so envious of you, you wake up in the same mood everyday.” There is much to envy of the natural tendencies of men. The steady moods, the rational thought, the discretion and calmness that seems to be part of their makeup.
….women wake up every day not even sure who they’re going to be for that day.
@Novaseeker
They are against “radical feminism”, while being in favor of advancing their daughters (and for men their wives and sisters) educations, careers, finances and empowerment, in favor of no-fault divorce (just in case), push their daughters into masculine pursuits like sports and shooting guns and the like, all while saying they are against “feminism”. It’s a joke. These people ARE FEMINISTS, in practice. Almost everyone is, other than outliers who embrace a truly countercultural lifestyle.
So simply being a practical parent who raises female children to be adults that are capable of taking care of themselves is feminism? Women worked before feminism, and a lot of the work that needs to be done today requires an education. Many households will need two incomes to avoid poverty. Sports are just a more fun form of exercise and since people no longer do physical labor all day exercise helps them avoid getting fat.
What you call “empowerment” is just the ability to live alone as an independent adult. This is a basic life skill that everyone should have. There is nothing inherently feminist about a woman shooting a gun. It is self defense and a basic survival skill. If a woman’s husband is away on a business trip and a burglar comes in should she just let herself and the kids be killed and the house robbed because shooting him would feminist?
When did not raising helpless women become feminism?
Gender is a grammatical concept, completely irrelevant to the sex of the animal or person being discussed. Gender is not equal to sex.
This can’t be repeated enough.
@Michelle,
I can see your point there.
My dad is in no way a feminist, but he was adamant that I go to university, when I was growing up. In his mind, it was merely a practicality. He used to say, “I don’t care if you end up driving a garbage truck, but you will get a degree first!”
Michelle,
Here is a hint: raise daughters as if marriage, bearing children, and soberly choosing an honorable man that can actually actually provide/lead is Plan A. What you have just described is the exact opposite of that.
– Spend all of your time preparing NOT to have Plan A.
– Treat Plan A as a happy coincidence, not a deliberate goal that is obtainable for any woman that pursues it.
but it takes most of them over half their lives before they figure that out.
Most never figure it out.
TFH,
Huh? What are you talking about?
I never mentioned Republicans or conservatives. I was only partially agreeing with Dalrock in his definition as to the root cause for the creation of feminism. It truly is about the absence of beauty. It is about ugliness. Its just that Rush Limbaugh did a damn fine better job describing that with his words than I ever could. He very clearly explained WHY there is feminism.
Republicans and conservatives (be they trad-cons, paleo-cons, or neo-cons, and those three are VERY different from one another) are not (for the most part) even remotely interested in intelligently discussing where and why we have feminism. They gave up that fight a long time ago. Its just something that that have found a way to learn to live with. Right now the only fight conservatives seem to want to fight is on immigration, and it appears (to me) to be Trump, Coulter, a very reluctant Romney, and maybe Ted Cruz, vs everyone else in the GOP. Feminism is not even on their radar at the moment.
JDG,
Well if you were (say) a 35 year old woman in 1900, and you weren’t married, you were pretty much screwed. You were cast out of society, disregarded, ignored, no one (other than perhaps your folks) cared if you lived or died. You were (then) what our poor feministhater (and others on this site) are today, an invisible leper. And the main reason why you were a 35 year old unmarried woman is entirely because no man ever asked you to marry him. And you weren’t asked because…. you were so damn ugly. And if you didn’t have a husband to make you whole, and your father and mother and the church are telling you that you need one and you can’t seem to “catch one” that this is somehow YOUR FAULT, and you start to realize that no one is speaking out for you. You are angry at an entire world that allowed you to be born in it so ugly that no one would have you. And no one cares. Not even government cares because… you don’t even have the right to vote. That is where it starts.
Those ugly women in that picture? No. I don’t think they ever did.
Look guys I don’t really care if Rush Limbaugh is against feminism or not. We all here are, that is all I care about. All I’ve done is just define the root of it.
when in fact if men stopped marrying feminist women, it would go a long way to sending them the signal that such attitudes are unacceptable.
Truer words never written. Feminism is only allowed t exist and expand because men enabled it. Rule #1 for men should be: Never, ever date, mary or have a kid with a feminist.
P.S. Sorry, I can’t point to a particular Bible passage that says “God is male.”
That is easy: simply take out your KJV bible, and check any reference that points to God, Jehovah, Lord, etc. Feminine pronouns were never used to describe God. He is all male in everyway.
I don’t blame you for thinking that “he” implies that g-d is a dude, as this is the main thrust behind feminist education and has been for generations. It’s inaccurate, though.
Your argument is nonsense, Boxer, and it flies in the face of every scripture passage that refers to God. Yes, God is masculine. Jesus Christ addressed Him as Father ALL the time; He never used a feminine term to describe God. No one in and out of Scripture ever used a feminine term to describe Him….until feminism began to lay claim to mother-father god. Which is idolatory. You’re in error, and you ought to drop this.
Even as a Spirit, God cannot be a woman/feminine, because the essence of “woman” is to be a helper for “man”. She receives fulfillment in serving her man, and her security is in his strength. If God were feminine who will He have to defer to? Who will play the role of Man to God? Even among lesbian couples, one of them plays the “man” role; same is true of male homosexuals, where one becomes the “woman” in the relationship.
– Spend all of your time preparing NOT to have Plan A.
– Treat Plan A as a happy coincidence, not a deliberate goal that is obtainable for any woman that pursues it.
A strategy that is part of the reason why women today ate so miserable.
are so miserable.
So simply being a practical parent who raises female children to be adults that are capable of taking care of themselves is feminism?
Today’s “practical parent” is indeed a feminist. The system is designed for conformity to feminism. From the feminist perspective raising your daughters as if they were sons who “don’t need no man” to take care of them isn’t just practical, it’s normal.
Women worked before feminism, and a lot of the work that needs to be done today requires an education.
LOL at that one. The last thing young women today need is more
educationindoctrination. Worse yet, how many college degrees that girls get actually help them find a “meaningful” career? And what good is a meaningful career (often not related to her degree) to the child of the woman who dumps him off at the local day care center so she can enjoy her “independence”?Many households will need two incomes to avoid poverty.
No, most of them do not. You haven’t seen poverty until you’ve been to the third world. We could easily live on much less then we live on if we wanted to bad enough. No one is starving in America for lack of food.
But aside from that, no one is saying that a wife can’t work in her spare time (aside from her helpmate / domestic duties) to help out with the bills. What we have today is nearly ALL young women that aren’t relying on government aide as a career (and many who are) have a new American dream: education > party > establish career > party > marry (someday) > party > have one or two kids (someday). Even if you could manage to take the party out of that plan, it is still feminism to the bone.
What you call “empowerment” is just the ability to live alone as an independent adult.
Woman was made for man, not for herself, and “empowerment” is just the another illusion (made possible by an ever tyrannical state) that women can be independent of men. They can not. If you take away the state you lose your empowerment. If you take away the men you lose the state, and then you lose your empowerment. No matter which way it’s done, women need men, God’s way to do this is the best.
When did not raising helpless women become feminism?
When “not raising helpless women” became a means for raising up a generation of girls as if they were boys “who don’t need no man.”
IBB (or wife?): Well if you were (say) a 35 year old woman in 1900, and you weren’t married, you were pretty much screwed.
Examples please.
Did these women not have access to mainstream society?
Those ugly women in that picture? No. I don’t think they ever did.
You would be wrong. They were mainstream society.
TFH,
It’s not that complicated. It is very straight-forward, very simple. We have ugly women and they (were) shut out of the world. And so (to make their 90 years on this planet just a little bit less irritable for themselves) they banded together and created a philosophy that makes perfect sense ONLY to the devil.
He never said that. I don’t know where you could have come up with that premise.
His “premise” is that feminism exists because ugly women were shut out of the mainstream of society. That’s it. Everything else, you are adding to it of your own ideas. You shouldn’t claim that he thinks anything beyond what he said. And I agree with Rule #24.
Dear JDG:
Interesting riposte. Please see below…
The word “father” stems from an old proto-indo-european word that means many things. Patria in Latin means “nation” and/or “tribe” for instance, depending upon context.
And in Numbers 22, g-d chose to appear as a jackass. In Exodus 3, he was a brush fire. I find it hard to believe that if g-d exists, he’s either a donkey or a pillar of flame. It makes more sense to accept the mystery of it, and just resign oneself to the fact that he’s beyond our puny human comprehension.
The book suggests that He can appear as whatever he wants, whenever he wants to, based upon his own whims and biases, which are no concern of ours.
Best,
Boxer
I believe that at its root, feminism is based on spoiled little bratty girls. All one has to see is how kids, both male and female are being raised. They are always out of control with no discipline. An undisciplined girl becomes a slut. An undisciplined boy becomes either a bully, asshole, or video gamer wimp. The girl just knows that she can control boys with her vagina and wants a society that applauds that.
The key here is to teach girls discipline and to teach boys not to be controlled by a vagina. No should mean no to a boy and that should mean to walk away from some slutty chick no matter how hot she is.
If one was a 35-year old unmarried man in 1900, he was shut out of nearly everything also. He was denied bank loans, decent jobs, membership in the fraternal clubs, and unless his father or grandfather was wealthy, he lived a “boo radley” sort of existence; or, at best, had a short, hard life as a ditch digger or assembly line worker. He was generally considered to be gay or some sort of sex deviant, and could only associate with the lowest quality people socially.
Even as late as the 1960s, jobs were listed in the paper as “for married men only”. This dovetails nicely with one of TFH’s main points, which he repeats over and over. Feminism did not liberate women, but instead liberated men to get their sexual, financial and social needs met without ever having to shackle themselves to a naggy old bag for the rest of their lives.
Regards,
Boxer
And, right on cue, TFH breaks it down in the same minute that I paraphrase him.
It’s not that complicated. It is very straight-forward, very simple. We have ugly women and they (were) shut out of the world.
Although simple and straight forward, your (Rush’s?) premise is wrong. Ugly women were never shut out of the world anymore than ugly men were. Western society was indeed built around marriage and the family in those days, but ugly women a) still often did manage to find husbands and b) were not excluded from society if they did not marry. Even feminists admit that unmarried women in the 1900s found work readily available.
TFH,
Alright, look I don’t know what your problem is tonight but it appears to me that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I’m not interested in wasting my time with you on this any further. I am agreeing with Dalrock and Rush on the concept of feminism stemming from ugly women. You have NOT offered a counter argument. Instead you are just saying “no” and you go and try and reframe the whole argument to the GOP and conservatives. I have no interest in trying to link any of this to the GOP or conservatives. You just go ahead and believe whatever you want.
And in Numbers 22, g-d chose to appear as a jackass. In Exodus 3, he was a brush fire. I find it hard to believe that if g-d exists, he’s either a donkey or a pillar of flame.
A couple of minor corrections for the sake of lurkers:
Num 22:28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”
The Lord gave the donkey the ability to speak, but no where does it say he appeared in the form of a donkey.
Exod 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.
The Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush rather than as a burning bush.
I realize to some I may appear to be nitpicking, but I assure you the differences are significant.
It makes more sense to accept the mystery of it, and just resign oneself to the fact that he’s beyond our puny human comprehension.
When something is beyond my understanding I do agree, but when He has gone to the trouble to explain a matter we should pay attention. God himself has chosen to reveal him self to us in the masculine, and that after creating us male and female. Though God is spirit He has made it clear that we are to think of Him as Father.
Michelle —
What, for you, is feminism?
Dear JDG:
Before we get too far out in left field, do you have any evidence in the text for this? For example, does St. Paul or someone earlier tell us “behold, God is a man, and not a woman” or the equivalent? Where does this appear in the KJV?
Not only have I not read that, but I also haven’t read that god has sexual intercourse with women, has a gun collection, played on his High School basketball team, or any of the other common masculine traits that I and most North American dudes share. That’s what “masculine” means, if we’re talking about it in the common context.
If there is any evidence for this, please kick it to me.
So, we are to think of God as a dude who had sex with a chick who then gave birth to our spirits, before we were born into our earthly lives? This is a part of Mormon mythology, but it’s not in the Christian bible.
Again, either “father” has a different meaning in the text, or there is some bible verse that describes our mother goddess that I’m unaware of. Please feel free to break it down for me. I’m certainly not a bible expert, but am interested in this enough to dig around.
Best,
Boxer
innocentbystanderboston July 26, 2015 at 1:43 pm says:
“Fallon Fox is a man”
Agree completely IBB. Rousey herself has said as such. In this she is at odds with the UFC and the society she lives in, that persists in calling Fox “she” even though the sex change took place when he was 31 years old so he had all of that time to build muscles like a man, train like a man, have testosterone like a man and understand aggression like a man. I think transgenders will be MRAs’ best allies. They will expose how stupid this “gender is a social construct” meme is. Unfortunately, it will come at the cost, in the UFC, of some female fighters getting severely injured.
For example, does St. Paul or someone earlier tell us “behold, God is a man, and not a woman” or the equivalent? …
… Again, either “father” has a different meaning in the text, or there is some bible verse that describes our mother goddess that I’m unaware of.
I’m not sure what it will take for you to see that when Jesus says: “I and the Father are one” that God is revealing Himself in the masculine. You seem to be implying that “father” is a gender neutral term (I’m using gender here referring to role and not in place of sex).
The original Greek word for father is πατήρ, πατρός, ὁ. It is a masculine noun and it’s transliteration is patḗr – father; one who imparts life and is committed to it; a progenitor, bringing into being to pass on the potential for likeness.
God is spirit as you have said, but it doesn’t stop there with “we just can’t understand”. God created the first man Adam with the ability to pass on his potential for likeness. I like the way Matt Slick puts it in the exert below:
“There is a yes and no answer to this question. God, as the Trinity from all eternity, is not biological in the sense of being male or female because God is spirit (John 4:24); and spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).1 However, in the incarnation of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, was born a male (Luke 2:23). So, in that sense God being made flesh (John 1:1, 14) is male in the biological sense–in the person of Jesus, and He is still a man right now.”
JDG “That being said, scripture uses masculine pronouns over and over again in reference to God. In the Gospels alone, Christ uses the term “Father” in direct reference to God nearly 160 times.”
I was surprised to find people here arguing otherwise… I mean surely by far the majority of Christians through history simply took for granted the maleness of God.
Dear Fellas:
JDG writes:
I am accepting “father” as what it is, namely, one half of the whole which includes “mother”. Since you’ve repeatedly said that g-d as father implies masculinity and maleness, then you must have some thoughts on who our mother goddess is, since she’s necessarily entailed in your belief.
Needless to say, I still don’t see any evidence for this in the KJV. My reading suggests that g-d is not part of a whole, or otherwise incomplete. He transcends any sort of conflicting duality like sex or gender.
Killjoy sez:
Do you have any evidence for this? I’ve repeatedly asked for the declaration that g-d is a man/male/masculine, as you seem to assert. Where does it say this in the KJV?
Thanks!
Boxer
More from Jessica Valenti:
Men rarely catcall me any more. I hate that our culture makes me miss it
To my great shame, the thought of not being worth men’s notice bothers me, even though I’m a seasoned feminist and I know better
https://archive.is/upmcL
Here’s a young lady who seems comfortable with her femininity https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0iJp6K-bGcU
No unconventional piercings (no obvious piercings in this example), no tattoos (poor girl, doesn’t no what empowerment really is), next to no make up and yet so beautiful, so elegant, so exquisite.
Mind you… if that’s not fake fur then the leftists have something to denigrate her for. Not that they’d have difficulty finding something
I decided to re-read section 2 of F.Roger Devlin’s Home Economics which begins at the bottom of page 104 of the book and which section is entitled Feminism as Male Role Envy. Devlin does not quite draw the point about female self-loathing that Dalrock makes although he observes that no matter what concessions men make can only enrage feminists still further. Women, no matter what, can never (as Dalrock has previously written) experience male pride.
The discussion has turned to whether a single woman of the year 1900 was ‘pretty much screwed’. Certainly the Professions were barred to her but in practice they were effectively barred to most men and of course men could not marry-up at will. I therefore turn in aid to George Bernard Shaw and his 1896 play (originally banned by the Lord Chamberlain) Mrs Warren’s Profession. No need to indicate what Profession Mrs Warren practiced, but as I recall, Mrs Warren said that she and her sister had been good looking girls and thus to avoid working in a Mill had gone off to Vienna, and made a lot of money. Now thirty years later, armed with that money and renting a charming country cottage (her past unknown) she hob-nobs with the local clergy, her daughter being a student at Cambridge University. Shaw is a sentimental socialist: men cannot move up the social elite by selling their bodies.
‘Are there any men here today’ as The Pythons might have said: that photo of the Prohibitionists looks to me suspiciously like a number of cross-dressing men mocking the tee-totallers.
@GeminiXcX
I agree with your comments. Educating daughters to be USEFUL is the prime directive of parenting them. Unless they are genetic freaks, beauty alone will not provide them means to support themselves nor induce a silly man to support them for naught but fleeting beauty.
Daughters have always been educated in the business their parents were in. Farmers daughters learned how to tend to the garden, animals, and help with harvest. Grocers daughters, how to do figures and sums and tend tills. And who did these daughters marry? Generally men in those fields who needed those skills and thought she was pretty, or at least made beautiful by a substantial dowry. The idea that a family unit not working together with perhaps the wife doing tasks that are relatively light… is a modern luxury.
So the question in the modern age is: in what ought a woman be educated? What will benefit her life, that of her parents (to whom she has an obligation), her husband, and her children? And most importantly, what will occupy her time and mind thus she doesn’t have the ability to run off the rails with men or other frivolous pursuits? Nothing is more dangerous than a bored, immature adult. And an adult without an occupation is no better than an infant.
@Opus
The picture is meant as a mockery of the actual photo.
I can only speak to the region where my family is from, but there were quite a number of spinster sisters or bachelor farmers. The women weren’t necessarily ugly, but not sufficiently attractive (or perhaps to moral) to prostitute themselves. The men on the whole merely did not have enough resources to ever support a family and thus never married. Also, the average age of marriage in that region was around 25, implying a lack of resources as a whole. Rich societies marry earlier.
The self-loathing only gets worse as they approach 30-40 and wonder why the unicorn career they were promised doesn’t exist. Men appear to be generally happier because they came to terms with their reality and essentially had lower expectations. Did women really think men were just having a ball at work all day? No, we suck it up and endure the debased nature of our labor as a cog in the global economy.
On another note, apparently many of those working in abortion clinics are lesbians themselves.
“men cannot move up the social elite by selling their bodies.” In Shaw’s day and before, wasn’t that what the Army and particularly the Navy were for? Selling one’s body for a shilling? That and mopping up potential unemployed rebels by enlistment, and transporting them somewhere horribly unhealthy and impossible to return from unofficially.
Not powder-monkey to Lord of the Admiralty exactly, but still possible for a select few who contrived to survive long enough and kept their noses clean to bump up a rank or so?
“Grocers daughters, how to do figures and sums and tend tills. And who did these daughters marry? “ The only one I’m aware of got a BSc. Chem., worked for an ice-cream company lab, and married a divorced golf-loving millionaire who’d inherited the family fuels business (and pretty much ran it into the ground, according to his peers of the time). Then she became the Premier of an obscure Ruritanian island, went quite mad, and had to be deposed.
I don’t think her children’s lives have turned out quite so triumphantly, which is genuinely sad.
Excellent post.
We are 50 years into a programme that was intended to abolish the female discontentment identified by Betty Friedan. Feminists ought to be asking “Has it worked?”
The answer of course is that it has not worked: women are as discontented as ever, and feminists are certain of the cause: men are not doing their share. The feminist prescription is a double dose of the medicine that has failed to treat the sickness.
In 1963 Western Europe had a healthy birth rate. The consequences of encouraging women to spend more of their fertile years in paid work are obvious: the birth rate has fallen, and is now far below replacement level. It is impossible to exaggerate the demographic consequences: they are similar to those of the Black Death, except that they are repeated every 25 years. We are living through a social collapse, but it usually goes unnoticed because it is happening in slow motion.
We now have mass immigration to Europe of people who are willing do the work of those who were never born. Most immigrants come from traditional societies that are not feminist in character. Well before the end of this century, they will be the majority of Europeans.
The endgame of feminism is female genital mutilation, sexual slavery of thousands of women by men from tribal Muslim countries, disenfranchisement of women by postal voting, vigilante enforcement of the niqab, cousin marriage, unregistered polygamous marriages, equal opportunities for people from corrupt inbred tribal cultures, and countless other horrors. Most remarkably of all, few European feminists care at all about any of this. It is not just that they are afraid of being considered racist: they literally do not care.
This speaks volumes about feminism itself. Women care a great deal about their family and close friends; about other women, not so much. Despite a shallow pretence of anti-racism and socialism, white feminists are not concerned about what happens to women of other races and the (white) underclass. They are very interested in tearing down the men of their own race and social milieu, and in extracting whatever benefits they can at the expense of those men.
For the same selfish reasons, feminists do not care that feminism itself is not self-sustaining: it carries the seeds of its own destruction. Unfortunately it will also destroy its host society. And for what? Because women thought it was a magic pill that would cure their dissatisfaction? Because nobody told them that dissatisfaction is a permanent feature of the human condition? Because however much they loathe themselves, they despise and envy their menfolk even more?
It is almost unbelievable that our civilization should self-destruct for such stupid, trivial reasons.
Perfect. I always figured that women must hate being women if acting like a woman is so abhorrent to them. But I never understood why. Now I understand….
@ mrteebs
Here is a hint: raise daughters as if marriage, bearing children, and soberly choosing an honorable man that can actually actually provide/lead is Plan A. What you have just described is the exact opposite of that.
– Spend all of your time preparing NOT to have Plan A.
– Treat Plan A as a happy coincidence, not a deliberate goal that is obtainable for any woman that pursues it.
Most women do assume that they will have a husband to provide and that their income will be secondary. This is one of the reasons that women tend pick educational and careers paths that make less money but require also fewer hours of work.
@ GeminiXcX
Are the skills that one is learning going to be used for:
A) Giving to a family unit (benevolent).
B) To prove you don’t need anybody (non-benevolent) ??
For the vast majority of women, these skills will be used for the benefit of the family. Most women marry and have children and use their incomes and skills to support the family. Even most feminist women marry, and their families benefit from the money that they make as professional complainers.
@Opus – I just looked up Shaw’s Mrs. Warren’s Profession and laughed at the reason why Shaw claims he wrote it. He claimed he wrote the play “to draw attention to the truth that prostitution is caused, not by female depravity and male licentiousness, but simply by underpaying, undervaluing and overworking women so shamefully that the poorest of them are forced to resort to prostitution to keep body and soul together.”
I guess that is why there is no prostitution in Socialist/Welfare-State countries anymore.
@mrteebs, James K,
Great comments. Thank you.
I am accepting “father” as what it is, namely, one half of the whole which includes “mother”. Since you’ve repeatedly said that g-d as father implies masculinity and maleness, then you must have some thoughts on who our mother goddess is, since she’s necessarily entailed in your belief.
If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that either God must NOT be associated with gender (not sex) or there must be a mother. This view is false. Your view that with God “father” is 1/2 of a whole which includes “mother” is also false. It does not line up with the scriptures or any teachings from the Church fathers that I am aware of. I’ve provided ample evidence for my claims above, I’m sorry you still don’t see it.
The Bible refers to God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God (who is spirit) has assumed the role of father to those that belong to Him, and father is a masculine role.
1 Corinthians 8:6
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
The Bible shows us that Jesus, the Son of God, is also God.
John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
So God the Father, who is spirit, became flesh in the form of a man (male human). God has chosen to reveal himself in masculine roles. It’s as plain as daylight.
Needless to say, I still don’t see any evidence for this in the KJV. My reading suggests that g-d is not part of a whole, or otherwise incomplete. He transcends any sort of conflicting duality like sex or gender.
You are correct that God is complete. You are correct that God the Father is spirit and without flesh and bones (no sex organs). You are incorrect in assuming that the all powerful creator who IS complete cannot also choose to be a father (a masculine role) to those whom He has chosen from His creation.
“Did these women not have access to mainstream society?”
Yikes. Ironically, I wouldn’t touch their lips unless mine had touched a lot of alcohol.
Dear JDG:
Please see inside text…
That’s correct. There’s nothing in the text that leads me to believe that g-d is lacking anything — including femininity. In fact, the whole text of the bible suggests that femininity is one aspect of his nature, since he successfully created all these lovely feminine women that I see running around.
In short, his nature is holistic, and encompasses everything. He is not merely masculine. He is something much larger and harder to understand. I d
Again, where in the KJV does the divine monarch declare himself male, a man, or masculine? He doesn’t make any such declaration, otherwise you would have posted chapter and verse.
Anyone who speaks English knows what I’m talking about. If “father” isn’t a dualism with “mother”, then the word must mean something else, but you haven’t sufficiently defined it, and you don’t have any outside sources to back any of this up.
I enjoy your responses and have read them carefully. I must have missed the evidence (i.e. sources from the Church fathers, etc.). Could you please point me to something definitive?
Bear in mind that I’m not trying to merely be contentious here. This (god as male/man vs. god as mystery) is one of the distinctions that separates my tradition from yours, and I’ve been interested in it for years. I’d sincerely like to understand your contentions. You seem, philosophically, much more like a Mormon than a Christian in this argument.
Best,
Boxer
Boxer @ 12:24 pm:
“Again, where in the KJV does the divine monarch declare himself male, a man, or masculine?”
John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” (KJV, Jesus speaking)
“If “father” isn’t a dualism with “mother”, then the word must mean something else”
It isn’t a dualism. Masculinity in the Bible is uniformly associated with leadership and power whereas femininity is associated with submission. Even with the assumption of sexual neutrality, therefore, the fact that God is the Almighty places him in the masculine position, not the feminine. He does not submit to or follow the lead of… someone else.
It makes no sense to say God is both male and female. He’s the ultimate leader and the eternal follower? All-powerful but dependent? Doesn’t work.
If you want to be mystical then you could say God is male and the angels female because God rules over them.
@ Michelle and Gemini…
I follow your debate with interest…
I think Michelle’s original questions as to why it is ‘feminism’ if a iirl is raised to be able to have a job are very valid questions. I agree with her reasoning, and that is NOT because I am a feminist. Quite the opposite in fact.
I also like Gemini’s counter-questions back at Michelle. Essentially, Gemini is aking Michelle: WHY is a girl getting an education?
Again, after me own heart 🙂 I like it immensely when someone asks….WHY?
The WHY is extremely important.
If her work can benefit her family one day, then tant mieux! as the French say.
If it is to prove she can ‘do it all’, then she is on the road to divorce, which benefits NO family.
I think the mistake Michelle makes with her later statement is to assume that most women are as noble as she makes them out to be. I have noticed more and more that when a woman is out working, it is for her own needs – and she will still rely on the man’s salary for general household needs. In this regard, what is hers is hers, and what is the man’s belongs to ‘the whole family’.
Yes, indeed I see this all the time now…
Those who continue to push for girls to not have an education, please rethink your position. It heavily disadvantages a woman nowadays if she is incapable of bringing in money. It is simply not enough to be just ‘her indoors’ like in the 50s. Times have changed a great deal :-). Contrary to what I keep hearing here, real life experiences show me that the younger generation (millenials) will struggle if both parties in marriage do not have plans to at least start out their marriages working to create a nest egg financially.
Very often, it is the man’s wish that his wife works for at least a while before children arrive, and even then, it is debatable whether he will be happy for her to stay at home…Naturally, most women will want to stay home with their babies. But, even leaving apart single motherhood, most women will not be in a position to do this – it is too much of a ‘luxury’ – even for married women with husbands who work in respectable/good-paying jobs.
I have become a little obsessed with this phenomenon, and I have been doing some ‘field work’ here the results of which I humbly report to you (you are welcome!) – I have lots of millenial contacts who keep me abreast of what is hapening in Millenial-land.
In many ways, ‘what does she bring to the table besides you-know-what?’ is the question being asked of young women today. All the time.
Rightly or wrongly, it is what it is…
The clever/sensible girl will be wise to adjust herself to the SMP as is, rather than try to hope that the SMP adjusts to her wishes.
Until the SMP rights itself (i.e. young women stop ‘en masse’ the undesirable, unwholesome pre-marital behaviour), individual men and women will have to ‘work with what they have’, so to speak.
The above is an area of ‘adjustment’ applicable to women seeking to marry, I think.
For now, this phenomenon of women working is here to stay.
Granted, this ‘problem’ arose because of feminism. And now, we all bear the consequences.
It is what it is.
Interesting debate between you two, Michelle and Gemini.
Dear Gunner:
Thanks for your reply. Please see below…
So, in your interpretation, God is limited to the person of the Jesus character. That’s interesting, but the rest of the narrative tends to contradict that interpretation. For example, when the same character cries out “why have you forsaken me”.
In any event, If you said “I and my wife are one” I wouldn’t assume that you were a transwoman. There are many other contextual interpretations of that statement that make far more sense.
Then you agree with me, that “father” means something closer to “patria” in Latin, than it does to our common definition in English. I pointed this out at the beginning of the conversation. If that’s the case, why did you contradict yourself in the last sentence?
Please don’t build a strawman. I have no such assumption. My position is that g-d, as he’s depicted in the bible, is an example of holistic perfection, not a eunuch, not a man, a woman, nor anything else we can completely understand.
Of course. “God is on our side, because he hates women too!” is the rallying cry of many around here. If that makes you feel good or makes sense to you, it’s all good. I’m looking for some serious sources in the text to back this nonsense up, though. I don’t think you guys have any at this point, so I’ll leave you to it.
Best,
Boxer
Boxer says:
Please allow me to inject some dumbness into this discussion. It [somehow] pleases God to use the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. When Jesus was asked by the disciples to teach us to pray He taught them; ‘Our Father who art in heaven’. This simple example is a perfect explanation for children, adults and everyone in-between.
Trying to get our heads around God don’t work, they aint built for it.
Check out this male Feminist self-loathing; apparently, open marriage (i.e., cuckoldry) is mainstream or something in his world.
“What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism,” by Michael Sonmore, The Cut via Yahoo! Style, 27 Jul 1015
https://www.yahoo.com/style/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism-124776149073.html
@ Isa says:
July 27, 2015 at 3:42 am
“Educating daughters to be USEFUL is the prime directive of parenting them.”
The prime directive in parenting children (male and female) is to instill Godliness. After Godliness, we absolutely should instill usefulness in our children (make and female).
As my Abuelita used to say (in Spanish, of course), “earn your beans wherever you are”.
I wonder if the men who think we should raise helpless women have even read Proverbs 31. The ideal woman described therein is highly capable – so much so that she intimidates pretty much every woman who reads that chapter. By contrast, most modern “empowered” women aren’t terribly useful. As Cane asked…
“How many pre-marriage women can be counted on to prepare a menu of food? How about a cup of coffee that makes one say, ‘Mm-hmm!’? Can they even introduce a single man to other available women? What good are they to those around them?” https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/excessively-useless-friendships/
Another distinction between the Proverbs 31 woman and the modern “empowered” woman is that the Proverbs 31 woman employs her considerable capabilities to bless her husband…
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
… her children and servants…
15 She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
… and the needy.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
That’s the kind of daughters we need to raise – highly capable, Godly women who dedicate their considerable capabilities to serving God by blessing their husbands, their children and their neighbors.
And the kind of sons we should raise are the kind of highly capable, Godly men such Godly women would be blessed to marry.
OT, Funny story from work that will be appreciated on the Manosphere:
A male coworker is talking about his living arrangements with his girlfriend and is trying to describe how different he and her are from each other:
I snorted to stave off a laugh and replied with a neutral “yep, opposites attract.” It’s funny to hear someone offline, IRL, being such a huge mangina and bragging about his girlfriend’s awfulness.
The proper reply (if not at work) would have been:
A) I’m sorry to hear about your difficult situation.
B) How’d you manage to hook up with a lesbian?
C) Marry her before she slips away!
D) So you’re more of a bottom than a top.
TFH:
“But civilization will not end. Artificial Intelligence (AI) will destroy FI in a manner all but a handful of people are simply clueless about.”
I’m still not in agreement with you about this. IF the AI is truly intelligent, that is it can observe the world and make decisions and it has a purpose (lets say insure profits and growth for the corporation it belongs to) then it could very will determine that the distribution of wealth transfers to women is ideal to maximize corporate profit.
The car makers realized that a long time ago. It was hard to get men to buy new cars at first, but if they marketed new styles to appeal to women, men will buy the new cars to appeal to the women.
It doesn’t take much of a leap for an AI to look at the world, and realize that most men are slaves and that women are the reward for their bondage and act accordingly.
You don’t have to program the FI in for it to take root based on observations. Very simple analysis will produce the idea that men work more and are more productive, which would lead to hiring men, but the consumers are women they spend, spend, spend and that needs to be promoted. So the optimal arrangement is to get the men to work, but transfer wealth to the women.
This does not seem optimal to men at all.
“If you want to be mystical then you could say God is male and the angels female because God rules over them.”
If you’re basing the notion that God is male on his natural authority, then you’re reducing the status of god to that of the mortals he created, AND you’re taking something as complex, deep, and powerful as masculinity and reducing it to simply being in charge.
Neither is accurate.
Boxer @ 3:04 pm:
“My position is that g-d, as he’s depicted in the bible, is an example of holistic perfection, not a eunuch, not a man, a woman, nor anything else we can completely understand. ”
God wrote the Bible and even came in person IN ORDER TO reveal Himself to humanity. He isn’t a mathematical concept, impartial energy force or unattainable ideal. He’s a person like us. He has moods, a favorite flavor of ice cream, likes some people more than other people*, takes vacations from His job and occasionally does stuff just for the laughs.
To that end, God established the Biblical pattern of masculinity and femininity to help us understand Him. Why does God require a husband to have complete authority over his wife while loving her enough to die for her? Because that demonstrates God’s relationship to us so we can understand Him. The very concept of masculinity exists for the purpose of describing God. Don’t dodge this by saying “nobody completely understands”. That’s a cop-out when God has gone this far to be understandable.
*Don’t panic. All it takes for this to be true is Christ thinking Larry the Pharisee was a major jerk.
This is straight up bullshit that women today believe. This has f-you rebellion written all over it.
Check out Oscar’s commit https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/feminist-self-loathing/#comment-184171
That was hard as rock man.
Genesis 1 27 says God created man in his image. That tells me god is masculine (male) Based on the rest of genesis and what I have witnessed in my life there is no way in hell God is female or even a blending of the two. Genesis 2 18-25 explains where women come from and gives a little hint on marriage.
I’m not the biggest bible thumper in the world and I may not seem to have the Christian street cred to talk but I will put my faith in genesis.
BTW God doesn’t prove shit to us. We have faith in him. There is not going to be evidence. I’m sure this will get picked apart. But I’m still having fun and this is another good one Dalrock.
@ greyghost says:
July 27, 2015 at 6:43 pm
Much appreciated.
[God] likes some people more than other people*
“Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.””
For those of you wondering why MGTOW and the manosphere. .
All activity in this video is fully endorsed as empowering by the church, law and pop culture.
@greyghost
That video clip was from my country, which is a feminist wonderland in Asia. I don’t remember if the Church said anything about this or that my pastor took the opportunity to explain gender roles and behavioral norms in our society.
God has “moods”?
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1:17
The discussion on whether God is a man or not is fascinating, and one that I used to regularly engage in at seminary. Linguistic analysis and historical/cultural approaches do yield some clarification, but in the end it boils down to this for me: God relates to His people like a father to his children. One can engage all kinds of chicken and egg reasoning but it doesn’t seem to dig one out of the hole.
My ex-wife once told me that she internalized her fathers voice as the voice of God Himself. This was, in her opinion a combination of Truths that transcend culture and traditional parenting. Even Freud, an atheist would agree. She said that whenever her conscience was bothering her, it was her fathers voice she heard.
I don’t know if all women experience this. (Or men for that matter). I suspect it would impossible for those raised with no dad around.
Jane Dough,
How does a woman who has renounced her faith in Jesus Christ find it appropriate to weigh in on a conversation between men on the accuracy of the understanding of the God of the Bible?
Great comment, Oscar!
Greyghost: I could not watch that video for more than a few minutes. Incredible! Watch the men, eyes looking at the ground, afraid to look up. All of the men in the first 6 minutes were obviously suffering from extreme trauma and years of abuse. Horrible. I saw over 150 domestic violence cases as a legal investigator and I imagine many of them were very much like these videos. The only time the woman was arrested was when she attacked the cops with a baseball bat as they were handcuffing her bloody husband who had called the police. They took off his handcuffs and took her instead this time. In every other case- despite DOZENS of them in which the man was bleeding and injured- the MAN was taken to jail. Every single time.
Most feminists suffer from a bad case of what Nietzsche called ressentiment. Ditto Marxists. They project their frustrations outward because they are unable to resolve their own personal conflicts.
The tragedy is the social cost.
@ seriouslyserving says:
July 27, 2015 at 10:42 pm
Thank you, ma’am.
Dear Gunner:
There you go with the straw man nonsense again.
Where does it say this in the KJV?
Thanks,
Boxer
Dear Scott:
That’s certainly a good analogy. There are oodles of examples in the text to suggest that god loves with a love that’s closer to a father’s love. (God’s love isn’t unconditional, and if you piss him off, you’ll get a beating, rather than endless sympathy.) Be that as it may, there’s nothing in the text to suggest that he’s limited to being a dude, or seeing the world as a dude.
Call it what you want. I find it interesting to see a bunch of supposed antifeminists taking up feminist positions, that “god is a man” and such. It’s excusable when feminists say this, as they’re operating from emotions and have generally never read the book they blather about. Y’all are supposed to be a lot smarter than they are, so when you guys do it I can’t help but point and snigger.
Best,
Boxer
Dear GeminiXcX:
More straw man nonsense. Please post a link to any of my comments that mentioned beer or sports.
The dishonest nonsense above aside, your response is the most thoughtful yet. With this in mind, why prove yourself a liar, like the other guy? Just keep making your case. I’m totally open to the fact that I may be wrong, and I don’t pretend to be a bible scholar.
Regards,
Boxer
Dalrock,
Now I understand why I was in moderation!
I accidentally used another email address. In fact one that is not active anymore.
Is it possible to resend my comment from 2:23pm July 27th using my correct email address so I get a consistent avatar?
Thank you!
[D: Fixed.]
Oscar’s comment about the Proverbs Woman sums up everything I believe too. What a beautiful comment!
TFH and Greyghost also help me in my point-making…
The problem is NOT that a woman works or has an education. The problem is if she is using her work to divide the family and/or keep the proceeds from said work for herself.
Sad but true that this happens rather a lot in today’s culture.
Whatever a woman does in the context of family life (stay at home, working, part-time, whatever) it should be benefitting everyone in that family. If not, she should rethink what she should be doing…
So the ladies who are at work purely to ‘feel fulfilled’ even though no-one else in the family gains anything, and in fact her children may be losing something (her presence/proximity at a time when children need this), are doing it wrong by the yardstick I am setting.
If times are hard/husband is sick/has lost his job and she is working to keep the family afloat, all good…and hats off to her.
This is my opinion and I am sticking to it 🙂
The Lord’s Prayer should finish this silly debate.
Boxer is trolling you all. He built the very strawman he is arguing against. That of equating God to being a man. No one else suggested it. God is certainly masculine though, unless Boxer can relate to us some part of the Bible that refers to God as ‘mother’.
As everyone knows God must be a man because God is an Englishman; there is certainly a book with that very title.
I just wanted to draw attention to another book or rather a certain chapter thereof; a chapter that should be compulsory reading for Androsphere types but which is not I think ever mentioned. The Author is Schopenhauer – not his Essay on Women – but what, going under the perhaps discouraging title of The Metaphysics of Sexual Love is Chapter LXIV in the Fourth Book of Volume Two of his World as Will and Representation. Its thirty pages are solid Red Pill throughout. It has an Appendix on what we call Homosexuality (pretty radical to write about that at the time) and I have to say this Appendix on what he (to my mind rightly) calls Pederasty should be compulsory reading for all those who have bought into the present deification of Homosexuality let alone Queer Marriage.
“How does a woman who has renounced her faith in Jesus Christ find it appropriate to weigh in on a conversation between men on the accuracy of the understanding of the God of the Bible?”
Because I have spent a number of years studying theology and it fascinates me. Christianity isn’t the only religion I might chime in on either. Likewise, I’m a US citizen, but I frequently follow and discuss foreign elections.
If you aren’t going to respond to what I say, only complain that I’m saying it, why bother?
Boxer said:
Boxer said:
Hm, yeah.. okay.
Dear kooky feminist hater:
I realize that this is beyond your ken, (you’re not the only one here – lol) but the intelligibility of g-d is a deep theological argument that smart folks have been debating for years.
As Jack Donovan will remind us, masculinity is defined as a constellation of traits that fall at the opposite end of a bell curve which also includes femininity.
If your god is masculine, then he is, by definition, incomplete. By saying as much, you identify yourself as an idolator, in fact — an anti-Christian, who has added and subtracted things from the text of the bible. You can’t point to any verse in the bible that plainly states as much, or you would have done so.
Playing sports in High School is part of the constellation (it’d fall into Donovan’s “mastery” subsection). It doesn’t have anything to do with Gunnar’s caricature of masculinity: that of the beer drinking tee-vee watcher who screams at Monday Night Football.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Fellas:
Greyghost’s video is a must watch for any man thinking of marriage. Forward to 17:00 if time is short, and watch the tantrum. It’s hideous and hilarious all at the same time.
http://www.amazon.com/NEGRO-BISHOP-HENRY-TURNER-1898/dp/B001RV3J9U
Spacetraveller –
I think the mistake Michelle makes with her later statement is to assume that most women are as noble as she makes them out to be. I have noticed more and more that when a woman is out working, it is for her own needs – and she will still rely on the man’s salary for general household needs. In this regard, what is hers is hers, and what is the man’s belongs to ‘the whole family’.
If she is working for her own needs then does his salary not cover her needs? Did she marry a man who cannot afford a wife?
I do know a few women who keep separate bank accounts. In one instance the husband has a spending problem and the money that he can’t access covers basic expenses. Maybe some women are keeping the money that they earn to themselves to spend on luxuries, but this seems uncommon given the state of the average family’s financial situation. Many men cannot support a family alone
I’m not a reader of this site but having come across this discussion of the masculinity of God, I wanted to chime in, if the host doesn’t mind. (I do read over at Donal Graeme’s but I’m not a manosphere traveller, so to speak.) My comment is from a Catholic point of view as I’m Catholic.
We speak of God in masculine terms because He is masculine in the way that He relates to humanity. He is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority. He is completely “other” to his creation that images Him. Humanity, men and women alike, relate to God from the feminine position of submission to Him. Because we are in the feminine position, it would be absurd to call Him a she.
Fathers and Mothers are faint images of God, rather than perfect images. Fathers faintly image God as first origin (in reality they are secondary in that they cooperate with God) of their offspring. Their offspring come into being by their initiatory (principle) action in relation to the Mother who actively receives and later returns that which was received. Fathers image transcendent authority by the fact that they have procreated “away from” themselves. They aren’t really transcendent in the same way God is in relation to His creation, but they do image it faintly.
Although, God is transcendent over His creation, He is also immanent within it. He sustains us and if he ever withdrew his power, we would cease to exist. Motherhood is a faint image of God’s immanence. If a pregnant woman dies, her child would die also, so close is the bond. Motherhood images the intimacy and union God has with his creation. Mothers aren’t really immanent in the same way God is in relation to us, but they are a shadow of it. Each sex images God in a way that the other does not. God transcends human male and female, fatherhood and motherhood.
God possess all the perfect attributes of both fatherhood and motherhood but we don’t call him mother because His transcendence has a certain priority over His immanence.
[D: Welcome.]
Oh, everything God goes beyond my ken but when Jesus specifically tells us to pray to ‘God our Father’ I don’t really feel the need to debate whether he actually meant ‘mother’. You just seem to want to argue because the Bible does not specifically say that God is masculine.
Your ideal of a ‘whole’ is a human concept. Male and female only exist as it attains to animals and reproduction, humans included. God does not need to be both masculine and feminine to be complete. God is God who continually is referred to as ‘Father’ in the Bible, it doesn’t get more obvious than that. You will not find any texts on God being a ‘man’ unless you mean ‘Jesus’ because God is not a human being.
Your added attempt to try and cast me as an unbeliever due to not agreeing with you, an unbeliever, shall be taken as a compliment. Thank you.
Feminist Hater:
And, for the umpteenth time, “father” doesn’t mean “man” “dude” or “masculine” in all contexts. Patria means homeland in Latin, or it could mean progenitor, or it could mean tribe. Gunnar pointed that out after I did, apparently never having read my original. You haven’t read any of the articles in this discussion, apparently. You’re just weighing in to throw insults.
Well, yes. I think that the bible is an important book. Trying to get at what it’s actually saying is worthy of my time.
Regards,
Boxer
However, Boxer, for the umpteenth time, ‘father’ in the context of ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ most certainly means ‘father’. It does not mean tribe or nation or any other meaning you would like to prescribe to it. It is Jesus telling his disciples how to pray to God. It does not get more obvious than that.
I went through the entire list of posts just to find the one that started all this jabber. Your refusal to even acknowledge the overwhelming preponderance of God being described in masculine ways in the Bible is truly awe shattering. Any Bible verses given to you are just cast aside. There is no proving this to you.
You seem to want to quibble over the exact meaning of words. Call it a ‘loss in translation’ if you will.
I think your problem stems from the inability to see masculine and feminine traits outside of humans. You seem to think that one cannot exist without the other. Kind or like ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Maybe that’s your issue? If God is masculine and good then what of feminine traits?
As TFH has been saying for a long time is that women do not understand cause and effect very well. Women entering the workforce has resulted in the salaries of men being cut by almost 50%. So now women are being forced to work in order to maintain the same quality of life if a man were to support a family by himself like in the old days. Furthermore, the TPTB and corporations wanted women to get into the workforce because it doubles the tax revenue and converts the economy from manufacturing to consumer based one.
“I don’t need a man, but I want one.”
Hamsterlated: “I don’t want a man, but I need one.”
Michelle,
Again you make valid points. But…
“If she is working for her own needs then does his salary not cover her needs?”
Certainly not in some cases. Please understand that some women have ‘needs’ which exceed reality ;).
They are more like ‘wants’ and THIS is why she needs a job.
The women who are working because they need to/husband cannot afford for her not to etc. are of course not included in this group, and neither are those who need to work because Husband is a total failure when it comes to managing money (very rare).
I agree with you that in the lifetime of the Millenials, both parents will need to work to sustain a household.
But in many cases than you imagine in already established marriages, this is not the case and the woman only works because she doggedly wants to, believing in some sort of ‘fulfilment’ in work outside the home.
This is the problem… and more and more, it becomes apparent that this is the case.
Amongst Millenials, however this does not apply: Millenial women NEED to work, as Millenial men have been left a terrible legacy by their forebearers…
“I agree with you that in the lifetime of the Millenials, both parents will need to work to sustain a household if they want to keep up with the Joneses and live a materialistic UMC lifestyle in which they have everything they want in addition to everything they need.”
FIFY.
You’re welcome.
Boxer @ July 27, 2015 at 11:44 pm:
“[God] isn’t a mathematical concept, impartial energy force or unattainable ideal.
There you go with the straw man nonsense again.”
Boxer @ July 27, 2015 at 3:04 pm:
“My position is that g-d, as he’s depicted in the bible, is an example of holistic perfection, not a eunuch, not a man, a woman, nor anything else we can completely understand.”
TFH:
You are presuming that productivity will be the fundamental core principle of the A.I. and I suspect it will not be. It will be a subset of what it does.
I don’t disagree that technology will eliminate low productivity jobs. With the rise in minimum wages in some cities, I expect food service to become automated, especially at all the burger kings of the world. Technology has already eliminated many of the secretarial jobs that used to exist.
I expect it to eliminate trucking jobs and manufacturing jobs to an extent.
But PROFITS are going to be the primary goal not productivity and that again leads to manipulating consumers and the easiest consumers to manipulate are women.
Feminism and broken homes are profitable for the large corporations.
Jane Dough,
That was a question, not a complaint.
This isn’t a topic that is acceptable for Christian women to debate with men. This is most certainly a time to “learn in silence”. Of course you (and another who does not share my biblically based faith) have no respect for this admonition. For those who may wonder by and sense that it is unbecoming and indicative of a rebellious woman, they’ll know with that I agree. The loss of wisdom among women with regards to when to keep one’s mouth shut is another ugly trait of women that feminism celebrates.
Because I have spent a number of years studying theology and it fascinates me.
“Theology” has about as much to do with the practice of Christian faith as knowledge of physics has to do with the ability to repair an internal combustion engine. It explains the functionality, but it is irrelevant by itself to being able to make the theory work in practice.
Feeriker,
I wish I could agree with you on this one. But I’m afraid I can’t…
Whilst your ‘fix’ is probably true of households established circa 1990, it is simply not true of the Millenials who are now in the throes of forming relationships. By the time these young people are ready to marry and have families of their own, both parties will HAVE to work just to put food on the table.
These young people are starting life with a deficit, financially. In Britain, a typical medical student has a debt of £60,000, for example. Imagine that – £60,000!
An Art Student or Engineering student is not very far behind in terms of student debt…
The males of this species (:)) are already put off marriage – and we all know why…
If such a male were to be tempted into marriage, the female doing so had better produce evidence that the finances will not be on his back alone…
And this will be just for the basics of life.
For any extras, she better be prepared to work two jobs…
I have a lot of sympathy for these young people…
Their lives won’t be easy, that’s for sure. The time that men could comfortably solely provide for a whole family probably ended with the 30s – 40s age-group.
Sure, as ever, there will be exceptions, but the majority won’t be able to achieve this. Through no fault of theirs…
This is where we are now. I just report what I see. None of my (male) Millenial friends/relatives will agree to have a SAHW. They just won’t do it. As gate-keepers of marriage, I think their opinions count…
I wish it (this undesirable situation) weren’t so, but alas, it is…
Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.
This isn’t a topic that is acceptable for Christian women to debate with men. This is most certainly a time to “learn in silence”.
We aren’t in church and some of the participants aren’t even Christians. Her participation in this discussion is fine.
@ Spacetraveller says:
July 28, 2015 at 1:51 am
Thank you. What I don’t understand is why any man would want a helpless wife. If she’s helpLESS, how can she be a hlep MEET (Genesis 2:18)?
Thanks Dalrock, for fixing my previous comment!
As a fellow Catholic, Mrs C certainly puts me to shame! I wish I had learned as much Catechism as she obviously did.
Chapeau, Mrs C!
@ Spacetraveller – well wants are certainly different than needs. However even in those cases where the wife’s salary goes to cover wants, it is rarely her wants alone that are covered. Men seem to want about as much as women when it come to luxuries. Most of the time when the wife works for luxuries the husband is in agreement about this. I don’t know any women who work against the wishes of their husbands. I do know a few housewives whose husbands want them back at work.
“This isn’t a topic that is acceptable for Christian women to debate with men. This is most certainly a time to “learn in silence”. Of course you (and another who does not share my biblically based faith) have no respect for this admonition. For those who may wonder by and sense that it is unbecoming and indicative of a rebellious woman, they’ll know with that I agree. The loss of wisdom among women with regards to when to keep one’s mouth shut is another ugly trait of women that feminism celebrates.”
Cool. We’re in different places. If I were a Christian woman and the discussion was centered around the practice of Christianity and the men present were members of the same faith as me, I would probably share your view. But this is about the nature of God on an anonymous board. I don’t have a ton of free time, and what little I have to browse the internet just isn’t spent trying to be a good example for Christian women. I spend it reading, thinking, discussing, and trying to expand my worldview. And then I often take the ideas that I’ve encountered online and bring them up to my husband (or friends and family, depending on the topic or idea) for further debate and discussion in real life.
Rebelling against my husband would be wrong. But he knows how I spend my time online and IRL, has access to all of my online activities including my posts, and even encouraged and paid for me to go to graduate school and enter a field where I would spend much of my time disagreeing with others, even men! His approval is truly what matters to me, and if I decided to start doing things your way, he would be hurt, upset, angry, and confused.
Michelle,
Yes, alas I cannot disagree that men want their luxuries too. But in general, men’s luxuries are a lot chjeaper than women’s (save the 100ft yachts and supercars of the famous and rich).
You don’t know any women who go against their husband’s wishes?
Wow, where do you live? I am moving right into your neighbourhood so I learn from these excellent women 🙂
Jokes aside, I too know of husbands who want their wives to work, to help with family finances.
We are on the same page on that score. I think when these women comply, it is in submission to their husbands, so it is a good thing. If there are small kids in the house, it may be a problematic situation though…
@ THF
This is false, as proven by the fact that ‘feminists’ ensured that ‘child support’ funds do not have to go towards the child. They fought tooth and nail to ensure the woman does not have to prove she spent it on the child.
Did feminists do this or is this just another practicality blamed on feminism? I suppose every custodial parent could prove monthly that she paid for housing, food clothing, transportation, educational and medical expenses. But really who is going to look through her grocery store receipts monthly? The courts? The father? How will he know if she bought that food for herself or for the child?
“Son tell it to me straight. Did you eat these Cheetos or was it your mother? Would you say that you ate half the bag or only 1/3.” Rinse and repeat for every single item purchased. I’m exaggerating a little for effect, but really how would that work?
@ Oscar,
“What I don’t understand is why any man would want a helpless wife. If she’s helpLESS, how can she be a hlep MEET (Genesis 2:18)?”
Well, exactly. This is where I agree with Michelle to some degree (heh). A woman must definitely not be a helpless burden onto a man. There is no virtue in that.
Whatever skills she has, she can put to good use, for the greater good.
In many ways, I sympathise with Millenial men who have taken this stance out of necessity.
I wonder if along the lines they have learned that a ‘helpless’ woman is not actually a good thing??
The devil finds work for idle hands and all that…
Michelle, that’s a massive cop out. Wow! Sheesh! Oh my, who ate the cheetos?! Really?
The woman must catalog each expense as it relates to the child when it comes due. She can do the work herself and if caught lying, must pony up the dough. And usually these things are calculated beforehand so the woman is given a sort of monthly stipend to spend on the child’s expenses and if she goes above such expense, must use her own money to make up the difference. Seems simple enough, until such time as the woman is in court again asking for an increase in child support and alimony and what not.
Soooo much simpler not getting married.
@Spacetraveller “As a fellow Catholic, Mrs C certainly puts me to shame! I wish I had learned as much Catechism as she obviously did.”
Aw, thanks. It’s always nice to see a fellow Catholic out on the internet. I’ve been following your conversation about “working wives.” It’s right on the money with Catholic thought on the subject. It’s not so much whether wives should work or not, it’s the motivation for why she is working, which will be different for each family depending on various circumstances. I stay home but we sacrifice a lot for living on one income. No annual vacations, limited extracurricular activities for our girls, both vehicles over ten years old, lots of DIY for household and vehicle maintenance. I have helped out financially by babysitting in our home for ten years which allows me to still be here for family but it’s certainly not a career. It’s not easy and I do worry about whether my girls and their future husbands will be able to pull off the one income household. They will have education beyond high school but I’ve taught them that it will be for assisting with the finances rather than anything for self-fulfillment. (Not that what they choose to be trained in can’t be fulfilling but it won’t be the primary reason.) If they should have to work full time by circumstances, I’ll be more than happy to have my grandchildren in my care if they are close by. 🙂
So simply being a practical parent who raises female children to be adults that are capable of taking care of themselves is feminism? Women worked before feminism, and a lot of the work that needs to be done today requires an education. Many households will need two incomes to avoid poverty. Sports are just a more fun form of exercise and since people no longer do physical labor all day exercise helps them avoid getting fat.
What you call “empowerment” is just the ability to live alone as an independent adult. This is a basic life skill that everyone should have. There is nothing inherently feminist about a woman shooting a gun. It is self defense and a basic survival skill. If a woman’s husband is away on a business trip and a burglar comes in should she just let herself and the kids be killed and the house robbed because shooting him would feminist?
When did not raising helpless women become feminism?
The problem is that these parents, while trying to be practical are still falling into feminism and what feminism was built on: creating more independence for women. Period.
The problem is that it is independent from MEN, not just merely independent for their own selves… it is specifically designed (all of it, the degree, the career plan, the being able to take care of herself on her own), so that SHE DOES NOT NEED A MAN.
That’s what’s wrong with it. That is what links it to feminism. It is exactly what those women fought for and wanted, so that women didn’t have to need men, be vulnerable enough to inspire men to commit to them and take care of them.
The problem is that it sends a very ugly message to a man (to all men really), because it tells him his STRENGTH, his GOD-GIVEN masculinity and strength are no longer needed (and sure as hell not wanted). She can kill her own snakes, take care of herself with her own money, form her own path on the wilderness of life. And men can GTFO.
Another thing that is sad about the reality we’re in is that… Men want to feel needed, both sexes compliment each other well and truly do need each other – that is what is so ugly about feminism is that it lies to women and tells them that they shouldn’t NEED a man, that their life should be complete and happy without him. But those woman are rarely happy living alone – the only ones I know that are somewhat happy truly do hate men deep down. They are only “happy” because they’re scared of men or angry at them, but they aren’t living a full, beautiful life.
Men are designed by God to lead, to be the leader of their family. They usually aren’t that attracted to a woman who is that independent because not only does she clearly not “need” him, it makes it much harder to lead her. Why should a strong independent woman follow or submit to a mere man when she already does everything he does (and usually has more educational prominence now-a-days anyway with more and more women earning higher educational degrees). She usually feels (and is constantly told) that she does things BETTER than men, she is the better human overall – the more “complete human” because of her feelings being more expressed on top of all her masculine accomplishments.
Modern women then, with all their practical independence, have utterly no value for masculinity in their life. Why should they? They are masculine enough to provide for themselves, to kill or shoot their own intruders or snakes, to have a career and take care of herself.
What value is the masculinity of a man then? He is obsolete. And that is exactly what they wanted to accomplish by making women become “independent.”
Mrs C,
Thank you: I actually didn’t know the Church had any specific views on working wives/mothers. Thank you for this information. I am relieved that the Church takes such a common sense approach to this issue though. I imagine the Church is sensitive to the needs of individual families and leaves therefore each family to sort ist own finances out without decreeing how it is to be done…
Your example is a good one that I like and respect. I also like and respect others who work for the common good. Variations on a theme.
How utterly nice to encounter another Catholic woman like you too!
If you don’t mind, I shall come to you for advice from time to time?
Only 2 years married (almost!) I have a lot to learn…
Dragonfly,
Thanks to your last sentence I now have my yoghurt drink spluttered all over my computer. I haven’t laughed so hard in a while, lol.
You sum up the anti-man sentiment so well, including the aggressive, die-hard, knuckle-headed nature of it all. Talk about anti-femininity.
You are 100% right, of course. This is EXACTLY how it goes.
So whilst Michelle’s question seems innocuous enough, (why is it feminism if a girl is given an education?) a simple ‘no, it is not feminism’ is not enough…because it COULD be feminism depending on the motivation behind the education.
This is why I think Gemini’s comment (as to the WHY) is so important, and you also make a similar point to his.
This subtle difference is something I didn’t understand my whole life growing up…
I am glad I do now…
TFH,
How about this:
Default is joint custody. Period. If a man refuses joint custody, then he has to pay support. Otherwise, no support.
In my state, even with joint physical custody, there can be support payments. Because it’s assessed as a share of an income calculation.
So, even if I win joint physical custody, and my ex makes well above the US median household income, and I pay for the children’s medical insurance, she’ll still get a check. After the divorce, my career took off because I no longer had to leave work to deal with her frequent breakdowns.
Of course, despite the breakdowns, she was awarded primary custody and I’ve had to spend $20K+ in an effort to get joint.
I’m not going to claim that this observation is applicable generally, but I’ve yet to find a divorced man who had a different experience.
When my ex moved out, my discretionary income went up.
Perhaps it’s because I have no need to engage in retail therapy. Perhaps it’s because it doesn’t bother me that I’ve had the same dishes for years. I can’t say for sure, but I did surely find it true.
From this observation, I conclude that as horrific as a societal collapse would be, I believe that generally speaking men being content with less would more easily weather it.
Just my opinionated opinion.
@ dragonfly
So simply being a practical parent who raises female children to be adults that are capable of taking care of themselves is feminism? Women worked before feminism, and a lot of the work that needs to be done today requires an education. Many households will need two incomes to avoid poverty. Sports are just a more fun form of exercise and since people no longer do physical labor all day exercise helps them avoid getting fat.
What you call “empowerment” is just the ability to live alone as an independent adult. This is a basic life skill that everyone should have. There is nothing inherently feminist about a woman shooting a gun. It is self defense and a basic survival skill. If a woman’s husband is away on a business trip and a burglar comes in should she just let herself and the kids be killed and the house robbed because shooting him would feminist?
When did not raising helpless women become feminism?
The problem is that these parents, while trying to be practical are still falling into feminism and what feminism was built on: creating more independence for women. Period.
The problem is that it is independent from MEN, not just merely independent for their own selves… it is specifically designed (all of it, the degree, the career plan, the being able to take care of herself on her own), so that SHE DOES NOT NEED A MAN.
Our service based economy would’ve made these changes necessary for women even if the feminist movement never happened. Women were educated before feminism but what they were taught is different. 100 years ago teaching your daughter to farm might have been practical. Today they teach her to be a nurse, or a teacher or an administrative assistant or whatever they think that she can make a living doing. The point for most parents isn’t independence from men. It is preparation for adulthood.
Attitude is key of course, but that was already discussed.
without postmodern femini$$m there was no economic need for mass immigration, we still would have progressive normal healthy (white) families with avg. 5-7 children, activate fembot-terminator-FU2 now!
Feminist rebellion is at its core a rebellion against beauty.
Not quite, but you are close. It is actually a rebellion against nature and that is why feminism cannot win.
Don’t argue with that. That right there is the modern western woman. No man should in any way feel any obligation to such women. ( MGTOW ) Too many men Christian or not spend way too much intellectual and emotional energy trying to live with such women. Male intellect has to be spent working with out such women. As Dalrock’s previous article on respect, respect the respectable. She was taught to think that way and is fully supported in that attitude by the society. No sense in arguing and damn sure don’t put a ring on it.
This is that rebellion thing proudly on display.
Check out this response
Total lack of respect. Basically she responded to another women with a “fuck these guys”
Blue pill guys marry these women Thinking he as got him a strong woman to help him. And foolishly raise their children thinking this is empowering and independent. Then when she is done with him she divorces. The manosphere wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t true.
@Spacetraveller “If you don’t mind, I shall come to you for advice from time to time?
Only 2 years married (almost!) I have a lot to learn…”
Absolutely. You can reach me at my blog anytime.
You have a way with words! So true about the lack of respect thing. Women are funny.. when you’re not married to them..
Dragonfly nails it. A woman who doesn’t need a man is a tortoise who doesn’t need a shell… a dangerously delusional creature that would rather harm itself than cuddle up in safety every night.
…
Michelle @ 3:21 pm:
“Today they teach her to be a nurse, or a teacher or an administrative assistant or whatever they think that she can make a living doing.”
Exactly our point. She can MAKE A LIVING. Provide for herself without ever being dependent upon a husband. Parents admit they train Princess like this specifically so she “won’t be forced to get married” or even “because men like older women who can challenge them”.
Here’s the cold, hard truth: men will choose the young woman earning minimum wage over the career woman making six figures.
Don’t argue with that. That right there is the modern western woman.
Yup. I don’t understand why anyone is trying have a dialog with any of them either. Once they establish themselves as SIWs, there’s no point in talking anymore. The brainrot is irreversible and you might as well be talking to a brick wall for all the good it will do. Logic doesn’t “go there.”
“Dear kooky feminist hater:”
Huh. So this isn’t just a one-off random thing of Boxer, but a pattern.
Parents admit they train Princess like this specifically so she “won’t be forced to get married” or even “because men like older women who can challenge them”.
That Christian parents do this with the same frequency as non-believing ones is what is so unforgiveable. I really wonder too why most churches today don’t just go ahead and launch an organized and open “Anti-Marriage and Family League” (paraphrasing George Orwell). The candor would be refreshing and it would dovetail very nicely with both the male bashing that regularly comes from the pulpit, the yougolittlegirrrrrrrrrl pedestalization prevalent in most church families, and the overt revulsion and hostility toward young marriage.
Here’s the cold, hard truth: men will choose the young woman earning minimum wage over the career woman making six figures.
Ain’t it the truth. Note too the (not always subtle) shaming or condescension any man –especially a Christian man– receives when he announces that he intends to marry a woman “beneath his station.” Most of it comes from women, particularly his female relatives. It’s yet another manifestation of the contempt for traditional sex roles that has infected even (ostensibly) Christian society to the point where it’s not even recognized.
Satan is truly laughing with delight.
@TFH Those are some brilliant ideas on correcting child support. I would bring up that we all ready have a voucher system child support was meant to off set, welfare. How about if parents receive child support as food stamps? That would keep them from being spent at Gucci and support the whole philosophy of what child support was “supposed” to be. And child support should be capped below $1,000. If you can’t afford to raise your children you’re doing it wrong, and maybe you shouldn’t be given custody.
Re: Fixing Child Support
Raise God’s daughters in the church to understand that the Biblical mandate is to help widows and orphans, not women who did not know how to pick a suitable husband and father for their children.
We aren’t in church and some of the participants aren’t even Christians. Her participation in this discussion is fine.
How cute. You believe the church is a four-walled building open on Sundays. Do you believe that it is only in this four-walled building on Sundays where women are deceived? What a fool you are.
There were no church buildings at the time of Paul’s writing to Timothy from prison. And what do we see in Matthew 18:20? Where two or more are gathered… how much you want to bet two or more of the men having this discussion have prayed about this? So, there’s that. But let’s look closer at what Paul had to say:
Men and Women in the Church – (This is not referring to a four-walled Sunday building which wouldn’t come along for a couple hundred more years)
8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
…to teach or have authority over a man – Well darn it Paul, looks like he forgot to mention yet again a CHRISTIAN man. Surely he didn’t make another mistake!
No. He didn’t. It doesn’t matter one bit whether the men in this discussion are Christian or not. Paul made no exceptions about a woman’s behavior toward nonbelievers.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think that you are actually a man hell bent on proving that women are not worth talking to, much less marrying and expecting loyalty and respect. You do such a bang up job of demonstrating the very traits that are so ugly in women – this unapologetic lack of respect and propriety. I can’t wrap my head around it. Here we have a blog where men share their frustrations with the nature of women and what do we find, women like yourself jumping up and down “YEP, That’s ME, I am exactly what repulses you about women! Let me show you some more!”
Gunner,
That comment made me remember the children’s book — The Foolish Tortoise. It fits perfectly. The tortoise is foolish because it decides to give up its shell, like feminists give up men. Chasing after the dream to be of a quicker speed like the other animals, the Tortoise tosses its shell. Women chasing after independence do this same thing. They toss the shell (men) aside.
The closing line is great —“I think I’ve lost the urge to roam, I think it’s time that I went home. Without my shell I don’t feel right, so when his shell came into sight, he climbed back in and said good night”. Wise women eventually realize this and after chasing independence, that urge to roam, go crawling back looking for that shell. Difference is for women, that shell may not be as easy to find anymore.
I think I will make a post out of this. THANKS!
How cute. You believe the church is a four-walled building open on Sundays. Do you believe that it is only in this four-walled building on Sundays where women are deceived? What a fool you are.
No, Sarah’sDaughter. I don’t think that church is only a four walled building open on Sundays. However I believe that it is a stretch to claim that participating in a conversation about God in the comments of a blog post is prohibited by anything written in the Bible. You like to use that as an excuse to tell women to shut up when you disagree with them. It is transparent and ridiculous. Frankly, I’ve read enough of your comments to know that you are not a Christian and to ignore your false teaching. I’m sure that we will disagree but there is no point in discussing it further.
@ Jane Dough
BTW, teachers in the Bible have authority. Is there anything less authoratative than a comment on a blog post? Even a Facebook post uses the poster’s real name and the credibility attched to that name. The only way that you could’ve made it less like teaching might be if you’d tweeted your response and added a #WWJD
Frankly, I’ve read enough of your comments to know that you are not a Christian and to ignore your false teaching.
Actually, I have read enough of her comments to believe that she is most likely a Christian and that you probably are not. If anyone is peddling error and false teaching, it’s you, Michelle.
You need to take a break from Dalrock’s site and get alone with the Bible for a bit. I bet that your thinking will be transformed.
@ Dave – I asked my husband about it. He says that he purpose of a blog with comments is usually to encourage discussion and that he doesn’t see how participation in that discussion goes against Paul’s admonition to women. I am not teaching men or in a position of authority and neither was Jane Dough. My thinking on this is fine.
BTW, teachers in the Bible have authority. Is there anything less authoratative than a comment on a blog post? Even a Facebook post uses the poster’s real name and the credibility attched to that name. The only way that you could’ve made it less like teaching might be if you’d tweeted your response and added a #WWJD
So in your mind there are specific times that Paul was referring to? And commenting on a blog post was not one of those times. (Perhaps lusting over women only refers to those men see in person and not on porn sites?)
Review this comment:
If you’re basing the notion that God is male on his natural authority, then you’re reducing the status of god to that of the mortals he created, AND you’re taking something as complex, deep, and powerful as masculinity and reducing it to simply being in charge.
Neither is accurate.
It is full of assertions. No questions, no requests for further information. The author is not discussing anything. It is by her perceived authority that she made the assertion and the message “you are wrong” is a challenge to either debate or submit. Couple that all with the fact that she has publicly admitted that her tryst with her father the Devil has resulted in her renouncing her faith in Jesus Christ. She has admitted that she is here to disagree with people and spends her limited spare time on a Christian man’s blog. And you, Michelle, can’t find it within yourself to read your Bible and align yourself with Truth.
Even Jane Dough knows enough Christian theology to laugh at you. It is literally that easy to get a “Christian” woman to align herself with unbelievers/blasphemers.
With regard to the issue of education for girls, I am confused. Above it is stated that a man will choose a woman making minimum wage over a woman with a career. This is not what I see around me; I am wondering if perhaps the assertion is generally true but not for my environment? Or whether I am misunderstanding something.
For what it’s worth, my environment is silicon valley. I have read that some generalities about marriage norms in America do not hold for the upper middle class; is that what I’m encountering? The men I know socially make $200K+; they marry women with college degrees almost exclusively. I, unusually, did not attend college, but I was a software developer prior to marriage and motherhood (I’m a stay at home mother now).
Am I missing something, or is my location just a social outlier?
@Siobhan
I think Dalrock might have posted something earlier this year with data on education levels and marriage (could be wrong, but I have a vague memory…).
I wonder if what you’re seeing among the upper middle class is men wanting to make sure they don’t marry women who are just after their money? They might feel that by marrying their career/financial equals they are lowering the risk of being frivorced later on?
Personally, I’ve found the opposite to be true, in regards to “divorce-proofing”. Being in a marriage where both partners recognise their interdependence and complementarity creates more of a bond, I feel. And more of a disincentive to look for the exit in hard times.
Ladies-
It was a comment on a blog. Nothing to get into a tizzy about, and nothing anyone needs to rush to defend. I’m not making claims of authority and I don’t feel like anyone needs to rush to defend my comment’s honor or whatever.
SD-
I’m not here to show you up or demonstrate what a good wife I am. It’s clear to me, you, and all the men here that you would be a more suitable wife for most, if not all of the men that frequent this blog than I would. That’s fine with me; I’m happily married. I think the subjects discussed here are fascinating, and I find the honesty and straightforward language very refreshing and entertaining. I’m not trying to convince anyone that I’m the type of woman you are, and I don’t think anyone mistakes me for it. Relax.
Michelle-
You seem to disagree with the most fundamental principles behind this blog and others in the red pill community, and that’s fine, but why participate? You aren’t going to change anyone’s mind, you’re just being rude.
For all that’s said about the red pill community being hostile towards women, it’s actually women who make it difficult for women to participate. Amazing.
It is full of assertions. No questions, no requests for further information. The author is not discussing anything. It is by her perceived authority that she made the assertion and the message “you are wrong” is a challenge to either debate or submit.
No, Sarah’sDaughter. In the Bible a teacher is in a position of authority. Authority is never one sided. It comes with an obligation for someone else to obey or in the case of a teacher, to learn from them.
Stating your opinion and that you believe someone else to be mistaken is not teaching or holding a position of authority in the Biblical sense as there is no obligation on the part of the other person. There is no need to “debate, or submit,” as you claim. There is no obligation to do anything at all when someone has disagreed with you in the comments under a blog post.
Even Jane Dough knows enough Christian theology to laugh at you. It is literally that easy to get a “Christian” woman to align herself with unbelievers/blasphemers.
I align myself with the truth written in the Bible and my husband, not with the foolishness that comes from your key board.
@ Jane Dough –
I disagree with the idea that a woman must either be uneducated and helpless or she is a feminist. So do several other people here, some of them men. I believe it is the attitude about education working that is most important. Several posters here agreed with that as well. I don’t consider myself a “red pill woman” as there is a lot that comes with that label that doesn’t apply to me. I will stick with Chrisitan as that covers the most important part of my beliefs.
I haven’t been rude to anyone, including those who were rude to me but I apologize to anyone who is offended by my comments.
For what it’s worth, my environment is silicon valley.
There’s your answer. Yes, your location is definitely a social (and economic) outlier for the issue in question. The urban areas of both coasts are outliers.
@Michelle: ““Son tell it to me straight. Did you eat these Cheetos or was it your mother? Would you say that you ate half the bag or only 1/3.” Rinse and repeat for every single item purchased. I’m exaggerating a little for effect, but really how would that work?”
You are being deliberately obtuse. Credit cards can track every single purchase down to the penny and available cash earned by the man and spent by the woman can easily be accounted for. Mom going out on girls night out and spending $400.00 at the casino while kiddo eats Cheerios is the problem, not what percentage of the box mom ate. It is called allocation and it would be easy- lots and lots of Dads would like to have some input on their children’s lives and selfish, Machievellian ball busting frivorcing women are preventing that. Yet society won’t do it because nobody stands up to people like you- yes YOU who defend anything that removes consequences for women and gives them free choice to do whatever they want- starve their kid, feed him Ramon Noodles while she drives in style on her ex-husbands money. You know that is common now, right?
Once again I’m driven to ask: is there some compelling reason why people who clearly should know better are continuing to waste time on Michelle?
Love the fem flame war and the debate on is God a man or a woman.
For the flamers, I have to disagree with my sister Sarah’s Daughter. A blog is not a place of authority and the “teaching” is much different than what Paul was talking about. I am married to a Proverbs 31 woman (almost) and am blessed with her advice every day (unfortunately whether I want it or not). She is a business lawyer and I have no problem relying on strong women. Submission and obedience doesn’t mean passivity and docility. Even a trusted slave was expected to speak up and to control his (or her!) area of responsibility and despite what the fems claim, a 1st Century wife in Rome or Greece was far above a slave.
On the latter God is Masculine/Feminine are you guys really debating the Lords butthexxx lollololzzzz. He is clearly transcendent but also clearly closer to masculine than feminine. However, early tradition suggests a considerably more feminine balance with the Holy Spirit so despite the obvious trolling, it is an interesting theological discussion.
Jane Dough,
Your flattery, while intriguing amidst the condescension, is not at all necessary or warranted. I’ve been here for several years, all (who have integrity) who have known me through those years know that it is only by Grace that I have the relationship with the Lord that I do and the marriage I do. If there is deference shown to me it is because not one word of advice or admonishment comes from me that I have not learned myself (through admonishment) over the years.
I have learned that the regulars who comment here, have a genuine interest in an individual’s development. That honesty and straight forward language you enjoy is offered to you (and me) as guests on a very generous (Christian) host’s site. Do right and respect that. The men will discuss biblical topics with fervor, respect that and recognize when your opinion is necessary and when it is not. (If it is about biblical understanding, as a woman, your opinion is most often not necessary)
If you are being honest, and are in agreement with “Red Pill” awareness, don’t sully your presence here, as a woman, with interjections that seek to insult or challenge the men here. And, understand, I am not interested in their favor, when I address you or any other woman who comments here in an unbecoming manner, it is for her benefit and for the benefit of other women who are reading. Laws of attraction are laws that are consistent in every interaction we have as men and women. What good does it serve you, as a woman, to challenge a man and have him acquiesce to you? You have enough discernment and “red pill” awareness, and knowledge of your own nature to know that when you’ve challenged a man, countered his beliefs, or won in a full out debate, you walk away with diminished respect for that man. When a man should say “Jane, you are right” – you know damn well that any amount of self gratification you might enjoy from having educated him is fast superseded with a sense of “what is wrong with him and his association that it took me, a woman, to change his mind/beliefs on this issue.”
An essential part of growing in wisdom as a woman is truly understanding your nature. Women are not designed to be teachers/leaders of men. It is warned against and commanded against. It is as sure as the law of gravity. When you, as a woman, seek to instruct a man, you are deceived. It wasn’t just a comment on a blog. It is indicative of more than that. Now is your opportunity to humble yourself and realize you have learning to do. You may brush this off and prove yourself no different than a self aggrandizing feminist, or you can accept it.
GeminiXcX: Most men want skills to contribute to the welfare of a family; whereas most Western Women want “skills” for that damn term, “Empowerment” — capitalised for a reason, as it is based on narcissism, hate, and selfishness.
Feminists claim that their selfishness benefits others.
* How can I be a good mother if I’m unhappy?
* By pursuing my own goals, happiness, career, empowerment, I’m providing a valuable role model for my daughter.
* I’m also providing a role model for my son as to what he should expect in a wife.
* How can I be a good mother if I stay in an unhappy marriage? By divorcing my husband, I’m happier and thus a better mother.
From David Taylor:
>Raise God’s daughters in the church to understand that the Biblical mandate is to help widows and orphans, not women who did not know how to pick a suitable husband and father for their children.
Absolutely. The Bible calls a man to support:
– his own wife; food, clothing and marital rights
– his immediate family. You can argue how far Paul thought this to extend… Grandparents, or just parents?
– orphans
– widows. Even widows are to be limited however. The young widows were not to be supported by the church, but were to marry instead.
100% of single mothers do not fit into these categories. (Widows are not single mothers; they are widows. It is insulting to the character of a widow to lump her in with a group of promiscuous or foolish women.)
As such, I should not be supporting single mothers. To do so encourages more women to follow the bad examples.
And certainly do not marry one, unless she is a single mother due to adultery by her former husband. Even if this is the claim, it is likely wise to verify what is the truth.
And for David Taylor: If God has truly given you the gift of prophecy, great! “Serve God in proportion to your faith.” (Rom 12:3-8, 1 Thess 5:19-22.) Just a reminder however: God thought it so bad when a man would claim to be a prophet when God was not giving him messages, that the punishment God demanded is death.
lgrobins
>Difference is for women, that shell may not be as easy to find anymore.
And if the “shell” demands a virgin to permit her in, as he should, then only a slim fraction of them will be let in.
Sure would be interesting to live in a society, or even just attend a church, that actually lives by God’s Word.
@Siobhan
>With regard to the issue of education for girls, I am confused. Above it is stated that a man will choose a woman making minimum wage over a woman with a career. This is not what I see around me; I am wondering if perhaps the assertion is generally true but not for my environment? Or whether I am misunderstanding something.
I cannot comment for all men… The woman I found most attractive, of all the women I have met:
– matched my physical preferences except for one significant item (yes, matching physical preferences does matter; I will not pursue certain women, regardless of their character, as I do not find them physically attractive. Any one woman will not have a chance with all men; only many.)
– was very feminine in attitudes; was in submission to her father and respected her father and mother
– worked in retail, likely for minimum wage or close to it. She demonstrated she was not lazy; she worked. And she demonstrated she was not a career woman; she was not pursuing a degree.
All three were important.
Personally, I vastly prefer to pursue women from Ukraine for marriage. And I fully expect to pay all the costs for our family. No problem. I want the tight bond in marriage, and am willing to pay the price by having to do more than my share, as is typical for all men.
Divorce and Domestic Violence
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=971327
—
Feminist Tumblr: She Loves Your Tears, You ‘Whiny’ #GamerGate ‘Baby Men’
http://theothermccain.com/2015/07/23/feminist-tumblr-she-loves-your-tears-you-whiny-gamergate-baby-men/
There are a small number of women who don’t fit this profile*. They’re the submissive, nice chickies who busted their ass putting their husbands through law/dental/business school, and who raised the kids dutifully without causing trouble. Now that the children are all in school, these women are finishing up their degrees themselves, or are working in serious professions (teaching, nursing, engineering) part time or with flexible hours.
In my experience, these are the (very unfeminist) women who actually do end up “having it all”. After a few years, they have a nice home, nice kids, a loving husband, enough money to vacation in Florida every year, and a good career. Ironically, the empowered, independent, feminist harridan who divorces her husband (and plows through all the money she stole from him in just a few years after the settlement) are the big losers. If those bitches are lucky, they might be able to score a job as a housekeeper in the home of one of the wealthier women of the first type.
*the women who seem to know this strategy tend to be immigrants to North America
It is like being in the women’s bathroom seeing a modern empowered and independent speaking to other women on the merits of rebellion.
That first sentence is the “if you don’t agree with the laws of misandry then you must hate and abuse women and children” game. I like the I’m not “red pill” thing. She likes Christian of course, those churchian preachers has been pleasing to the FI.
Boxer,
“There are a small number of women who don’t fit this profile”…
Yes – so true!
I also know women like this… and the common denominator amongst these women is that they have used their God-given gifts for the benefit of their husbands and children (and whoever else they can help in the wider community).
They are not selfish, seeking their own gratification.
They are a breath of fesh air, These great women. I really like them. In Addition, they never complain – they just plod on and get on with things. You never hear them whining…
Honestly…I have so much admiration for them.
The problem is they are in the minority…
Yes we all know how most women can’t stand the sight of those damn cute babies don’t we? Kinda like how they hate cats and small furry animals. What kind of stupid psycho bitch tries to run an organization and then shits on the likes of all the prospective members? These psychos should call themselves COW, the manhating lesbians club. The Crazy Ob/Gyn Whiners could purge out all those breeders and embrace the extinction their anti-heterosexual beliefs inevitably lead to.
“There are a small number of women who don’t fit this profile*. They’re the submissive, nice chickies who busted their ass putting their husbands through law/dental/business school, and who raised the kids dutifully without causing trouble. Now that the children are all in school, these women are finishing up their degrees themselves, or are working in serious professions (teaching, nursing, engineering) part time or with flexible hours.
In my experience, these are the (very unfeminist) women who actually do end up “having it all.” After a few years, they have a nice home, nice kids, a loving husband, enough money to vacation in Florida every year, and a good career. ”
^^ This. This describes my paternal grandmother 🙂 She waited to have her career until her sons were older and better able to take care of themselves. Then she really did have it all ❤ An adoring but classically masculine husband (he was born in 1908, and remembered the Titanic) that took care of the family, and was a real leader… she had her children and lived to enjoy mentoring her grand-daughters (3)… and her career after 40 that she greatly enjoyed. She truly had it all, but it was not exactly "all at once," which is key. Because it wasn't all at once, she was a true, good mother that was present for her kids, relaxed enough to enjoy parenting and life as it came. She was able to really enjoy her career because it didn't steal time from her parenting or being a great wife. I am the youngest of the three Grand-daughters, so I only had her until I was 7 when she passed away.
If she had been feminist in thinking, she would have insisted that she had her career, too, and tried to have it all at once.
Out of the grand-daughters, I'm the only one that got a Bachelor's degree in biology, the other two, my cousins, focused on marrying young and creating their life.
One got married without going to college at all, then created her own business that became very successful for her and allowed her to be involved in her kid's life.
The other grand-daughter looks like a super model and actually planned to snag a wealthy man (which she succeeded in). She only went to school to get the very basics that she needed to support herself for a small amount of time before she cashed in her SMV to find someone she wanted. She is by far, the best wife and a role model for me. She treats her husband like a king, loves being his wife, understands her role, still looks like a model after having 3 boys, and now works as a nurse. She is older than me because of our fathers' age difference, so her 3 sons are teens.
She is the one who really took our Grandmother's mentoring to heart, and she has succeeded in creating the most successful life.
^Both women read my blog ❤ we're still in touch and try to keep up with each other's lives.
It's amazing that ONE woman, just one, can affect the legacy of so many that come after her. Her great-grandchildren (the grand-daughters' sons – so far, we've only been able to have sons), will be affected because of her example and choices, and how we've influenced each other by example.
One woman made the difference. That's empowerment.
@ Boxer
There are a small number of women who don’t fit this profile*. They’re the submissive, nice chickies who busted their ass putting their husbands through law/dental/business school, and who raised the kids dutifully without causing trouble.
I know we’ve had our troubles in the past, but I had to give your comment a double thumbs up. My experience is along these lines. Mrs. Gamer had her degree and helped put me through grad school. Then she worked and together we and the daycare providers raised the kids (oh, wait, we homeschooled, nevermind). No GNO…no facebook…no slutty friends…no cellphone until five years ago when the nest was empty.
We’ve had a pretty uneventful July, which is a nice change of pace from rollercoastering like we had been doing. My relationship game has improved dramatically. I still go out dancing solo. Sometimes I take Mrs. Gamer out dancing during the week–at least to a lesson. Mrs. Gamer is happy pretty much all the time and feels secure. I’ve learned that when Mrs. Gamer is feeling insecure, I have to provide comfort using the same methods as if I were gaming a woman…which I am, lol…gradually increasing kino while chatting and getting her to invest.
I don’t whine like I’m butthurt or try to talk things out when nonverbal communication will do. I go aloof/withdraw attention to communicate displeasure, just like training an animal. Women excel at reading nonverbal signals, just like animals do. Women often misread men’s verbal communication, so I avoid that as much as possible for anything having to do with our relationship.
Best wishes!
OT: Dalrock, but check out today’s CS Lewis reading.
feeriker @ July 28, 2015 at 11:13 pm:
“Once again I’m driven to ask: is there some compelling reason why people who clearly should know better are continuing to waste time on Michelle?”
Sigh, it’s the male “fix-it” instinct. If I can fix Michelle’s feminism then lunch will be extra-tasty. But some problems don’t want to be fixed, like Windows 8, and then lunch is kinda bland.
Re: unfeminist women
Curious, do any of these women experience any kind of age discrimination when they attempt to enter the workforce? I’ve known women who have done this and it is difficult for them. Perhaps it’s field specific. I’m in higher education and there have been quite a few articles lately of people sharing their stories of returning to school at 40, or 50 or 60 and getting a PhD either to change careers or to fulfill a personal goal and have a hard time getting a school to hire them in tenure-track positions.
Dear ASDG:
This dovetails nicely with the hardcore MGTOW response. I get it, whenever I point this out. There are no guarantees in life, and it’s entirely possible that such women are merely biding their time being as agreeable as possible, until their options are vested (lol) and they can cash out. Among the few I know, I don’t get that feeling. The women who are hardcore homemakers with part time jobs seem to have way too much to lose in a divorce.
Ironically, these women also have much more “egalitarian” lives than the feminist types, who nag their husbands into giving up. The successful marriages I’ve seen have definite jobs for everyone that help the partnership flourish. The dude makes the money and the chick invests it, the dude mows the lawn and the chick does the dishes, etc. Modern empowered women are often so unpleasant that the husband retreats into a den or “man cave” and she ends up doing nearly everything. Patriarchal culture allows women to “have it all” much more readily than feminism ever will.
So much for the wimminz studies life script.
Boxer
Tenure-track positions are hard to come by regardless of the age of applicant.
60 is way too old to be doing a Ph.D. anyway. Who the heck would want to go through that at that age? If you’re 60, you should get a job at wal-mart and enjoy life. Academia is a lot of work and isn’t particularly lucrative.
That said, if this theoretical 60 year old will spend a year reading, getting published and presenting papers, he’d probably find himself much more competitive than the 30something who spent the last three years smoking dope while writing a half-assed dissertation.
@ Jane Dough: “For all that’s said about the red pill community being hostile towards women, it’s actually women who make it difficult for women to participate. Amazing.
I saw this over at Christian Forums, first the feminists attacked the Godly submissive women, who decided to leave rather than fight (something to do with their nature). Then five minutes after they had chased the last one out they claimed that Godly submissive women didn’t exist and that Godly men were “fantasizing” about women going for complementarian relationships. Shortly after that they were making sure than any discussion of complementarianism was BANNED. Now, I believe it’s okay to advocate divorce and homosexuality there. This works the same way in congregations and denominations.
Pot stirring as a way to destroy male space, which destroys complementarian space, which destroys the family. Michelle behavior describes John Calhoun’s “Behavioral Sink” to a T (replacing rats with hamsters).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
Looks like God is Laughing understands. Women policing women. The black community does the same thing with the race crap.
jbro1922,
I think that can be a problem that isn’t fully thought out yet for those who want to “have it all” over time.
But some problems don’t want to be fixed, like Windows 8
My monitor is soaking wet from the coffee that just shot out of my nose…
Feminism will be fixed (and successful division by zero will take place) before Windows 8 is “fixed.” Then again, now that Windows 10 is out, it’s moot anyway.
Gender traitors Greyghost?
Speaking of single mothers…http://www.africanamerica.org/topic/ways-single-mothers-destroy-their-sons
Back on the subject of training daughters to be capable, useful and a blessing to their future husbands & families:
My 15-year-old twin daughters have been taking sewing and cooking lessons from their Abuelita (my mom). Yesterday’s lesson was home-made pizza with a crust made from scratch. The daughter who made the pizza (the other one had her wisdom teeth out that same day, poor thing) made a small pizza with a variety of spicy peppers just for me.
Success!
God is Laughing
No, It is more of a misery loves company thing. Western women and society in general have bought into the feminine imperative. It isn’t working but they have bought into it. It isn’t working out because every one is not on board mentality. Dalrock posted an article about how as a society we don’t in any way show respect or appreciation for “good” men lest we take away from women’s self esteem. A feminist woman will always dog out a woman that is not fully on board. Especially if she is happily married and loves and respects her husband. And God forbid the marriage is not some union of “equality”.
You kind of hinted on what is going on in your own comment above.
Speaking of which, ever notice the hate-tolerate-hate relationship that feminists have with the manginas?
@ Boxer says:
July 29, 2015 at 11:06 am
“The successful marriages I’ve seen have definite jobs for everyone that help the partnership flourish.”
You mean, like every successful organization ever? Like a sports team, or a military unit, or a business?
What a concept!
God is laughing
Manginas are tolerated. feminist and women in general on some level know they can not respect anybody that can like them based on how they feel about that person. A bitch can never respect someone the treats them well. It maybe based on the way women are kind out of self interest regardless of what those interest are and not due to an inherent sense of kindness or fairness men have. (that female survival thing) They have contempt for him but sense he is doing for her he can stay. Many married men have marriages like that.
Oh Oscar!
Ye blessed man and father!
Your sweet daughter’s pizza-for-Daddy must have been truly tasty!
This story brings a smile to my face because it reminds me of my own first encounter with pizza…not for Daddy but for another guy. 🙂
Until I married my (Swiss) Italian husband I had never attempted to make pizza at home. All the pizzas I had ever eaten were from Pizza Hut. 🙂
About 2 weeks after our wedding, his best man (also Italian, naturally) mentioned that his (Italian) wife was making pizza ‘al forno’ at home. I noticed my husband wetting his lips.
Two days later I made my very first pizza. The delight on his face was unforgettable! Really tugged at my heart-strings to see how chuffed he was, as we say in Britain.
Ye of little faith…I bet he thought that because he had married a non-Italian, his pizza-eating days were over!
He still complains that my pasta is never quite as ‘al dente’ like his mother’s. But I get points for trying, he always adds. 🙂 Good enough for me!
Until then, I patiently wait my turn to become a full, paid-up member of the Italian wives club, lol. Takes a few years, apparently. 🙂
Greyghost, I was specifically thinking about the stark contrast between how men feel about their complementarian partners in Godly relationships versus how feminist women view their egalitarian partners. Of course this extends to the larger group dynamics. Godly men cherish their wives and respect the Godly submissive wives of other men (these are natural allies), feminist women despise all of the above AND their very unnatural allies, the manginas.
“And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. “ Mark 3: 23-26
Line up (and man-up) to get eaten by the hyenas.
@ Spacetraveller says:
July 29, 2015 at 2:30 pm
“Ye blessed man and father! Your sweet daughter’s pizza-for-Daddy must have been truly tasty!”
I certainly am, and the pizza is spicy and delicious. Just the way I like it. My hope and prayer is that my daughters will carry that attitude into their marriages. Besides, they love spending time with their Abuelita.
It’s inevitable, really, when the organizing idea of your movement requires the denial of biological reality. Reality becomes hated.
I’m in agreement with my husband that everything is dependent upon the sex ratio. A disproportionate sex ratio favoring men caused feminism. Now we have a disproportionate sex ratio favoring women, thus the reaction against it.
Feminists are the real misogynists as they are the ones to believe women aren’t good enough as they are.
A disproportionate sex ratio favoring men caused feminism. Now we have a disproportionate sex ratio favoring women, thus the reaction against it.
I am not convinced that the above assertion is accurate. Feminism has very little to do with sex ratio, but everything to do with wealth. The wealthier a society becomes, the easier for feminism to exist and thrive. The poorer the society, the less the likelihood of feminism. Feminism couldm only be indulged in by well fed but idle and ungrateful women.
TFH check this out
Can’t cook no problem
Where did you find a copy of Glubb, eh? Most of us over the years have had to make do with various PDF’s on the internet.
Question for Sarah’s Daughter: Paul says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; ” (1Timothy 2:12) What was the sphere of Paul’s influence that he could exercise his will to permit or not permit? The whole world? The whole Church? That part of the church who followed him rather than Peter or others? Paul did say “I do not permit …”, which would be a local-to-Paul directive. Paul did not say “God does not permit …”, which would be global to the entire Church. Paul clearly says “I do not permit”. Unless we have some reason to think that Paul’s authority extended to the entire world at the time he spoke these words, we must accept that his directive was limited to those who had attached themselves to his ministry.
Comment for Boxer: I understood after reading your first comment. I’m sure there are others who likewise understood and are saying nothing. You were talking about who or what God actually is. Others are discussing how God is presented to us, described to us, in the Bible – using words and images that we can understand. And, yes, God is outside our ability to perceive or understand. We can (maybe) understand how he is being described to us in the Bible. We can never understand all of who God actually is. To those who disagree, I invite you to describe in great and specific detail what took place at the level of molecules and atoms when God breathed the breath of life into Adam.
To those who are insisting that women should marry, and marry young – Paul speaking (the one whose word should be followed on women not teaching men): “Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do … ” Seems he is arguing that the young folks shouldn’t marry. Paul, the original Man Going His Own Way. Why is this counseling not unsheathed with the same fervor that the women-shouldn’t-teach men couseling is? Both ideas were spoken by the same man. How can we so stolidly claim that the one concept is governing while completely ignoring the other concept?
To those lamenting the state of things, churchian and otherwise:
Sorry – I somehow hit ‘Post Comment’ inadvertently.
To those lamenting the state of things, churchian and otherwise – I remind you of the many who will find the broad path and the few who will find the narrow gate. For those two words to have any meaning, “many” must be significatly different from “few”. As in, “many” has to be more than 50%; few has to be less than 50%. If God actually said that, and if that statement is true, than it is a theological fact that there are going to be / have been many more people not following Jesus/God than there are going to be / have been following Jesus/God. For those who know what the Bible says, and if what the Bible says can be trusted, then no one should be surprised by our current state of affairs. God predicted it would be this way. Can our earnest efforts overcome that?
Question for Sarah’s Daughter: Paul says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; ” (1Timothy 2:12) What was the sphere of Paul’s influence that he could exercise his will to permit or not permit? The whole world? The whole Church? That part of the church who followed him rather than Peter or others? Paul did say “I do not permit …”, which would be a local-to-Paul directive. Paul did not say “God does not permit …”, which would be global to the entire Church. Paul clearly says “I do not permit”. Unless we have some reason to think that Paul’s authority extended to the entire world at the time he spoke these words, we must accept that his directive was limited to those who had attached themselves to his ministry.
I don’t understand why this is a question for me. If you are asking me personally why I heed Paul’s instruction and believe other women should as well, it is because of the evidence of it’s truth and wisdom. The context in which I’ve stated Jane Dough was out of line is important. She is a woman who has, in a previous thread, admitted she was raised as a Christian and has renounced her faith. How much more deceived can a woman get?
Your agreement or disagreement with Paul is certainly up to your understanding and discernment. I can only attest that what he said and especially why he said it is REALLY good advice for women. It is my belief that other women should be taught it and should open their eyes to see (especially in light of Dalrock’s original topic here) how very wise Paul was. It also appears obvious to me that our society, choosing not to heed Paul’s directive, has been cause for massive amounts of deception and atrocities.
I always liked Paul – in fact I once set some very obscure passages (KJV: thus no copyright problems) for TTBB a capella. (‘When I come to you I will come to you in Spain’). I had a girlfriend who recited some Paul in a speaking competition; I forget how she was placed but she spoke it beautifully.
“Perhaps it’s because I have no need to engage in retail therapy”
Her retail therapy you mean?
Somewhere Camille Paglia is shaking her finger and saying, “I told you so!”
>The female body is a chthonian machine, indifferent to the spirit who inhabits it. […] We have an evolutionary revulsion from slime, the site of our biologic origins. Every month, it is woman’s fate to face the abyss of time and being, the abyss which is herself.
Sexual Personae (1990), pp. 10 11
I saw your comment *after* I posted my first — did not intend to “steal” your insight. You understand the crux of the matter to it’s very core. -GXcX
Hey if I manage to have an insight feel free to ‘steal’ it anytime, and it’d be nice if you took a picture too. That way I’d have some evidence. :O)
Boxer: “At this point I’m convinced you’re either a Mormon, or you’re simply writing your own scripture, that parallels the D&C.”
I’ll leave your accusation for Christ to answer. If he condemns me then you can be even more convinced.
http://www.dailylife.com.au/dl-people/feminist-hero-tells-why-she-ran-the-london-marathon-while-menstruating-freely-20150804-giqxub.html
Thought this was quite relevant to the topic.
Here you have a feminist running a marathon while “bleeding freely”, because men don’t have to deal with periods, so just pretend it’s not happening?
I’m a chick and even I find this disgusting! Can you imagine if a man came down with diahorrea a day before his first marathon, and decide to run anyway, with poo coming through his pants?
Apparently divorced and remarried Catholics are still “part of the Church”, according to a leading feminist theorist:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186268/Divorced-people-remarry-church-not-treated-like-outcasts-declares-Pope.html
Pingback: Coveting sin: The Law of the Double Standard. | Dalrock
For a good contrast, read Mollie Hemmingway’s article in The Federalist:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/17/oh-no-feminists-worried-that-adele-finds-purpose-in-motherhood/