As everyone knows, women struggle greatly with commitment. This is why the Christian blogger at Uplifting Love has offered a list of ten things Christian husbands can do to stave off the ever present threat of their wives becoming unhappy and blowing up the family:
What I do believe this statistic demonstrates is that there are more women unsatisfied with their marriages, at least to the point of ending them, than there are men. There are certainly many reasons for the dissatisfaction that exists but I posit that the husband and his actions (or lack of actions) plays a significant role in causing and sustaining the dissatisfaction.
I’ve reflected on this. I’ve done some more reading and research on marriage and divorce rates. I’ve discussed this with my wife. I’ve prayed about it. I’ve talked to and observed couples who have been married for a long time. Why?
To help us husbands do a better job keeping our wives happy.
Here’s what I’ve come up:
He closes with:
Keeping our wives happy can be daunting at times but if we remember that we love them and make sure that they hear it, see it, and know it we’ll be successful.
Good luck men!
What else does everyone know?
As everyone knows, fatherlessness is caused by men leaving their families. Christian Today explains that men won’t commit in International Men’s Day: In a world stacked against women, here’s why we still need to talk about men:
The so-called crisis in fatherhood is something precipitated by men leaving. We must begin to talk about why so many men now don’t live with their children and the impact that can have in society as a whole. A man’s decision not to commit to his his child and the child’s mother is a life-changing one – and one that it seems not enough men are taking seriously. There are, of course, no easy answers to this issue – relationships break down. But men must be confronted with the consequences of their actions.
Related:
Pingback: Fatherless doublethink | Neoreactive
Hrmm… random reframe that this problem is a Protestant issue? I think that comment by “Me” needs a IP check. We’ve seen that script before.
[D: I’m not sure who you have in mind. I’ll check the IP later, but either way I’ve pulled the comment. It was way off topic and clearly calculated to distract the discussion.]
“The so-called crisis in fatherhood is something precipitated by men leaving. ” – MFG.
I see that because of recent responses he has had to do some backfilling but I don’t think he still “gets it”
“I posit that the husband and his actions (or lack of actions) plays a significant role in causing and sustaining the [wife’s] dissatisfaction.”
This grants ethical and moral immunity to the wife, for everything she does (up to and including murder) is good and justified, and everything he (it almost doesnt matter who “he” is) does or does not do is bad, and is to blame for her dissatisfaction.
Like Narcissistic Personality Disorder vivified, personified and dignified.
It’s interesting to see how the social machinations that lead to the decline in marriage rates and the longer men and women wait to ‘settle’ down in a secular sense are adopted and christianized in a religious sense.
It’s another manifestation of the Red Pill lens, but when I hear sermons about ‘great marriages’ I listen to the exact same feminine-pedestalizing tropes I hear from non-religious or “spiritual-but-not-religious” people with just enough Christian Brand® veneer to make it sound justified or palatable to those sensibilities. Like anything else christian culture appropriates from pop-culture, they copy and paste it into a religious context, slap a Jesus Fish logo on it and now christians can feel OK about embracing it – especially when it serves the feminine.
I sometimes wonder if the insaturation of the Feminine Imperative into church cultures is even more effective at destroying marriages and potential marriages than its secular efforts. I wonder if it’s not even more damaging to the individual because it’s paired with faith and failure within that faith.
First, let me say that wives shouldn’t blow up their families just because of temporary unhappiness and they ought to be able to mateguard themselves so that Alpha Rockbandrummer isn’t tempting them constantly.
Second. pastors ought to be teaching married men from the Song of Solomon effective ways to love their wives.
Third, my second point implies that married men have some work to do in the romantic arena. Women can’t be blamed for the romantic vacuum that exists in a lot of marriages because men aren’t leading the romance. Married love is a constant seduction. Flirt early, flirt often. Women love an emotional roller coaster. Become skilled at giving your wife a ride on her emotional roller coaster. Tell her you love her, then tell her you hate her. Switch it up. Push/pull. Push her drama button sometimes. Start a fight and show a little anger–it lets her know that you have emotional depth. Make her cry sometimes…it’s good for her. You can cry, too–just not too much. Don’t be monotonous.
When your wife gets bitchy or sad over something silly, don’t take it too seriously. Lol at her silliness and tease her about it.
I keep coming back to this same question when I read articles from so-called Christian Publications. How can you call yourself a Christian or Christian Leader, but not follow or preach God’s WORD. The Bible is very straight forward regarding all aspects of living, including the Husband, Wife & Family units. No interpretation, contextualization, or any other Hipster add-on’s needed. Culture has continued to influence and infiltrate Christianity with nothing but nasty consequences and results. Until enough Men AND Women take a stand against false teaching and make each other accountable, it is a downward spiral with these so called Church Leaders and Talking heads (snake oil salesmen) at the wheel.
Rollo,
You would be correct. Its worse in the church for men.
Secular women are happier
@ADS “Third, my second point implies that married men have some work to do in the romantic arena. Women can’t be blamed for the romantic vacuum that exists in a lot of marriages because men aren’t leading the romance”
Yes they can, considering a large proportion either start displaying serious psychotic disorders OR blow up so massively after marriage that they can compete with Pluto for the title of the next Solar Systems planet.
Most women seem to go out of their way to make themselves deliberately revolting, no wonder men are disgusted. Look at the size of most of the women or their mental state in their 30’s\40’s. Its horrendous.
@Ras al Ghul says:”!Its worse in the church for men.
Secular women are happier”
I concur, secular women are also much better women, shocking or waht. In relationships I’ve had, the worst by far have been christian females.
How is this possible ? Who flipped the script ?
The problem with some red-pill stuff in the christian sphere is that it still puts the onus on men. One ‘side’ says men aren’t doing enough of one thing or another keep their wives happy, and the other says that men aren’t doing enough game to keep their wives happy.
On reason I really like Dalrock is that he’s reminding us all that the onus is also on women. Women are mature human beings with as much dignity and duty as men, and part of that duty is to respect and uphold their marriages. The game stuff is some nice flavor to keep things fresh and fun that men can do. It’s not fundamental, though. What’s fundamental is realizing that men and women are equal in dignity and responsibility, and also that they are complimentary. When you lose those things, you get the modern churchianity marriage talk.
Pingback: Fatherless doublethink | Manosphere.com
Minesweeper, the fact is, lots of men are duds romantically. They are the male equivalent of fuglies.
Look at the size of most of the women or their mental state in their 30’s\40’s. Its horrendous.
So women turn themselves into fuglies when men turn into duds…sooo surprising!
Mental state…lol. Women often do this in an attempt to establish an emotional connection. I’ll post about this.
@ Phaethon
Women are mature human beings with as much dignity and duty as men,
From God’s perspective, sure. However, not from man’s perspective, since most men reading this would expect it to mean that women are mature in the same sense that men are and think about dignity and duty like men do. That’s all bilge. Women are different than men and must be led; a lot of the same leadership techniques that work on dogs also work on women.
In the current culture, women are also told that it’s Ok for them to act like children. When women behave like children, it’s appropriate to treat them like children, whether or not they are mature.
The first linked article is from 2014. Kinda pointless to leave comments over there.
“International Men’s Day: In a world stacked against women, here’s why we still need to talk about men:”
What scares me so much about that headline is that it is so detached from reality I actually fear it will lead to violence on their part, most likely through the state. We are talking about either mentally ill or hopelessly deluded people.
Recall what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said (paraphrased here): Lies cannot persist on their own. They must be sustained by violence.
@Rollo Tomasi
“I wonder if it’s not even more damaging to the individual because it’s paired with faith and failure within that faith.”
It is, because when a man raised in that environment takes the Red Pill it requires a great deal of scrutiny and persistence to determine what was a lie and what was actually the truth. They’ve been taught so well that the Holy Spirit and the Feminine Imperative are the same it’s difficult for them to conceive of rejecting the latter without renouncing the former as well. Most are content to throw it all away.
And we wonder why Jesus despised the religious leaders of his day more than anyone else.
I stopped reading the article after getting half way through the title. That man is hopelessly led by women and by feelings. I suggest he visit a court when divorces are being finalised and see how stacked the world is against ahem…. men
Screw you, Mr Andy Walton.
Well fellas and gals, when you get a nuclear rejection inside your marriage, it is time to do some planning. Men are pretty simple, we are like the pacific great whales, we go north for food and south for sex, just that easy. No woman ever needs to work very hard or at all to make her man happy. As for the wife, well what can you do, Mencken opined that when a movie star walks into a room, even the most hideous of women think they are entitled to their shot with him, and he said this in the 1920’s. So guys, gird thy loins well, be prepared for the trial of frivorce, it lurks at every corner, and there is no longer any judgement about your wife’s harlotry as everyone is afraid to judge, even when they should.
Attended a “Couple Check” (half-day programme for married and soon-to-be married couples from my current Church). Pastor who conducted this programme told us men (with the womenfolk present) that if our wives are not happy, the responsibility is on us men because we haven’t been and aren’t loving them enough.
The so-called crisis in fatherhood is something precipitated by men leaving. We must begin to talk about why so many men now don’t live with their children and the impact that can have in society as a whole.
The fact that a cuckservative mangina can say this with a straight face is stunning.
And then these losers wonder why women was more Islamic inflows into the West.
Those two articles juxtaposed makes me feel the like walking the streets in a belted burlap sheet and some sandals made from a car tire, screaming, “Bring out yer dead” .
Its not dissimilar to how those moronic COEXIST bumper sticker affect me.
How can someone be this much of a mangina?
I mean, the fact that something as crass as 50SoG is a hugely lucrative franchise should tell a man everything he needs to know about how women are truly wired…
Yet, a cuckservative can only double down.
Still trying to find book, chapter and verse that says husbands need to romance their wives.
As most men will tell you, not only do the goal posts move, they change direction on the field.
Rollo,
I sometimes wonder if the insaturation of the Feminine Imperative into church cultures is even more effective at destroying marriages and potential marriages than its secular efforts.
Of course it is. Mainly because these people truly believe that they are NOT feminists, and are traditional. Hence, the blissful hubris with which they proclaim their wisdom is breathtaking.
I bet this Andy Walton mangina is either an incel omega, or married to a fat woman who is no higher than a 3 in looks.
Note that Walton posits the common fallacy that the MEN who own everything, run everything, get the money etc. are the same MEN who own nothing and are run into the ground. He conflates the two then mocks: why would the MEN who own everything top themselves? Don’t both the rich men and the stomped-on men all enjoy Male Privilege anyway?
Thus they can ignore the obvious answer that they’re NOT the same MEN. But Walton will say they are.
This POV can be reduced to a wheezy joke, given the new findings that white middle aged men are dying off at rates faster than 1980’s AIDS victims: More men dying or killing themselves? Hooray! Less Patriarchy!
@ASD: the fact is, lots of men are duds romantically. They are the male equivalent of fuglies.
Agreed, but that is what the womminz SAID they wanted. Beta fuglies who pamper them and take care of them. How’s that all working out for you Churchians? Let me guess it “works” about twice a month?
>Pastor who conducted this programme told us men (with the womenfolk present) that if our wives are not happy, the responsibility is on us men because we haven’t been and aren’t loving them enough.
I just told my wife yesterday if the doughy boy new pastor with his 25 year old Dad bod and his humongous wife (who is both large bodied and large mouthed) starts in on mutual submission or serving your wife to make her happy we are leaving and finding a new church. The dude is obviously on the twice a month plan. I have never observed a warm glance between them. I watched her sit down next to him and grab his hand and then he rudely stopped talking to some congregants and focused his entire attention on his wife. I gagged but managed to not lose my public frame.
When women file 60-70% of all divorces, it is men who must be confronted with the consequences of their actions.
Sounds about right to me. What d’yall think?
BPP.
starts in on mutual submission or serving your wife to make her happy we are leaving and finding a new church.
Why would you attend ANY church that is not explicitly red-pill or at least about Biblical headship? Remember that any church that is not overtly red-pill is by default blue-pill.
Since such a church does not exist, the commenters here should join up to form a virtual church. Why not? Broadcast the sermon each Sunday morning via webcam, or just post it to YouTube.
It will catch on. And there is enough of a team here to pull it off.
@BPP:
The day I actually lose my cool around a pastor on the topic, someone is probably getting knocked out cold via a projectile Bible. “And the Word was upside Pastor Jim’s skull that day”.
Slightly more seriously, I was with a bunch of faithful Christians (though they of the Boomer generation) during Thanksgiving. We represent the coming death of part of their cultural understanding. They can be shown the Truth, and many will repent, but it’s going to be brutal for many a Christian. They’re going to come to learn what “Salt & Light” really means. (Mind you, I didn’t bring up anything specific, though I left a few disconnected seeds in the conversations, but I realize how much of the doubling down really is a Boomer phenomenon. )
>>>>>Tell your wife that you love her. Tell her often. Tell her why you love her. Never let her forget.
Show your wife that you love her. Hold her hand. Kiss her on the cheek. Put your arm around her. Gaze at her lovingly. And don’t be afraid to do these things in public as well as in private.
Wasn’t there a commandment on idol worship and false gods. I bet the writer got laid the night before he wrote this. When it only happens 1-2 times a month that is a big deal, broh!
>>>Listen to your wife. She has important things to say.
No problem with just listening. I say give her a chance to sample the buffet of emotions and let her vomit them to you while you listen sympathetically. Then after a time redirect her and her emotional storm to a better place. Of course you ONLY do this if you are having sex regularly.
>>>Counsel with her on issues that involve the family. She is an equal partner in your marriage and make sure that she feels that way.
Is this guy a Christian? That is NOT what the Bible teaches.
>>>>>>>>Talk to your wife. Share with her your struggles, achievements, thoughts, and dreams. Share your opinions and beliefs
Dude needs to read The Book of Pook. He has not the slightest clue. All of this advice turns off the juices in a woman faster than a severed labia in the Sahara.
>>>>>>Physically acknowledge her (in a non-sexual way). When you walk by her gently squeeze her arm. Quickly run your hand across her back. Tuck her hair behind her ear. This shows her that you enjoy being near her and that she is important to you; that you’re not just two people cohabitating.
Sure, cuz you are not just cohabitating. She is your ROOMMATE and if that isn’t good enough you must not be loving her like Christ loved the church. Just don’t make it about sex! That might offend the hamster mound! Husbands who try to make the marriage more about sex are like, rapists, man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anticipate her needs. What can you do to make her life a little bit easier? Maybe you could load the dishwasher? Wipe off the table? Fill up her car’s gas tank? Make her lunch the night before?
Because we know choreplay makes her drip gobbersnot all the way to the floor watching you putter around in an apron. SOOOOO HAAAAAAWT!! LMFAO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Remember that your wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. And make sure that she knows that you know it.
Because if you put her on a pedestal she will love you even more! All Hail Baal and Azur, holders of the sacred vagina and keepers of the golden uterus.
>>>>>>>>Help her soar…. it wasn’t the chocolate that made Cami so happy (although that helped) it was the fact that I know that Cami loves Crunch bars and I made the effort to not eat it and give it to her. That’s what women are really after.
No, they are really after the Skittles guy. They want the guy that eats half the candy bars, then with the burst of energy he cave mans her into the mattress, and then jumps up to go watch the game. When she complains that you never take me out and she is starving after all that sex, this is when you throw her the candy bar. She will savor every bite and may keep the wrapper forever.
@ Jeff
Still trying to find book, chapter and verse that says husbands need to romance their wives.
First find your brain, then you can find where the Bible tells a man to romance his wife. Song of Solomon.
Isn’t it long past time to refer to the magazine/website CT by the more accurate term of “Churchianity Today”?
Like Feministhater I simply can’t get past the first line of that article, for the obvious reason: flawed premise -> no meaningful conclusion. Andy Walton isn’t even wrong, he’s that far away from reality.
And to the poster up thread who asked “Is it possible to be that much of a mangina?”, it absolutely is that possible, and what’s more many churches actively preach and teach that dreck to the male humans. It is almost impossible to talk about men and women with churchgoing people, because there’s no common premise – for a start, most churchgoing people have been saturated with 2nd stage feminist propaganda such as “men and women are exactly the same, with the same desires and needs”, so the best they can do is wave the 1980’s “Love Languages” book around at marriage weekends while encouraging choreplay.
Someone submerged in feminism who has never seen a pair of The Glasses doesn’t know anything else. And so, being men, all they can do is double down on what they’ve been taught; appeasement, supplication, egalitarianism, etc. Moar Chores! Moar Bended Knees!
I have Nancy Friday’s books on order, starting with the 1979 classic My Secret Garden, as a compliment to the recent work What Do Women Want by Daniel Bergner (not at all the same as the book with the same title by Erica Jong, please note). Reading Bergner’s book has been a real amusing experience, but I can’t imagine handing it to any churchgoing man, because it is a very red-pill / Glasses book. One tiny snippet – a woman confides to an interviewer how frustrated she is with her sweet, attentive, caring, loving husband who won’t dominate her in bed as she craves, “I guess all that no-means-no stuff he heard since middle school affected him”.
Now, I wonder how the college men who are being hosed down with “yes means yes until it doesn’t” will turn out? Gee, will women be even more frustrated by them? Anyone think otherwise? And ignorant, stupid men such as the authors Dalrock cites above, how will they react? I’m sure by doubling down on their supplication, pleading with women to just like them a little, tiny, bit, from their prone, toe-licking position. This will of course be accompanied by a few snips of Bible quotes, to slap a Jesus fish on their betatude. And conservative feminists in the churches will applaud the supplication even as they are ever more frustrated by the results!
TFH is right. Women just don’t get cause and effect. Even the rare and very intelligent women don’t seem to get cause and effect when it comes to men around them.
It is always educational, if not entertaining, to read Dalrock’s posts and especially the comments.
Bluepillprofessor really cracked me up this time.
Because if you put her on a pedestal she will love you even more! All Hail Baal and Azur, holders of the sacred vagina and keepers of the golden uterus.
Donalgraeme had a very good post about the FI and its replacing the Holy Spirit last week. I had this once again confirmed yesterday. The sermon yesterday was the same familiar theme about marriage and how it’s supposed to be a reflection of Christ and the church. Lots of the prerequisite Ephesians scriptures, passing mention of wives submitting and marching it back in order to absolve women of any responsibility for the ‘happiness’ of their own part in marriage.
I thought it was kind of interesting because, with a few add-ons, it was verbatim a sermon I’d heard when I lived in Florida almost 4 years ago. The presumption is always about a woman “allowing” her husband to lead her. In fact that word, “Ladies you must allow him to be the leader in your marriage” was emphasized by both pastors.
The default power is always in the feminine frame; he needs her permission to be promoted to ‘headship’ – there is never any concept that a woman would ever be anything but already established in her own base authority. The idea that a woman wouldn’t already begin from a position of sinless authority and intimate acceptability is never even an afterthought.
In itself this is unscriptural, but from a Red Pill lens perspective it speaks volumes about how feminine-primacy is subliminally understood by these male pastors. It never enters their thought process that women’s mental point of origin and self-evincing authority would be sublimated to that of a man’s before they come together as husband and wife.
The last half of the sermon had a couple from the congregation who’d been having difficulties in their marriage come up to be interviewed by the pastor. Once again, I’d seen this before and I could’ve recited the script this husband and wife would repeat. The guy blathered about how driven he was and how he needed to adopt a spirit of vulnerability that read like every ‘masculine masks men wear’ secular emasculation article you’d hear from NPR or Oprah. He was ‘bad’ and needed his wife’s greater connection with God to help him be more “open and vulnerable”. His ‘testimony’ was every word of the vulnerability-is-strength / strength-is-weakness trope offered on the secular side.
The wife’s “confession” consisted of her reading (literally reading) from a prepared script she had with every buzzword you’d expect from a 9 hour Beth Moore seminar. Her spiritual challenge was accepting her flawed husband for being the pitiable failing men all are, and finding personal strength in her capacity to help him become stronger, by helping him become weaker and more softened.
I’ve never wanted to walk out of a church before this.
Rollo Tomassi, thank you for sharing , brilliant !
When will we hear a chorus of Christian pastors (or older, wiser women) telling wives that they need to make sure the husbands are happy in the marriage? (Even writing that feels weird… when was the last time anyone suggested men SHOULD be happy in the marriage? Every “Christian” pastor KNOWS we have to make women happy in the marriage, but you never hear or think about the man being happy…)
Where’s the list for WOMEN? Women! If you want your husband to be happy in your marriage…
– Show him respect in public and in private
– Be feminine. Wear feminine clothes, a feminine hairstyle
– Give him his space. Your husband needs time alone, time with his friends, time away from the kids. Let him have it. Don’t complain. That’s the way God made him.
– Give him your body. Be sexual. God made your husband to need sex and to be turned on by the visual, not the emotional. So be sexy. Learn how to please him in bed.
– Submit to your husband’s leadership. When in doubt, read scripture on this topic.
– Find female friends to discuss your emotions with. Don’t talk to your husband like you would your best girlfriend. If your mother dies, your husband’s shoulder is there for you to cry on. If you had a bad day because the head of the PTA didn’t invite you to be on the brownie-making committee, cry to your girlfriend, not your husband.
– Be the primary caregiver to your children. Your husband is there to help, but God made you to be the mother of your children. That’s why he gave you (and not your husband) a womb. Embrace the joy of motherhood. Do not incessantly complain about how hard it is to pick the kids up from school and take them to the park.
– Learn how to give a proper blowjob. Then practice on your husband. Often.
Keep driving the men out of Church and see how the ladies will scream, “Where have all the good men gone?! Waaaaaaaaaaah!”
Stupid is as stupid does. You spend this amount of time talking down about men and don’t be surprised when men no longer enter into Church. The Church no longer respects or needs men. That has become patently clear. Let them get on their knees, repent to God and then openly submit themselves to the men in their lives. Until then, I don’t read, nor do I entertain any of their arsed backwards cunt drivel.
“Secular women are happier”
And wild boars aren’t as fat as domestic pigs.
But ain’t none of ’em are actually what you’d consider thin.
@Rollo
The wife’s “confession” consisted of her reading (literally reading) from a prepared script she had with every buzzword you’d expect from a 9 hour Beth Moore seminar. Her spiritual challenge was accepting her flawed husband for being the pitiable failing men all are, and finding personal strength in her capacity to help him become stronger, by helping him become weaker and more softened.
This level of total lack of introspection is so pervasive now that I am not sure it can be overcome on a macro level anymore.
If you were to gather up 1000 random high-school aged boys and girls and asked them to make a list of the things that have to struggle with–innate problems related to their respective sex, you would get:
From the boys: An insightful list about being too aggressive, too pushy, to violent and so on.
From the girls; Either A) crickets. or B) a list of things that are actually “good things” (too loving, too forgiving, too trusting, etc) packaged to sound like character flaws.
“To help us husbands do a better job keeping our wives happy”
I don’t want that job.
This twisted premise that men are responsible for female happiness is ever present. Men need to work to create, maintain, and enable opportunities for women to enter into any matter of things, even though the practice of such in many ways impregnates the situation with discontent, which he will then have to manage in order to keep her in a state of ‘happiness’ or else be saddled with the aftermath. A man will often carry her water in order for her to end up competing with him for a job she neither wants nor is qualified to perform.
I’ve seen this in business as well. We need to encourage more women to get into xyz, which translates into a hiring preference for women. Preferences like this override the actual qualifications and past evidence of desire and practice for said position. Never mind that it squeezes out men who have trained for years, or that most women deep down have no desire to do the actual work, it also undervalues past choices, behavior, and the kind of sacrifice and prioritization that not just evidence of preparation, but also demonstrate want via sacrifice and support a mental point of origin which is an important factor in terms of future satisfaction.
Women who are attracted to the status and power of the job in the same way they often project what they find attractive in men. Then they quickly realize that the job is actually tough and full of thankless tasks, political posturing, and long hours, and so their dissatisfaction (who would have guessed?) then becomes the next thing for men to resolve.
So the workplace, workflow, and communication style needs to be modified to quell the dissatisfaction. The fact that those changes work against the overall performance and often require men to work harder to serve the ancillary interests of the job (a kind of marital ‘happiness’ of the corp) is just one way in which men need to ‘work harder’. Of course most women eject from those jobs rather quickly, which means that we need to hire even more women, and the men need to work even harder to encourage and promote them, and on it goes.
Mose women I encounter view marriage only as far as the status and opportunism it might afford them without regard for the work itself, their job of being a wife, and the mental and behavioral evidence that they (a) want that position; (b) have demonstrated life-choices that build toward that position; and (c) have a point of origin that is about bringing their happiness into the relationship instead of seeking a relationship in which they can extract happiness.
Meanwhile, men need to work harder (Man up) to produce and maintain opportunities for her to vet at her leisure over a period of 10 to 25 years, depending on how well her experiences* are racking up, so she can be a bride (“some day, not right now”) for no other reason than she says she wants it (or wants kids “some day, just not right now”.) Marriage is an enterprise in which a man is expected to start in his garage at age 18, but needs to be a thriving going concern by the time she is “ready” to consolidate her experience into a position in which her needs (present and future) will be accommodated.
This is all simply because they are women. Women who are no longer taught, encouraged, or incentivized to practice and behave in ways that indicate they are qualified for the position, but instead are encouraged to do the opposite, and then the discontent and dissonance that naturally flows from this becomes the problem for men to solve with more exactions from his already strained capacity and desire to produce.
*Experience is what actually matters to most young women. Marriage is just a thing in the distance that they will get, when it is time. The trouble is not just that the experience takes precious time away from marriage formation, but it is that it loads her with habits in place of skills, expectation instead of curiosity, cynicism instead of optimism, and emotional indulgence instead of emotional capacity; she is trained in a kind of self-indulgence that leaves her primed for a future filled with disappointment.
For there is no way a marriage can encapsulate anything close to the body of experience she has accumulated. Nor should it. Thus the marriage is pregnant with the whimsy of discontent from years of experience that has built little beyond her expectations, which includes some vague definition of happiness that is not likely to be generated or supported within the reality of marriage.
So she’s practiced in the art of divorce, of extricating from all varieties of ‘relationships’ entered and exited based on the most trivial of reasons. She’s practiced in the art of consuming male attention and resources. Her social media persona is a pet that must be fed and stroked hourly. Her sexual experience becomes a hurdle for each suitor to pass or fail, each successive one less likely to pass. But luckily “she knows what she likes and doesn’t like” already, so no need to waste time working through that. She’s already been on vacations that eclipse most honeymoons. She’s already started wiggling free of a career she doesn’t enjoy. She’s ready [for you]. Are you man enough to keep her happy?
OT, but I thought I’d let the present company know that a fellow in my / Mrs Wapiti’s social circle has become victim to his wife of 9 years scuttling his marriage, taking his children, and selling him into 15 years of fractional bondage.
The reason why I mention this on this thread (not attempting a thread hijack) is that much of the stuff that’s dicussed here at Dalrock’s and at other sites in the manosphere is happening to this guy. Wife is unhappy, blames hubby, has issued several threatpoints over the last few years, putative Christian but somehow claims God is leading her to seek a better life away from her “abusive” husband (when we all know how wide the functional definition of abuse is), sought pre-emptive TRO to secure children and evict hubby from his own home. Also, and probably most critically, has toxic galpals and mom whispering therapeutic divorce in her ears.
All told, pretty much a standard frivorce-rape in progress…cash and prizes to the mom and confirming Dal’s thesis–the choice-mommy-chalimony-model of marriage–once more.
I’m praying for this brother and this marriage, and ask that those so inclined in the audience do as well. But man, the sheer weight of hundreds of thousands of examples such as these each year are dispiriting.
dsgamer,
Nice reference… was that a passage or was that an entire book?
Well said. Men are being placed into a position they cannot circumnavigate. Instead, the only option men are left with is not to get into said position to begin with.
Most women are not fit to be mothers or wives. You don’t need to marry them. Just say ‘no’. That has saved me more times than I can count when it comes to debating this issue with women, church groups or family. Once you decide that not being married is better than being married at any cost, they suddenly they have no more power over you. The women in my life now have to be young and marriage focused to even get attention from me. Even though that means few women to choose from, I’m grateful for the consequence that it also completely removes from my life the many unmarried women my age who wasted it all.
Not being married is not a curse. It places you, as a man, in the position of power in any relationship you choose to engage in.
A truly disgusting article written by a man with a severe case of TBS…. What it truly boils down to is become the best man you can be, spiritually, physically and mentally, you’ll be in constant demand and less likely to become one of these Divine Vagina worshippers. Make sure you have sizeable assets set aside that legally can’t be touched before you are married, so if and when the eventual “I’m Unhapppppppy” comes about, just walk.
The ironic thing about the Husband was that he honestly struck me as a hard working guy, putting his family’s prosperity and security as his first priority. Yet the christo-hivemind would have him believe the very strengths that enable this are ‘weaknesses’ because his sacrifices to do so wont allow for him to be everything to everyone. And all couched in his faith-need to meet his wife’s needs.
The guy loves the ‘don’t go to bed angry’ bit of the trope, but then rattles off how you should wake up with an ‘I love you’ followed by a perfunctory ‘I’m sorry’ even when he’s got nothing to be sorry about. It’s like they want their wives to experience more Beta disgust, but think that appeasement is in some way endearing.
EW, let me guess: her church “sisters” all stand by her in this difficult time, reluctantly but firmly supporting her decision to violate all of her marriage vows for the greater glory of her haaaapiness?
Yeah, ok, that’s a rhetorical question.
Rollo, Empath mentioned some time back a video of such an interview. I frankly haven’t seen such a spectacle in any church, yet. Guess I’m missing out on a full Church of Oprah experience, eh? Anyone here ever ask the preachers who preside over such circuses for a Bible quote supporting such a thing? I’d like to know what the Churchian rationalization is for this.
Scott
This level of total lack of introspection is so pervasive now that I am not sure it can be overcome on a macro level anymore.
Oh, come on. Women as a rule are not that introspective. Don’t confuse their navel-gazing “poor, poor, pitiful me” parties with actual introspection. Frankly I suspect that a truly introspective woman would be much less likely to have children…
Rollo
The ironic thing about the Husband was that he honestly struck me as a hard working guy, putting his family’s prosperity and security as his first priority.
Well, sure. If he was the jerk they are making him out to be, likely his wife wouldn’t be so unhaaaapy, right?
Yet the christo-hivemind would have him believe the very strengths that enable this are ‘weaknesses’ because his sacrifices to do so wont allow for him to be everything to everyone. And all couched in his faith-need to meet his wife’s needs.
The best thing would be for him to stop trying to be everything to everyone, and to articulate why that is using clear, blunt language. That might even calm down his wife’s hamster. But of course the hivemind would slap him hard for that, because he’d be engaging in patriarchy which is totally off limits in the conservative feminist world of modern churches, whether modern egalitarian or oh-so-radical “complimentarian”.
Romance is the same as happiness.
When you have to ‘romance’ the little wife, isn’t that what makes her happy/tingle? If you have to make her feel romanced, duh… happy, are you not supplicating to her?
I have no problems letting her watch chick porn like the Note Book and will even watch it with her if I don’t have anything better to do and can turn my mind off, but I would rather work on the house, reload or work on the atvs.
Trying to make her happy, duh…. romanced, is like pushing a boulder uphill on a continuous basis. What’s the point, you never reach the top. It’s on her if she isn’t happy, duh… romanced enough. If I am working my ass off and take her to a nice dinner or make her one myself (BECAUSE I WANT TO) it is on her to respond. If I fix the damn furnace and then chop firewood and grab her sweaty and grimy, it is on her to respond. That much better if she makes me a sammich and some fresh squeezed lemonade.
If I have to do anything other than be a man and she doesn’t respond that’s her problem. Anything more than that and I am supplicating to her and the FI.
If my frame isn’t strong enough to give her tingles in the first place, and I have to “game” her, I would think I am not man enough for her OR she is a feminist and doesn’t follow scripture commands. Take your pick…. not man enough or does she not follow God’s command? If I am not man enough I need to work on me. If she isn’t following scripture I need to point it out constantly until she does or leaves either way I am good to go. If you can’t own it, let it go.
@ Reader,
Since we no longer live near them, I can only speculate about whether or not her church sisters are enabling her decidedly unChristian behavior…but the odds favor it.
Which ties in tangentially to to the original post…the vacuum that church bodies leave wrt divorce and husbandly/wifely conduct. Biblically correct wifely conduct is a huge mission area for elder (or even peer) sisters in the Church to be a stabilizing influence on wavering women. Instead, not only is it nada, it’s often worse than nada, if evidence suggesting modern churchianity’s FI focus and/or internalization of feminist precepts is to be believed.
For that matter, I can’t ever recall hearing a church go great-guns against divorce from the pulpit. Not once. And if family breakup is even obliquely referenced, great care is taken to not offend those heroic choice mommies in the pews.
MIssed opportunities abound.
From Dalrock’s blogpost (above):
And from Anonymous Reader [November 30, 2015 at 12:45 pm]:
[Emphasis added.]
So then, would that “list of ten things Christian husbands can do”, be the betatude beatitudes?
Just askin’
Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)
@Dalrock
I’m curious what you think as to how this is going to end at this rate. I see several possible scenarios.
1. Men as a whole suddenly do an about-face and return to the Biblical model of marriage. The women silently comply after a brief period of protest, which is mainly as a final fitness test. Though there are significant problems to be dealt with from the last four decades, they have addressed without enormous feuds or fighting.
2. The cultural collapse finally reaches the breaking point, and the modern feminists go too far in trying to push the responsibilities on men. Rather than submit to this ultimatum, they finally decide to fight back. The threatpoint no longer has any power over the men because they are now openly willing to use violence against anyone who tries to take their children or kick them out of their home. They decide that life is not worth living once the divorce and family courts are done with them and that it is all or nothing at this point. They’d rather die than live a miserable existence paying child support and alimony to their ex-wife while their children grow up to be the exact opposite of what they had hoped and they get lambasted in the media for “abandoning them” as they fall to sleep in their car because they can’t afford a studio apartment. In response, the modern feminists in the church turn to cultural Marxists in an effort to suppress these men, and at that point it’s an all-out war.
I’d like to see the first scenario happen, but if I had to bet, I’d pick the latter.
The Question :
1. Men as a whole suddenly do an about-face and return to the Biblical model of marriage.
No. See : Islamic inroads into the West.
Rather than submit to this ultimatum, they finally decide to fight back.
No again. The correction will be due to economic and technological forces, rather than any critical mass of men wising up. The fact that articles like the one in the OP are being written even now indicates how few men can wise up despite the evidence surrounding them, and the resources available online (like this blog).
This is somewhat tangential to the Dalrock’s post,but it seems to me that a lot of the discontent expressed in the comments for this post and quite a number of others might be resolved by say conversion to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches. I suspect that the Orthodox churches in particular don’t cater to the whims and caprices of their female congregation to anywhere near the same extent.
I am British so forgive me if I am mistaken but aren’t pastors solely dependent upon collection plate contributions from their flock? Ministers of the Church of Scotland for example are paid a salary(stipend) which enables them to be more independent and therefore not always having to please their demanding female congregants unlike their American counterparts because their livelihood completely depends upon it.
Gaza- great post. Very good points.
Wapiti- will pray, but hope your acquaintance takes the initiative to right the situation, and not roll over.
@ Anon
I’m sure how the Islamic inroads into the West necessitates that this scenario cannot occur.
“The fact that articles like the one in the OP are being written even now indicates how few men can wise up despite the evidence surrounding them, and the resources available online”
I wonder if there are actually a lot of men who have wised up in the sense that they know what is wrong but are terrified of what will happen for resisting or have simply conceded to the feminine imperative due to the social, cultural and political forces arrayed against anyone who rebels. I’ve spoken to quite a few married men who have confirmed this, but obviously there’s no way to know how accurate a representation this is of married men.
To me it is akin to The Firm; everyone knows that it is run by the mob but nobody leaves or does anything about it because they’re afraid of the repercussions. With open hypergamy upon us, it’s hard for it to be a secret any longer. The question becomes whether men will continue to play their role in hypergamy or reject it. I see a technological and economic element precipitating an outright cultural collapse because the entire sham is being propped up artificially.
@Anon Reader
You should do so. It is a gold mine of Trad Con Feminism. He starts with a big helping of feminist boilerplate:
Then he explains that he is opposed to identity politics, to transition from obsequious feminism to a weak men screwing feminism up Trad Con man up rant:
Seriously, this guy is golden.
These things always swing to extremes until somebody has balls big enough to declare ” The Emperor has no clothes”…I think we are getting close to that point now, with even very left leaning people scratching their heads over “Triggering”, “Micro agressions” and the idea of a Man being voted “Brave woman of the year”. I think the ‘Great Spanking’ is about to begin….
‘The so-called crisis in fatherhood is something precipitated by men leaving. ‘….talk about clueless
Pingback: Fatherless doublethink | Reaction Times
The Question and Ronin,
There will be what some call a reset. I think it will be economic in addition to Islam. I don’t see a Red Dawn scenario. The islamic culture will come more slowly, but I think the economic reset will shake the foundation of women “supporting” themselves.
Read day of wrath, it wraps it up pretty good. Women will turn to those who can protect and provide and willing to do whatever it takes to keep him. Hypergamy will happen, but I think after prolonged exposure to true alphas they will wise up and hunker down with a man who will sacrifice for her and she will show her appreciation and respect by helping him.
@The Question
I don’t see either of those two scenarios as likely. I think what we will continue to see is growing disengagement. As feminists and the church wage war on marriage and husbands and fathers, fewer men will fight to attain the status of husband and father. Unlike others, I don’t think this will take the form of a “strike”. I think it will be (and already is) more a rational but delayed cultural response to shifting incentives. For each successive cohort, more and more young men will ask “If husbands and fathers are objects of contempt and ridicule, why knock yourself out to attain this status?” More importantly, when a young man doesn’t see signaling provider traits as the path to sex any time in the next decade, signaling provider status will become less of a priority. I don’t see this as a fully conscious choice by the individuals involved, but more a generational evolution of the culture in response to the clear signals we are sending. We already see this with the Peter Pan men handwringing by the media and establishment (which is terrified that unmarried men are now earning almost as little as unmarried women in the same age brackets). Imagine the panic when we start to see a larger shift in this regard.
As all of this continues, eventually feminism (as we know it) will become a luxury that is too expensive. At that point I think you will be astonished at how easily people toss it aside, especially women. You will know you are reaching this point when people start denying ever having supported it in the first place. But “too expensive” is a relative term, just like “rock bottom” for an addict. The problem then will be the same inertia which made feminism seem free for so many decades will make it harder to restore a healthy economy and family structure. We are squandering an obscene amount of good will today, and we will pay dearly for that on the other side.
I honestly don’t know how any Christian man of marrying age who has been exposed to even a fraction of this dreck would consider marriage anything but insanity.
Any Christian man under 35 who gets married outside of a “rennant-type” community has implicitly demonstrated his extremely low SMV, and/or extremely low IQ, and/or extremely low self-confidence. Frankly, they deserve what is inevitably coming to them.
P.S. Gaza, get a blog or write a book. You have talent and passion.
So are these Andy Walton’s the same person as the author of the article?
http://www.independent.co.uk/author/andy-walton Andy Walton is a writer and broadcaster who’s involved in Community Organising. He works for the Contextual Theology Centre – a charity which helps churches engage with their communities and campaign for social justice.
(I suspect the same)
https://weeklyworldwatch.wordpress.com/about/
•My name is Andy Walton. I am a Christadelphian and belong to Tewkesbury ecclesia.
•It was about 8 years ago that I began to be more interested in prophecy and began each week to buy a daily newspaper with the primary objective of comparing current news events with Gods word
(Not sure, would be an odd take on Dominionism)
D–Slightly off topic, but related to your comment over at Canes latest post:
https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/the-loss-of-identity-in-marriage295/
[D: Thanks.]
@Dalrock
“”Keeping our wives happy can be daunting at times but if we remember that we love them and make sure that they hear it, see it, and know it we’ll be successful.””
What a crock of shit.Keeping an ungrateful,harpy shrew happy is success?…..lmao! I don’t think so! I can think of a hundred different things that I would rather direct my time and energy into that would pay dividends.Trying to keep a woman happy is not going to do that.That would create misery and chaos in my life.In fact,I consider that a great waste of time and energy.Who the hell really cares if they are unhaaaapppy???……. I certainly don’t!……Oh yes!……. the guys that took the “vows”….that married the State.Because,now they stand to lose everything that they have worked for….house,kids,retirement fund,pension,future earnings etc.etc. because the women is unhappy.So really,in my eyes,that makes them a “victim” …………..of their own stupid decisions! No thanks!
@FemHater
“”Not being married is not a curse. It places you, as a man, in the position of power in any relationship you choose to engage in.””
110% correct!….preach it brother!
@ Dalrock
I just keep looking at the fact that the entire system requires men to subsidize it by marrying, having kids, and then paying the modern-day danegeld, and when they don’t as part of a cultural evolution at some point something will have to give. Either the system collapses or they find a way to keep it going by getting men to start marrying and having kids once more. If it’s the latter, they can either get men to cooperate voluntarily or involuntarily. They can reintroduce incentives or resort to coercion. I don’t see them as giving up this gravy train peacefully, and by then I think that goodwill you’ve mentioned will have been squandered entirely. Not a good prospect.
@The Question
I think the question here is not whether they would want to do this, but what options will be at their disposal in a crisis which aren’t available today? Put another way, if they have a mechanism to first make men work hard and signal provider status and then to marry a 30 something ex carouseler, why aren’t they using it now? How do you force a young man to take risks and work harder? Why couldn’t the USSR compel its citizens to take the same risks and work as hard as the West could achieve via incentives? Did the USSR lack a credible way to threaten pain upon its workers? Will our elites have threats which are more frightening than being worked to death in Siberia?
It isn’t that they won’t want to do what you are describing, but that actually doing so is profoundly difficult. Threats tend to get a baseline amount of work out of people, but by their very nature a quota system discourages improvement, because by improving you only raise your own quota. Child support works because the men in question already established high production quotas before they arrived in family court. But over time younger generations get the message.
@ Jeff
Read the entire book of the Song of Solomon.
Trying to make her happy, duh…. romanced, is like pushing a boulder uphill on a continuous basis. What’s the point, you never reach the top.
Trying to stay above room temp, duh…. alive, is like pushing a boulder uphill on a continuous basis, what with the continuous eating, breathing, and shitting. What’s the point, you never reach the top.
Blue Pill thinking is ever expecting that you would reach the top and be able to relax in a marriage. The Red Pill is hard to swallow.
Dalrock encourages me to read the Brit mangina linked to:
You should do so. It is a gold mine of Trad Con Feminism.
Well, yeah, it is a gold mine of that stuff. For example, linking to an article about Saudi Arabian laws that limit women in a sentence that implies it’s the norm for Britland is mildy clever, for a mangina, but it’s still a boring, tired fallacy. “Women can’t drive in Riyadh, so women in London are totally oppressed!” wasn’t very impressive 20, 25 years ago, and it definitely hasn’t improved with age.
Maybe I’m just cranky today, but…there’s nothing new there. Nothing I have not read elsewhere, either on a TradCon site or complementarian site, or some other conservative feminist site. It’s the same old tired, congealed, blob of “ManUP”. It’s kind of boring, really. Shouldn’t these misandrists have to at least try to come up with some new way of shaming men into submission, rather than endlessly recycling the same old, tired, 1970’s – 1980’s 2nd stage feminist slogans into a Jesus-fish version? I mean, c’mon, at least they could try insulting men’s intelligence in a new way…
It appears that Churchianity Today doesn’t allow comments? If true, gosh, I wonder why that is…
“I think the question here is not whether they would want to do this, but what options will be at their disposal in a crisis which aren’t available today?”
The only thing government can do is tax people — take more and more money away.
Child support is a de facto tax on divorced fathers. We can say it’s a support obligation to take care of a man’s children. But government treats the child support obligation as a tax. It even looks and operates like a tax — it is a percentage of a parent’s income, removed from his checks before he ever even sees it. It’s taken on pain of penalty, and he has no say in how it is spent.
I suppose government could impose a bachelor tax on single men, but at least under current Supreme Court jurisprudence, this would never pass due process or equal protection muster. There is already something of a “bachelor tax” on unmarried childless people since they don’t get tax breaks married people and parents get. But this isn’t imposed on them; it’s simply a tax “break” that’s denied them.
You can’t make men marry women. You can’t make them get educations and good paying jobs so they can get married. You can’t make them be fathers for children. You can’t make them adopt kids.
You can’t make men marry women. You can’t make them get educations and good paying jobs so they can get married. You can’t make them be fathers for children. You can’t make them adopt kids.
But you can punish those that don’t…
Indeed, AR. And the way government will do that is to tax them.
@ Dalrock
“I think the question here is not whether they would want to do this, but what options will be at their disposal in a crisis which aren’t available today? Put another way, if they have a mechanism to first make men work hard and signal provider status and then to marry a 30 something ex carouseler, why aren’t they using it now?”
Possibly because these measures are so overt and blatant they cannot be concealed, only justified and rationalized. As bad as things are, we haven’t reached that point yet. Most of their policies are hidden so that men don’t discover just how greatly the deck is stacked against them until after the nuclear button has been pressed and their sitting in divorce court having a judge decree his imputed income or being arrested for domestic violence after his wife knocked him out on the stairway. They rely on ignorance and it’s hard to be ignorant of these mechanisms.
Another problem is that we still have some Constitutional protections left and unlike the Russians, we have guns and there is a point where Americans would use them. Perhaps that explains why certain groups hate private gun ownership so much.
Frankly I see the anti-male rhetoric as evidenced in the article you quoted in your post as providing the moral justification for these kind of Soviet mechanisms so that the populace will see them as necessary when they’re finally unveiled and presented, particularly during a time of crisis. They’re not going to target all men, naturally, just those who pose a threat. Plus, this will allow other men to play the role of the quisling and help justify these policies. They’ll probably even be the ones promoting the ideas so it won’t be seen as “anti-male,” just “anti-bad male.”
Once you’ve successfully portrayed men as lazy, immature, selfish, potential rapists, alcoholics, bumbling, incompetent, unworthy peter pans/cavemen/brutes who are ruining good women and children and destroying society (and feminism) and even completely unnecessary in the modern world, how much of a leap will it take to justify appalling policies against this kind of fabricated scapegoat? Look at what crimes the church already tacitly condones against men through the divorce and family courts. They’re turning a blind eye now. Is it too far above them to turn two blind eyes?
I guess the question is where is the limit? How far is too far even feminists at these publications? What ground is there left for them to cover? How far will this limit be stretched by next year, three years from now?
My list isn’t too long at this point.
I laugh. Governments will do just about anything to keep the party going. Feminism has been great for those in power and they will not let it go without bringing everything down with it. The pollution between the sexes now will be but a small pool of contaminant compared to the Tepco induced nuclear disaster that awaits us in the future.
“I think what we will continue to see is growing disengagement.”
Yeah, this has been discussed here and elsewhere in the almost 5 years I’ve been around here.
I think that what will happen is that things will continue sliding in the same direction they’re going now, until a critical mass is reached. I don’t know what that critical mass is, what will trigger it, or when it will be reached.
We live in a mostly free society with a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. We have maximum freedom and autonomy right now, with both sexes being free to pursue pretty much whatever they want, however they want to. That is the prime characteristic driving the current circumstance — that, and up to now, there’s been enough money taxed, borrowed and stolen to pay for it.
A growing number of men are not getting as much sex as they want. A growing number of women aren’t getting commitments in the form they want — when they want or from the men they want.
So things are going to keep sliding that way. More and more men will walk away and direct what energies they have left elsewhere — into work, or beer/bros/Xbox/porn, or travel/leisure. (Oddly enough, this might make many of them more attractive to women, since they’re spending less time directing their attentions to women.) More and more men will earn just enough to support themselves, since they don’t plan on marriage, and fatherhood is out of the question. They will lack the skills to improve their lives. They will not get nearly as much sex as they want, but they will learn to live with it — mostly through porn, the occasional hookup, and the even more occasional prostitute. The price of prostitutes will skyrocket as demand increases; and a few more women will go into high-end call girl work to earn side money.
More and more women will direct their attentions into their work, travel/leisure, and having children without men. (This will definitely make more of them less attractive to men except as on again, off again sex partners.) They will not get the commitments from men they want, but they will learn to live with it. They will complain about it with increasing volume and shrillness, but they’ll learn to live with it.
Until something happens to cause the tides to turn. Again – don’t know what, or when, or how. But something will happen to cause a hard reset. And it will be exquisitely painful for everyone. I don’t want it to happen, nor do I relish it. It’s not something to desire or look forward to because of the pain it will bring. But I do think it will happen. I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime or my kids’ lifetimes. We could easily slide like this for another 50 to 100 years.
dsgamer,
You still eating, breathing and shitting on your wife? Wow.
I would think continuing to romance your wife is the same as continuing to ‘happy’ your wife.
Replace “romance wife” with “make your wife happy” and you might be able to see what I mean, just keep your diaper on for that one. Red pill thinking is knowing your wife needs to respect, submit and have sex with you, blue pill thinking is making sure she has the tingles for you because you are afraid of her to blow up the marriage, so in a sisyphean mentality you continue to push that boulder, ie. “make wife happy by romancing her”.
If you have frame that gives her the tingles than by all means call that red pill. If you have to work to be red pill, clearly you are not red pill but something else with the ambition to be red pill. PUA are just that… artists at picking up chicks. A man with strong frame to pull attraction without doing anything other than being is not red pill, he is just a man.
Can’t “get” your wife to respect you or submit? Have to “game” her in order to get respect or submission? That is telling.
Using scripture to “game” your wife, but not using scripture to get her inline would seem… just plain stupid.
The last sentence is the current truth. That first sentence is the whole purpose of civilization any way.
@jeff,
Asdgamer is fully alpha, brah. Just ask him. He’ll tell you, junior. Lolz
In addition to making you an irresistible p*ssy master, ASD also makes one’s scripture readings superior to everyone else’s. But don’t take my word for it. Ask him.
theasdgamer @ 4:39 pm:
“Trying to make her happy, duh…. romanced, is like pushing a boulder uphill on a continuous basis. What’s the point, you never reach the top.
Trying to stay above room temp, duh…. alive, is like pushing a boulder uphill on a continuous basis, what with the continuous eating, breathing, and shitting.”
But eating, breathing and shitting are fun. I always feel better whenever I do any of the three so it’s okay if I need to keep on doing it. Romancing a woman, that isn’t fun.
Jeff, yes there will be a reset, and I think it will happen quicker than many think. Men can only be pushed so far and then the teeter totters. Shaming language is losing its power, I see examples of it all around me now. Men who used to cringe when I suggested their girlfriend/wife needed a “Spanking” now do more than silently agree. The key is to call out the “happy wife, happy life” bullshit by responding with ” If you’ve seen any cop show you know what happens when you give in to Terrorists and Hostage taker” or “That’s like rewarding screaming toddlers with candy, they always want more”. Show it for the ridiculousness it is, laugh at it, show it no longer works and it will end.
If Tyson at Uplifting Love were in the same room with me when he made these idiotic statements (and those in his two follow-up posts, which were even worse), I’d be coming across the table at him. And while some of my anger would be on my own behalf, most of it would be on behalf of my kids. They’re totally innocent of any blame for my wife’s (unbiblical, un-Christlike, incredibly selfish, and just plain stupid) decision to blow up their family, yet they suffer permanently anyway. (And then any success they have, due to their own character and God’s grace, in surmounting the completely unnecessary obstacles she created will serve as “proof” that her selfishness didn’t really have any negative consequences or, God forbid, was the “right” decision.) But it was just this kind of drivel, which she imbibed as heavily as any other “Christian” woman, that she used to justify her course of action.
I note that Tyson is 30 years old; he may well be finding out in the next decade or so how stupid he’s been. If it weren’t for the children he has with his wife who are going to be devastated as a result of his becoming one of the 80%, I’d take some (admittedly un-Christlike) satisfaction in his comeuppance.
Gaza wins the Manosphere today.
– –
I think that the catastrophists here are forgetting the eagerness the state has for bailing out feminism’s refugees. The culture will deny their shredding of society’s seams while demanding the government stitch them up with welfare, socialism, and attempts to shame (undesirable) men. But aren’t they already doing this? I think it’s time to drop the future tense in this discussion.
That is how the problem becomes an economic issue, but I can’t observe anywhere the kind of reflection necessary for people to discern its social roots, leaving the matter to be debated in fiscal terms, as though a good accountant could sort it all out. The cultural sway necessary to discuss any of it effectively is so long gone that to utter the truth would destroy any politician attempting comment.
My concern is that for the near term, the worst case scenario may be upon us, that being that the strength of the US economy and the ignorance of the people to their own behavior is enough to sustain the current state of affairs for some time.
The first major hurdle is simply to be able to talk about it openly, or at least we must try to be willing to bear the consequences as Red Pill (formerly known as “reality”) continues to be stigmatized. Lots of men may already be awakening to it, but lack the practical ability to speak of it. The betas will merely be written off as whiners with an agenda, and alphas and PUAs aren’t likely to discuss their lifestyles, outlooks, and tactics with their friends and relatives. Millions of married men who may someday be subjected to the wrecking ball are, as of now, lost in the stupor of compromise, and those who are aware are unlikely to have the opportunity to spread the word, as churches are similarly shuttered against reason.
Importantly (and arguably), the group with the most at stake are men in their 20s, who are more likely going to gravitate toward Game for the purpose of out-of-wedlock entertainment, which gives the hamster her perfect mid-20s sugar high, to be followed by the mid-30s elastic waistband. If society is to have good, faithful (and enduring) wives and strong marriages (the constraints and privileges of which are meant to create strong people, and a strong society), these are the men who must demand and cultivate them, now. Please tell me that they are.
Mr Tyson’s list is nauseating. Looks like Christian men have to behave like characters in a Rom Com in order to keep the Domestic Terrorist happy. There isn’t a single dot about what what matters: why it is that women are blowing up marriages for their own selfish reasons.And this is addressed to Christian women.
Always the man. Never the woman, even if as a Christian, she has sworn to stay bonded, in front of everyone she loves and all she holds sacred.
Tyson is a Christian. Does he not think that “the heart is deceitful above all things” (Jer 17:9) applies to women as well? Is this not a sexual double standard?
If women cannot be trusted to keep their marital vows and in a broader sense cannot be trusted to keep their word, then perhaps the Wahabist Saudis have a point. They should be veiled in public, not educated, not allowed to drive cars, not given positions of responsibility and certainly not given reproductive rights.
@ Hawk
Go crawl back under your rock.
This just in, the benefits of marriage go mostly to men:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201510/is-marriage-worth-it-women
Plus the comments are all over the place.
@ Jeff
Replace “romance wife” with “make your wife happy” and you might be able to see what I mean, just keep your diaper on for that one.
See, this is where many still-Blue-Pill Dalrockians stumble. Romancing your wife is scriptural. The still-Blue-Pill Dalrockians try to make it seem like romancing your wife is Blue Pill. That’s just sad.
Red pill thinking is knowing your wife needs to respect, submit and have sex with you
Agreed. However, you knowing this doesn’t mean that she’s gonna do it.
, blue pill thinking is making sure she has the tingles for you because you are afraid of her to blow up the marriage,
Fear is always bad. It’s wise to be aware of your dangerous predicament. So, spending some effort to learn how to game your wife so that you don’t get frivorced is somehow Blue Pill?
A man with strong frame to pull attraction without doing anything other than being is not red pill, he is just a man.
Actually, we call such a man a “natural.” He could even be Blue Pill in many ways–white knighting, etc. Unlikely that he would pedestalize a woman.
Using scripture to “game” your wife, but not using scripture to get her inline would seem… just plain stupid.
Not sure how you would “get” a rebellious woman in line just by using scripture. Do you have a plan? If so, you should blog about it.
If you have frame that gives her the tingles than by all means call that red pill. If you have to work to be red pill, clearly you are not red pill but something else with the ambition to be red pill
You don’t understand what some words mean. “Red Pill” is the truth. “Frame” is a different thing than the truth. A frame that gives a woman tingles is a state of mind. “Alpha.”
@ gunner
Romancing a woman, that isn’t fun.
Idk, the male lover in the Song of Solomon seemed to enjoy it. But different strokes…
Off topic for this post, but fully & entirely on topic for this blog — FWIIW:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28582-scans-prove-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/
In related news (to the above), Scientists have recently discovered that the fact human intelligence is spread across a wide spectrum, means there are no differences in human intelligence. Like that, see?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201510/is-marriage-worth-it-women
Plus the comments are all over the place.
Of course they are all over the place. The column is standard mainstream bullshit designed to pander to female sensibilities, nothing more. Such “arguments” have been repeated countless times. They put bachelors and divorced men in the same category, and they do the same with single men living alone and men cohabiting with a female partner out of wedlock. It’s ludicrous. And that’s just one flaw among others.
Funny how the mangina cuckservatives issuing lists of what men must do to make women happy…
…..Have most certainly never made a woman happy in a romantic context.
And even ‘International Men’s Day’ is just a time to engage in more misandry, no matter how untrue.
Romancing a woman, that isn’t fun.
Plus there’s that inch and a mile thing.
The first major hurdle is simply to be able to talk about it openly, or at least we must try to be willing to bear the consequences as Red Pill (formerly known as “reality”) continues to be stigmatized. Lots of men may already be awakening to it, but lack the practical ability to speak of it. The betas will merely be written off as whiners with an agenda, and alphas and PUAs aren’t likely to discuss their lifestyles, outlooks, and tactics with their friends and relatives.
One thing we can say with certainty is that the general lack of “eligible” men, which is already a popular scapegoat in mainstream discourse for many social problems affecting the underclass, the working class and also the middle class, will start affecting the wealthy classes as well, because even higher class men will be seen as underperforming when the ratio of female students in higher education grows even higher. Today the “man shortage”, the problem of “Peter Pans” etc. is seen as something mainly affecting poor or average people, so it’s ultimately treated as a somewhat exotic yet marginal issue. But this is bound to change in the near future.
Y’know, I’ve decided to stop insulting us males by including creatures like the author of that vagina-pedestalizing tripe among our number. If it whines like a woman, complains like a woman, insults men like a woman, and elevates women’s (nonsensical and wholly unjustified) concerns above its own (ostensibly male) best interests, then it is for all practical intents and purposes a woman, whether or not its adams apple protrudes, its testosterone levels outweigh its estrogen levels, and whether or not it hosts a stick shift and a pair of ball bearings south of its abdomen and between its legs.
Feministhater says he got about halfway through the title of this stream of menstrual waste before quitting. I should’ve followed his lead, even though I managed to make it as far as the end of the first paragraph before realizing that continuing was pointless. “Candidate for gelding” (the surgical procedure to follow up the psychogical one she’s already had) is the only thing that now comes to mind for this author.
Repulsive and inexcusable coming from a supposedly “Christian” blog.
@jeff: Can’t “get” your wife to respect you or submit? Have to “game” her in order to get respect or submission? That is telling.
What exactly does it tell oh mighty married warrior of faith.
When will we hear a chorus of Christian pastors (or older, wiser women) telling wives that they need to make sure the husbands are happy in the marriage?
Not until someone invents a functioning time machine, and even then the odds are needle-in-a-haystack of ever landing in the right time and place in the past to hear such a thing.
I suspect men are just as dissatisfied in marriage, but pay a much stiffer penalty financially if the marriage ends, so they tend to stay married for that sake. If they received similar financial windfalls and maintain primary custody of children and received child support payments, you’d likely see just as many divorces initiated by men.
The coming “reset” will be far more painful for women than men. When government goes bankrupt, millions of middle-class single women will lose their jobs in education, health care, and social services. They’ll turn to prostitution to survive, or if too old for that, pimp out their daughters. In Greece today, a half-hour of sex costs only two euros!!
Men will be free to do pretty much anything they want as long as they don’t try to overthrow what’s left of the government. Many MGTOWs will decide that buying a cute, fatherless **-year-old virgin girl and knocking out some babies is not a bad deal.
Fill in ** with the median age fatherless girls lose their virginity, minus two years. It might not be a two-digit number.
So the problem is caused by men leaving? Is leaving a synonym for kicked out? Banished? Issued a restraining order?
Wait, I think I get it, those latter three terms put responsibility on the women who destroy their families…and the lord of moving merchandise and books knows better than upsetting the narcissistic girls with things like truth and responsibility.
I suspect men are just as dissatisfied in marriage, but pay a much stiffer penalty financially if the marriage ends, so they tend to stay married for that sake.
You might want to search this site for other articles Dalrock has written on the topic of divorce.
Relevant,
Pirelli Calendar ditches nude supermodels to instead have nude ‘women of achievement’ (none of whom are attractive) :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3339518/Serena-Williams-Patti-Smith-Amy-Schumer-star-Pirelli-Calendar-ditches-models-history-making-2016-edition-highlights-inspiring-women.html
This reminds me of reading a college professor’s account of doing this. The boys created good lists, and the girls were mostly at a loss to think of anything that they did wrong. However, when the idea was then suggested that lack of self-esteem was their biggest failure, the girls enthusiastically jumped on that bandwagon.
P.S. If anyone knows where I can find this account, I’d love to know.
@informationjunkie1984:
Islamic countries would point to “no”. The Divorce rate would be somewhere between 4-8% in the West with the same rules.
@OKRickety:
I’ve seen that referenced around here before, but I know it as an anecdote among a church group.
On the “when does this all end?” question, a few thoughts:
1) Economic systems end in a slow death, with a sudden explosion at the end. While the current system (State Sponsored Socialism kept up by the few parts that are still capitalistic) is in its very noticeable death throws, don’t expect it to suddenly come undone just yet. The Japanese have shown the “can” can be easily kicked far down the road.
2) So much of the current system is built on just a few laws that can be dismantled. Not easily, but much of the societal decline could be changed in a week. (Not that it’s likely to happen, but, as a technical manner, it’s not hard.)
3) A Man’s first priority is to the Lord. Everything flows from that. Learn to speak Truth when it is going to be receptive. Never forget the Word is a sword. (Hebrews 4:12) We, as Westerners, like to say “the Truth will set you free”. That’s utterly wrong. John 8:31-32 has dependent clauses. To those that do not abide in Christ, the Truth is coming in Judgment to their final destruction.
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28 (ESV).
Never, Ever underestimate the Power of the God of Heaven. Do what the Lord has asked of you and walk in the Spirit. Fear the Lord and keep his commands.
I agree that a woman decides that her husband should lead her. That is how true leadership works. It isn’t an imposition on someone sort of in a dictatorial way. Yet, this decision should have been made before the marriage. A sign that a woman is really meant to be your wife is how she follows you.
If a man meets a woman, and she doesn’t follow him then that match is not meant to be no matter how much the man loves her or she loves him. This is Marriage 101! This needs to be taught to all young men out there.
Now, once a couple is married the woman made her choice. She HAS to follow her husband.
The problem I see is that women are not marrying men that love them or are strong and understand leadership. Men are marrying women who don’t and won’t follow them out of sheer rebelliousness.
With regards to modern day Christianity, I read a poll that showed how few of the basic Orthodox doctrines are actually followed and understood by those who professed themselves as evangelicals. The situation is even worse among 20 and 30 something “Christians”. Even the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and Christ’s resurrection are seem as allegorical tales. The fact is that an increasingly high percentage of modern day Church goers have a buffet style view of doctrine and they choose and pick the ones that they choose to believe and follow.
Men are too pussy-whipped to raise Hell in the organized way women banded together. Men don’t have to put up with this stuff. But the violent scenario painted by “The Question” occurs regularly around the Christmas silly season. Many times divorce-raped, broke, ruined husbands take up a handgun and go after the ex-wife and sometimes the children too. It’s like the movie Trading Places, all of this a bet that any man with enough abuse and misfortune and slander and theft heaped upon his back can turn to (rational) madness. Women that divorce-rape their husbands make that bet and live it every day whether they know it or not, whether the husband communicates it or not.
Every single woman that initiates or threatens their husband with divorce is subject to violence and never knows where the breaking point is or even if there is one. And still she seeks maximum return from her greed and avarice and theft. Most men suck it up, take the abuse or just kill themselves, the physical violence numbers grow every year. But every man has a breaking point. And when it happens, they say the man went crazy. Well, no, he had his reasons, actually. And the craftiest of them keep their traps shut until the moment they do the deed.
How do we teach girls to truly respect themselves?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=989452
Concerning Chastity
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=989360
Marriage validity question – with a twist
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=989448
“First find your brain, then you can find where the Bible tells a man to romance his wife. Song of Solomon.”
The Song of Solomon is not a command for husbands to romance wives. There is no such command from God. The wife is to obey the husband, the husband to love and guide the wife. Love does not mean romanticism, and sometimes is the opposite of romanticism. Romanticism has pagan and gnostic roots often antithetic to the Church. It leads to functional matriarchy and de-facto goddess worship. Like we have here.
‘Fatherless Doublethink’ is right. And the way to begin to restore fatherhood is by witnessing to the truth about the anti-father and often anti-male institutions of the modern west. That clean-up properly begins with the Church, with those using Christ’s name to further non-father or anti-father sentiments, grovellings, profit-schemes, and agendas. It’s not going to happen by retro moonings over the Song of Solomon. All those wives didn’t do the guy much good, did it?
Dalrock helps people by, among other things, articulating what is wrong in our society from a Christian perspective. The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. In fact, you can’t really begin to solve a problem until you can properly name it and understand what it is. This blog helps people with that.
Many other posters are every bit as articulate as Dalrock with respect to calling things by their proper name and telling the truth. Others here help people by sharing their own stories so that readers might learn what to do and what not to do. Others here inspire by their faith.
sadgamer is here to aggrandize himself by cutting down others.
After the first few, it gets boring poking holes in a paper tiger so this is the last post I’ll ever make about that clown. I trust that others will quickly realize what he’s all about.
Edub — maybe you could forward that dood some encouragement? Bit of a note or quick call, get the rotors turning? He may be feeling isolated and feel like everybody is against him. Unfortunately, as our King taught, pretty much everybody IS against him. :O) And us. but don’t tell him I put a smily face there.
He might also profit from guidance to this webpage; it’s well-focused on the gulf between Hoppy Hypergamy and Scriptural Marriage; the jargon is minimal and the concepts accessible for a reasonably educated man.
Few will touch these areas, as Offense and Repercussions soon accrue to individual males via churchian, domestic-law, criminal/civil proceedings, or various other acts of proxy vengeance. If some of you guys knew what the inside of a typical metro DV firm was like . . . the types of ‘persons’ who work there, the ownership, their mentalities and desires, how they really feel about fathers and the concept of fatherhood generally. . . Nurse Ratched opens a string of franchise law firms with the Wicked Witch of the West. They are well-thought-of in the local Business Community!
Reading this thread was as encouraging as the resistance to ‘Uplifting Love’ in the OP. These gigs, it always ends up being about who, not about how many. This time won’t be an exception.
@Jim Christian
”And when it happens, they say the man went crazy. Well, no, he had his reasons, actually. And the craftiest of them keep their traps shut until the moment they do the deed.”
An excuse to crack down on men even more.
@Rollo – your description of the poor guy getting ridiculed in front of the congregation reminded me of the opposing requirements many wives have for their husbands. They want the success and the big house, but they don’t want you to have to spend a lot of time becoming successful. Essentially, they want success to come easily to you and to be able to have free time for them (in their mind). Of course, if this happened, they’d eventually call you a homebody or needy. In short, women marry doctors for the prestige and income, but have the nerve to complain about the time it takes being a doctor.
See this video starting at about 6:00 for bill burr’s animated description of this problem. Language warning.
Guys, “I note that Tyson is 30 years old”.
He is also a mormon(imho), he has links to mormon.org on his google+ page. Maybe Boxer has a closer mindset than us to this. His rapidly growing family of 4 (not finished yet either) is another indication. Kinda explains the disconnect.
Says alot really,
Here it is:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/Do.Women.sin.htm.
Dalrock, are you gonna post about the Tim Tebow breakup? It seems perfect for you.
@ Hawk
sadgamer is here to aggrandize himself by cutting down others.
Did I give you permission to crawl out from under your rock?
@ ray
The Song of Solomon is not a command for husbands to romance wives. There is no such command from God. The wife is to obey the husband, the husband to love and guide the wife. Love does not mean romanticism, and sometimes is the opposite of romanticism. Romanticism has pagan and gnostic roots often antithetic to the Church. It leads to functional matriarchy and de-facto goddess worship. Like we have here.
You’re right, we need to excise the Song of Solomon from the Bible because it teaches romanticism and must therefore have pagan and gnostic roots.
Your inner Mark Driscoll is showing.
<
Your constant use of the Song of Solomon as an excuse to keep on worshiping the pussy is getting tiresome. Find another trick.
Too much hair splitting here. Check this cat out. he handle his business the way greyghost would as a red pill man. He got his red pill via a unfounded rape accusation. (lucky him) This is professional soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo he had a son with a surrogate in 2010. This is what his family photo looks like. http://www.101greatgoals.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Cristiano-Ronaldo-avec-son-fiston-et-sa-belle-Irina-Shayk-le-footballeur-nage-en-plein-bonheur-_portrait_w674.jpg
Yeah he has a Sword of Damocles but his isn’t hanging for a hair over his head. His is in a vice on a work bench being beat into a fishing rod holder. While some here are trying to find the perfect Christian pussy and proper scriptural way to please that skank bitch into calling him the boss. This guy just took care of business. He was fruitful and multiplied (by 1) with out the worship of skank and just look at that face. ( not hers but his, well check out both) I want that for my son.
Your constant use of the Song of Solomon as an excuse to keep on worshiping the pussy is getting tiresome. Find another trick.
Your ungodliness is showing.
I’m going to have to find this Song of Solomon thing. I don’t really think god wants men licking pussy. If God really is telling us to worship pussy through romance then I’ll be going straight to hell. I’m not even going to ask for forgiveness for the sin of not kissing some cunt’s ass. Not repenting of shit.
theasdgamer I guess it is going to be you and the guy that wrote this article Dalrock has posted about are going to be watching a bunch of us burning hell. Maybe God will hook you up with some marshmillows and chocolate and you could make some smores.
When I was growing up, I always thought my parents had a near-perfect marriage, and I suppose that, in conventional terms, for the most part their marriage was good. But I remember one incident when I was in high school that was a real shock to me. My dad ran a small farm–mostly as a hobby, it never yielded much profit–and he liked to spend time on weekends doing work on it. Sometimes my mom was resentful of the time he spent there, and that was pretty much the only thing they ever argued about. One weekend, the exchange was sharper than usual, but he stormed out, saying that the work had to be done, and ordered me to go along and help. In the truck on the way to the farm, he was still fuming, and said: “You get married, and spend the rest of your damned life trying to keep a woman happy!” That was the only time I ever heard him say something like that. Now that I’m into my 60s, that keeps coming back to me, especially when my wife is in one of her I’m-not-happy-and-what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it moods.
Female “happiness” is an elusive thing; it seems to depend more on hormones than on real situations. Little girls grow up fantasizing about being princesses, about living happily ever after, and so forth. Do you know any little boys who fantasize about being princes? Before getting married, traditionally a man is supposed to promise her father that he’ll “make her happy.” And lots of well-wishers will reinforce that: “Make her happy!” His happiness is never an issue, and in a way, that makes sense because preoccupation with happiness is largely a female thing anyway.
I find myself agreeing with Berdyaev, that “happiness” is one of the emptiest words in our lexicon. Does that mean that my attitude toward life is essentially pessimistic? No, just realistic.
Funny — that whole list of things to do, how many men are spending years…er…decades to no avail? Isn’t it funny, that if you were to do the opposite of what that list says, the wife would be quickly back in her place in less than 24 hours.
Wow, you going to point and shout too?
feministhater, it’s Ok to whine and bitch about how society propagandizes men with Blue Pill horseshit. It’s not Ok to whine and bitch when the Bible teaches us men that we need to improve ourselves, supposedly pandering to pussy. That’s ungodly and unmanly.
I penned a blog essay aimed at young women to help them make informed decisions about family and motherhood vs career. My main point and one that no feminist will provide them is that they can always get a job. Feminists have no creative imagination and can only insist that young women copy men’s traditional career trajectories, which are toxic to starting a family. Women instinctively understand women’s inhumanity to women. It baffles me how they have gone over the cliff by following the advice of the unmarried and unmarriable. When I posted the link at bridal and women’s career blogs it was promptly deleted.
Girls! The Work-Life Balance Plan the Feminists Don’t Want You to Know
http://wp.me/p6QFjS-3B
The SoS only directly applies to married men and those who want to marry, though it teaches us Game–how to interact with women. Tease your sisters, daughters, mother, etc. They’ll be a lot sweeter if you do.
No one says that you have to marry.
…reminded me of the opposing requirements many wives have for their husbands. They want the success and the big house, but they don’t want you to have to spend a lot of time becoming successful. Essentially, they want success to come easily to you and to be able to have free time for them (in their mind). Of course, if this happened, they’d eventually call you a homebody or needy. In short, women marry doctors for the prestige and income, but have the nerve to complain about the time it takes being a doctor.
This, to the power of ten thousand!
Then again, we need to constantly remind ourselves that women are hopeless when it comes to understanding cause and effect.
“But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.” (I Cor 7:33; I know, I used the very obsolete KJV, which is my least favorite version)
There is no condemnation here for trying to please your wife.
“Treat the younger women like sisters.”
from “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; 2The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.” (I Tim 5:1-2)
The emphasis is on purity, but the context is a general strategy of men treating women like family. Teasing mothers and sisters is proper behavior. Wives, too, of course.
I haven’t whined at all. I’ve simply stated you are a one trick pony. Which you are. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is ungodly, a beta and a whiny bitch. You have nothing else with which to scold them with. You very much are a Mark Driscoll. Trying to bulldoze them with your condemnation and idle threats.
You seem to think that being a pussy worshiper is improving oneself. You are but one step away from a Trad Con.
The Song of Solomon is simply a story of love between a woman and a King, it is in no way a manuscript for relationships and how they ‘work’. You call me a whiny bitch, you have done nothing else here at Dalrock’s but whine at people when they won’t believe your silly arse.
@ Greyghost,
(Sigh): I know you are a stickler for this surrogacy thing, and no-one will change your mind about that. 🙂
But please allow me to say that Cristiano Ronaldo is NOT the best example of this. At all.
He strikes me as being rather, erm….vain, may I say?
(I cannot be alone in this assertion, surely! Anyone who watches European Football would readily agree with me, I am sure!)
I recently saw an article in which he (in my humble opinion – arrogantly) declared that ‘his son doesn’t need a mother.
???
What Infant doesn’t need a mother?
Sure, Cristiano Ronaldo has an elderly mother around, probably some sisters/aunts who have done a great job providing his son with maternal love/care, in much the same way as they would have done had he been a widower.
But why CHOOSE this for one’s son?
How is this different from a (rich) woman who chooses to be a Single Mum by choice?
That boy may well resent Ronaldo Senior one day for willfully denying him his mother. His mother is, I am sure alive and well somewhere, maybe not so far away from her son.
But alas, she has been paid off to keep her distance from the child.
Distasteful…
By the way, Cristiano and Irina split up weeks ago.
Now this young boy is getting acquainted with yet another woman in his Dad’s life…
No stability where women are concerned.
Children need this stability…it is required for emotional well-being.
Sure, children adapt very well when a parent of either sex is missing, eg, through death.
But even that takes years of pain.
Why inflict this on them as willfully as Ronaldo and single mothers are doing?
Is life not hard enough?
Why? Well, perhaps it’s because if he chose a woman he would most likely end up losing his son, half his wealth and future earnings and be no better off for it. Call it perverse incentives but until feminists backtrack, those are perfectly sane incentives to become a single father. At least he can raise his son unlike the millions upon millions of fathers that did it ‘your’ way.
All the talk of “let your husband lead” sounds like so much negotiation.
Perhaps like you can’t negotiate desire. You can’t negotiate leadership either.
I find it very irritating to deal with younger women in business settings these days. They are either challenging to get your attention or they are like little girls who crave approval from you because their daddy never gave it.
Having control of a gals paycheck seems to keep them in order but you can tell when a woman barely respects any man. And boy do these wenches love to biach about their husbands.
Many are christian, but I suppose but that love respect and obey part seems to have been amended as the little dears have make a living 9-5.
Frankly I can see the sell by date of most marriages by listening to the women talk about their husbands. And it’s rare to have a girl just sit do her job and never complain about the man in her life.
Western women have it too easy frankly. You go elsewhere in the world, you will see women rarely speak negatively of their spouses. In fact no one really speaks much about their home life. More polite I think.
We live in a mostly free society with a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. We have maximum freedom and autonomy right now, with both sexes being free to pursue pretty much whatever they want, however they want to. That is the prime characteristic driving the current circumstance
Not to nitpick, but I don’t think this accurately describes our reality. What we have, in fact, is maximum freedom and autonomy for most women, and minimal freedom and autonomy for most men (excluding Apex males).
This goes back to Roissy’s infamous maxim, and it also describes our legal environment to the “T”. Women get the best parts of capitalism and socialism (transfer of wealth from men to women), while men get the worst aspects of both (workhorse and funder of feminism).
It’s been pointed out here that most of the improvements in living standards in the West have accumulated to women, not men. Outside the West, there are many aspects in which men are better off (for now), arguably in the areas they hold most dear: the ability to form loving families without fear of destruction by the State, and the ability to interact with women who have not yet been “tainted” by feminism.
@feministhater
Yes, the attackers of surrogacy would do far better to attack the incentives that make it attractive in the first place (assuming they are even sincere, which many are clearly not).
feministhater
I’ve simply stated you are a one trick pony. Which you are.
Yeah, I’ve never posted or commented about anything but gaming a wife using the SoS. Try again, Junior.
You seem to think that being a pussy worshiper is improving oneself.
More lying and ungodliness. Whoseyodaddy?
The Song of Solomon is simply a story of love between a woman and a King, it is in no way a manuscript for relationships and how they ‘work’.
You really hate scripture, don’t you? You avoid it like the plague. As I’ve posted on my blog, you can find Preselection, Dread, negs, breaking rapport, and that the woman chases the man in the Song of Solomon. Unsurprisingly, I have a category for Song of Solomon so that you can easily verify what I say.
Spacetraveller
I’m aware of all of that “negative” information you commented. So what, none of that touches the tender years mother knows best shit we have now. The truth be told the stabilizing factor is the father that wants his child. Single dads today if they tried cannot duplicate the mess single moms have created. In fact if fathers in say 90 percent of all divorces were awarded primary custody with the same set up as women today most of todays problems would be gone including this ridiculous black lives matter shit and the police out of control conduct. Divorce itself would most likely be reduced and I’m sure the church wouldn’t be putting out this trash ass licking this post is about.
To be nasty about it Spacetraveller the whole point of this churchian make her happy so she will let you lead shit is to keep the cunt wife from getting the dad out of the house in the first place. It looks like dad must be important.
My favorite line is this one
There is no such thing as stability where ever women are. They don’t call loyal working beta males boring for nothing. If you are going to get gynocentric at least get it right. He could hire some nanny and have her live in through the boys college years. As long as dad didn’t screw the lady. hell he wasn’t screwing it would be any different than a 2.0 wife any way. Except the nanny would actually give a shit about the boy’s dad where as a wife/birth mother won’t and wouldn’t have to. I guess that is a terrible thing for a young boy to learn about women.
Don’t forget the fundamentals on female nature. Look at all of the bullshit for getting around it Game, surrogacy, churchianship, hair splitting debates on scripture, murder suicides, MGTOW, hoping Islam takes over, see post above from Gaza. Put some stability in your life use a surrogate.
Nobody is reading your blog, we get it. There are better ways to go about getting people to read your material than insulting them and calling them losers. I suggest you try it.
@ feministhater
The idea that I would ever be a pussy worshipper is simply ludicrous. My main maxim is “Pussy is just pussy.” Women are a side show in my life and I’ve never advocated anything different.
You MGTOWs totally mangle my maxim into “if you do anything to please a woman then you are a pussy worshipper.” That is a silly, puerile position. You give ammunition to feminists to attack manospherians with your immature bullshit.
@ Feministhater,
Yes, it is precisely because of the pain of the men and children who did it ‘my’ way that makes me dislike the decision to go from the frying pan straight into the fire (do not pass ‘go’).
Yes I know that there is a 50% divorce rate, 70% of which are initiated by women, leaving men and children hard-hit financially, emotionally, even physically.
Yes, I know, Feministhater.
What Ronaldo is doing however, is guaranteeing that his son will face this emotional hardship, from the get-go. Had he married, there was always a 50% chance of this happening, unfortunately. I agree with you there.
But like this, it is 100%.
Again I ask: why choose this for your son?
Perhaps you think I am being ‘airey-fairey’ and suggesting that a man is better off taking a 50% chance and ‘see what happens’.
But this is not my position.
My position is, if you want a family, choose your bride carefully, and with her, work hard to avoid the modern nonsense of needless divorce.
In the last thread we were discussing Tim Tebow.
Many commenters made the correct assertion that the problem with this man is that he is chasing the wrong type of woman for him.
Agreed.
As a Christian virginal man, the ONLY option for him is an equally Christian virginal woman. These Hollywood types will be no good matches for him.
Tim Tebow could (with his money and fame) easily find a nice, Christian girl who lives on a ranch in Colorado or Idaho to marry and have a nice family with.
Cristiano Ronaldo would have no trouble finding a Portuguese maiden to marry and have a nice family with.
These two men have this capacity if they really want it.
OK, I admit this would be difficult for the average man.
But we are not talking about average men here.
Anyhow, not to cross swords with you. We are afterall on the same side.
I too wish that the majority of young women were not as rotten morally as they are.
Case in point: Olivia Culpo cannot last 2 months with a chaste boyfriend. In fact, it would normally (in any normal society, that is) be HER job to enforce the chastity that HE has to follow until he either proposed marriage or walked away from her for good.
But alas, we are where we are. Ours is not a normal society.
However, the solution is not for men to become the new ‘feral women’.
The real solution is for women to become what we used to be.
On that, at least, I hope we are in agreement.
The ‘single parent by choice’ thing is not working out for women. It MAY work out slightly better for men for reasons I have come to accept, but why wait to find out in 30 years?
In that time, there could be a lot of damaged motherless children, to add to the millions of the ever-growing ranks of fatherless children.
Why don’t we aim for what we already know today that works – namely, father and mother, solidly married, living in harmony with each other bringing children into the world in said harmony and stability?
Pipe dream? Too much to ask?
Of course…
Hence these weird ‘variations on a theme’ of family…
Yep, that’s pretty much your only comeback. And you wonder why others tire of your condescension. who is your daddy? Really, I suggest you take a break and tend to your family.
Nobody is reading your blog, we get it.
Try again.
There are better ways to go about getting people to read your material than insulting them and calling them losers. I suggest you try it.
I’ve never called anyone a loser that I can recall (maybe people read that into what I wrote?) and have never been much of an ass kisser. If people want to learn from me, I can be quite accommodating. I get occasional requests from other men to discuss things offline.
I think that at least a part of the problem is that when someone says to a woman “let him lead” it is subject to some interpretation. It’s true that a part of submitting is the act of letting yourself be led — it is an act of submission, and that is the content of the act. Yet, the problem is that it is also subject to being interpreted as “permission” — as in, the follower is not submitting to the self-evident leadership of the leader in an act of submission by letting the leader lead, but is instead “permitting” the other to lead in a way that actually, through that permission, conveys the leadership upon the leader, and makes it dependent upon the person conferring it by her permission. It’s subject to both interpretations, which is why it’s a terrible way to phrase it from the perspective of understanding — but of course just the way you would want to do so if you wanted to convey a message that you knew everyone would hear in a contemporary feminist way (i.e., the second interpretation I mention), while retaining at least some argument that you intended a sound exposition. It’s too clever by half, which is why it’s so dangerous.
@ feministhater
The Song of Solomon is simply a story of love between a woman and a King, it is in no way a manuscript for relationships and how they ‘work’.”
The SoS was one of the books included in what the Jews called Wisdom Literature. So, obviously, it is nothing more than a pretty story. We aren’t intended to study it. I mean, it’s just like the pretty sayings in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes and the pretty story of Job. Very simple and straightforward. Amirite?
@Gaza
I’ve had young women questioning me about the importance of self-discipline. Clearly suffering from anxiety stemming from the disparity between that ‘education of self-indulgence’ and the demands of harsh reality. There’s an excess of Princesses, and they are well aware of that.
Jim Christian, the real “breaking point” is when divorce-raped men start attacking the *system* instead. The system doesn’t care if guys off themselves and their bitchy ex-wives, but when judges and lawyers start getting whacked, shit is going to change fast.
infowarrior1, the problem with “crack down on men” is that for the system to function, the men have to be out and working so they can pay child support.
That article blamed men for leaving…! Apparently the author did not research hypergamy or actual statistics of any kind. Did this White Knight actually talk to divorced fathers?
You’re not right. It is a story of love; a story of a King, not a normal man, and his soon to be queen. It’s not a story of continued, everlasting romance and pussy worship. Get off your high horse.
Novaseeker:
I think that at least a part of the problem is that when someone says to a woman “let him lead” it is subject to some interpretation.
It’s subject to both interpretations, which is why it’s a terrible way to phrase it from the perspective of understanding — but of course just the way you would want to do so if you wanted to convey a message that you knew everyone would hear in a contemporary feminist way (i.e., the second interpretation I mention), while retaining at least some argument that you intended a sound exposition. It’s too clever by half, which is why it’s so dangerous.
Novaseeker, it is not merely a feminist way. It is a phrase that is classic womanspeak: there is an overt communication and a covert communication. As a man, I read that phrase as quite obviously stating “step back and obey him”, but there is clearly as you point out the covert communication along the lines of “backlead him all you want”. Men see the overt comm, women the covert comm. This is supposed to make everyone happy by putting men into the chauffeur’s seat while pretending they are actually doing the navigating as well as the driving. However, continuing the analogy, at some point the car comes to a fork in the road where he wants to go North and she wants to go South. At that point the question of “who’s navigating?” may soon devolve to who’s driving?, which in this context brings up all those issues of leadership / headship that women would just as soon keep buried in the garden.
Back to the sentence in question:
The subcomm tell is in the first word: “Let him lead”. Just enough ambiguity and plausible deniability, eh? The same imperative phrased by a man won’t contain that subcomm, it would be rather something more like “Obey him in all things”, because there’s no wiggle room, or ambiguity, or plausible deniability in the word obey.
The fact that the churches use such womanly constructions as “Let him lead” reveals just how feminized those institutions really are. Funny thing is, the Bible[1] doesn’t seem to use such constructions, preferring the direct, masculine, “DO NOT” or “YOU MUST” forms. So what fine manual are these churches using, again?
[1] I am not a scholar of the Bible. Feel free to correct me on this point if I’m wrong.
@ feministhater
You’re not right. It is a story of love; a story of a King, not a normal man, and his soon to be queen.
So, how is SoS relevant to anything? Why keep it in the Bible? And why the hell is it included in the Wisdom Literature?
Quit giving sophomoric answers.
In the Song of Solomon, the Woman initially only knows the Man as a shepherd–that is, a man of low status, since shepherds were among the lowest-status folk around. She sees him and likes his confident style–the incognito king. The Man is vigorous like a beast. He is also engaging and poetic. The Man stirs the Woman’s emotions with picturesque speech. Later, the Woman discovers that the man is actually King Solomon.
The couple meets in a woodland setting with green grass, cedars, and pine trees.
Anonymous Reader @ 245
Your points are well taken, and I know I do this. I would like to believe I intend it the way Novaseeker mentions in the first part 🙂
But here I am going it again, in this post:
https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/men-are-just-better-at-maintaining-traditions/
(Second to the last paragraph)
Obedience is such a charged word for modern women. It takes a lot of effort to not be freaked out by it, unfortunately.
@ AR
Very fine analysis of over/cover communication around “Let him lead.”
“Let him lead” perhaps means “Allow him to lead.” The supposition is that if he doesn’t lead like you the woman want, you can fire him. You have authority. Many women likely take this tack.
Or perhaps, the phase means “don’t fight him when he tries to lead.” That is the most charitable meaning. Some women and most men expect their wives to take this tack.
The Bible uses the imperative form of “submit” (“hupotassomenoi”). It’s a command to women.
Remain calm, deep breaths, in and out, relax…
I didn’t say it wasn’t relevant but it clearly denotes infatuation, rather than romance, between two lovers who become man and wife. They are ‘head over heals’ in love with each other and are thus in the best place to get married, at least if there is any pretense that the vows they make to each other actually mean something and bind them for life. The Song does not continue much past their wedding, it does not show the King having to romance his beloved the next day and the next and the next till the day he dies.. for fear of losing his Kingdom in divorce..
I understand it’s a story of love, I just don’t read into it all the stuff you do. Anyway, you can continue to yak on about it.
@ feminist
Puff, puff, puff, lolz
You still haven’t answered my question about relevance. Is it only relevant before the wedding? If so, that’s still a big “Meh.”
Even though the story is about Solomon, it still applies to Everyman who is married. One of the lessons is that you can go from low status to high status in a woman’s eyes. You can become your woman’s Apex Alpha.
I don’t see how the love story ends with the wedding:
“Come, my beloved,
let us go out into the fields
and lodge in the villages;[d]
let us go out early to the vineyards
and see whether the vines have budded,
whether the grape blossoms have opened
and the pomegranates are in bloom.
There I will give you my love.
The mandrakes give forth fragrance,
and beside our doors are all choice fruits,
new as well as old,
which I have laid up for you, O my beloved.”
It looks like the couple is still enjoying that early bliss even after marriage. And I remember Christ’s admonition to a church that it had left its first love. (Its early, passionate love for Christ had lost its intensity.)
Why would you assume that the romancing would ever stop?
I hereby give you permission to reply. 🙂
Dear Fellas:
I’m not sure what this means (my mindset is closer?) but you guys are smart not to take any advice from members of my tribe. We’re only a little less pozzed out than Protestants or Jews and we’re catching up fast. There are tons of Mormons who are both male feminists and white knights.
Also, don’t date or marry a Mormon woman. They’re the worst! Our women love to take their husbands into the divorce courts. It’s almost a religious ritual (in fact, we do have a divorce ritual). Most Mormon chicks are batshit crazy and many are sluts on the dl. Don’t convert, either. We’re an ethnic group and without the right genealogy you’ll never really be accepted. We just use converts for their money.
In short, just don’t do it.
theasdgamer @ 2:58 pm:
“So, how is SoS relevant to anything? Why keep it in the Bible?”
Excellent question. SoS is the only hermetically sealed book in the Bible. It refers to no other books and no other book refers to it. You could eliminate it from the Bible entirely and never notice the hole.
Considering the constant presence of warnings about sexual behavior throughout the Bible, God probably felt the need to put something in just to say enjoying passion was okay. I remember reading though the Bible as a sexually frustrated teenager and noticing that SoS was the only time God suggested anything positive about sex and romance. Mostly the Bible is “don’t get married unless you’re too weak to control yourself and even then, you can have sex only with wife until she’s dead regardless of all possible circumstances.” The OT was chock-full of it, too. It was like a guy couldn’t be ceremonially clean for a week after enjoying his wife.
So, I don’t think there’s any particular message to SoS beyond two devout people getting it on without being struck by lighting.
The religious stuff is driving me crazy… I need to unsubscribe from this thread
For headship to work it has to be apart of her selfish well being. By law she doesn’t need to submit because the government will just put a gun to your head and take what she needs. When her kindness is directly related to her well being as in a bitch will get left by her man and she will have to fend for herself or start fucking some other guy. Biblical principles make female wicked selfishness sense then. By law there is no wife The church rolling over to this garbage we are talking about is a cowards way of denying a painful reality that doesn’t allow one to comfortably play Christian house.
It is easy to be pussy whipped by a woman selfishly taking care of herself. Todays women are for sticking your penis in for fun or buying an egg from so you can put it in your artificial womb you made in shop class to be fruitful and multiply to keep that tax base up.
Pinelero
These guys do this shit all the time. They get into these my righteous dick is bigger than your righteous dick. Well my righteous dick gets more pussy. My righteousness is purer than yours cause my wife gave mean after sex blow job. ass to mouth even. Top that biblical scholar. BradA kicks all ass when he’s on.
Mean while yes means yes went from campus code to state law. Buy yourself good rifle and start a fitness routine.
Greyghost sez:
I agree with this poast.
@ Gunner
So, I don’t think there’s any particular message to SoS beyond two devout people getting it on without being struck by lighting.
Funny, though, that the Bride doesn’t know where the Groom is. She has to ask him where he pastures his flock in chapter 1. And she doesn’t know who the Groom is–that he’s King Solomon–until chapter 3. Kind of weird, huh?
Maybe it’s time to take another, closer look at SoS. You’re older and smarter than you were when you first looked at it.
Obedience is such a charged word for modern women.
It takes a lot of effort to not be freaked out by it, unfortunately.
Well, sure. In Evo-psych terms, to obey is to put all your chips down on that one man, with no other options. The cavewoman in your head doesn’t like that because it is a huge risk to her survival and it makes her hypergamy nervous…”what if I could have done better?” is a subroutine that probably runs until menopause and likely beyond that. Given the option women have to be their own betas and buy a lottery ticket for a ride on an Alpha up until the age of 30 – 35, that’s a lot of years of experiences that can reinforce the neural pathways rewarding rebellion.
(The Biology of Desire is a very important book. Everyone of any intelligence should read it.)
In Bible terms….
Now, I’m no scholar of the Bible, but it seems to me in Bible terms, “obey” was a charged word for some women in the old testament. Women not at all modern. Ancient women… am I right, “Daughter of Eve”?
Or, to sum it all up in one androsphere acronym: AWALT
Boxer
Where do you think would be a good place to find some those chicks?
Thank you for finding this!
It seems this anecdote is based on his own teaching experience. It certainly fits right in with Scott’s comment, and, overall, with churchian philosophy.
What are the odds that the women also believe men are the cause of these “womens’ sins”?
OKRickety-
I do unscientific experiments like this all the time. I too have taught a few undergrad classes and I do it in certain social situations.
Recently, I was out to lunch with some mixed male/female colleagues and one woman was talking about her husband in the usual/standard way of today. That is, she was talking about him like he was a child who needed to be “trained” (about toilet seats, childrens bedtime routines, etc).
I said “are there any behaviors that he needed to train out of you?’
To her credit, after dodging the question right then, she later came to be and said she got my point. She said she wouldn’t like it if her husband talked about her outside her presence.
Don’t know if it was a win or not, but at least she thought about it for a half-second.
@Scott,
Thanks for the example of how to take action that could plant a seed. This forum has helped me recognize how much churchianity exists, in regards to marriage and many other aspects of life. Now that I have gotten used to the milk, I desire more solid food. I often grow weary of many of the complaints and arguments on this forum, and am encouraged by the personal anecdotes of those who have spoken out for the truth, and tried to show others the reality of society today.
Maybe your action was not a huge success, but, given time and additional effort, God may bless it and one or more will benefit.
Dave, although I agree with you here, you are omitting what I think is a critical point, which is that “crack down on men” require men to do the “cracking down”. Dykes on Bikes (or whatever) as law enforcement, ain’t gonna happen.
If more men are being cracked down on than are doing the cracking, then the ones doing the cracking down better be able to call in airstrikes at need, or else mene, mene, tekel, upharsalin.
Also, IIMU that family court judges & lawyers across North America already get extra security (or even hire bodyguards), because the whacking is already there, low-grade. (And, yeah, [citation needed]; oh, well …).
Finally, what does the family-law/political landscape look like by the time 10%, 15%, 25%, 33% or 50% of the relevant judges and lawyers have been frivorced, themselves?
Just some thoughts.
Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)
“The Song of Solomon is not a command for husbands to romance wives.”
True, it is instruction on how to make a girl drip ropes of gobbersnot all the way to the floor for you and that makes it pretty romantic.
>I’m going to have to find this Song of Solomon thing. I don’t really think god wants men licking pussy.
Sure he does! Big on Bj’s to completion as well (of course would the wisest man who ever lived accept any other kind? Men looove that spicy pomegranate for a reason. Besides, if He didn’t want us to eat pussy he wouldn’t have given us tongues.
From the SOS:
>With great delight I sat in his shadow,
and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
My beloved is mine, and I am his;
he grazes[f] among the lilies.
How much better is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your oils than any spice!
11 Your lips drip nectar, my bride;
honey and milk are under your tongue;
Blow upon my garden,
let its spices flow.
I came to my garden, my sister, my bride,
I gathered my myrrh with my spice,
I ate my honeycomb with my honey,
I drank my wine with my milk.
My beloved has gone down to his garden
to the beds of spices,
to graze[a] in the gardens
and to gather lilies.
3 I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine;
he grazes among the lilies.
I would give you spiced wine to drink,
the juice of my pomegranate.
3 His left hand is under my head,
and his right hand embraces me!
—-YUMMY!—-
@ Bluepillprofessor
You’re wrong, wrong, wrong! Jesus doesn’t like sex! He wants boring worshippers who just want to sing hymns and cuddle with their wives.
@ bluepillprofessor
You gotta figure that if the town whore was getting close enough to Jesus to wash his feet with her hair as he reclined on the floor, things must have been very relaxed in that house. No strict male/female separation or prohibition on male/female kino. How very different from the asexual churchian mores!
@ Feministhater,
I found a gem for you:
This man did it ‘my’ way, and look what happened…
Notice that in their wedding picture, she is heavily pregnant. He likely was ‘doing the right thing by her’.
And look how she pays him back.
If the mainstream media can call this *heartless* (because we all know that they almost never do, no matter how bad the behaviour gets!) then you know that this case was extraordinarily brutal for the man.
My point is, it has not escaped my notice how bad it can be for some men who just followed the script laid out for them by society – the good boys who followed the rules…
But I still say surrogacy is not the answer.
MGTOW, yes, I get that. But artificial wombs/surrogacy/sperm banks?
I am sorry, but no.
Because all that leads to a whole new Pandora’s box of degeneracy that we may not like in the future.
We cannot fix nonsense with…more nonsense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3341988/How-wife-heartless-Simon-maimed-Taliban-bomb-wife-walked-squandered-1million-compensation-took-court-MORE.html
You, Feministhater, are in my thoughts and prayers, as are all the other great guys and girls doing the right thing despite the apparent disincentives.
If you remain MGTOW for life, good for you.
If you wish to marry, your avoidance of the skanks is an excellent strategy (you are doing better than Tim Tebow in this sense!) that may well land you a good ‘un that you can build a nice Christian family with.
Good luck.
@Spacetravlr
A heartless wife screwing over her brain damaged hubby for everything he has got and MORE !!
Its the perfect feminist playbook and they will be celebrating in their coven of evil. After all, she has been so put upon by him, she needs the latest and best iPhone to feel like a woman, with all her other lovers coming in and out of her life, how could the courts possible expect she can keep track of them all and well, its his money, why is she accountable if she recklessly spends it with abandon, isn’t that what a woman is supposed to do ??? Its unreasonable to expect anything different and obviously this is misogyny.
“He must find £1,500 a month in maintenance for his children”
“Donna was granted ownership of the house they had shared in Telford and Simon was ordered to pay her £30,000 to offset the negative equity on the property.”
Not only that, he had to give her another £10,000 for expenses such as buying a car.
Incredibly, he must pay her £84,163 legal bill and his own £28,615 court costs,”
For a man unable to ever earn anything, he has been given a death sentence by the courts.
Never anywhere have I ever stated that sex is wrong or disgusting, quite the opposite. I’ve always stated and kept my opinion that it is for marriage but in the end, marriage vows mean more than romance or feelings.
My argument with LSDGamer and others has always been over their constant use of Song of Solomon to advance their thoughts on pleasing their wife’s tingles. Their playbook reaches from exactly the same place that leads to excusing a wife’s divorce on the grounds of decreased romance and attraction. Which is often just code words for a wife who no longer wants to keep her vows.
Dear Grey Ghost:
There’s no shortage around BYU — I certainly know that. Bear in mind that many of the sluts will do something called the “pinch test”. They’re looking for the magic undergarments the religious guys wear.
IOW it’s like all those cautionary tales in the Bible. They want to lead a young bro astray… bonus points if they can trap a dumb guy from wealthy family into marriage with a baby after they are done riding the Mormon carousel.
Boxer
SongOfSolomonHater is correct to say, “marriage vows mean more than romance or feelings.”
However, he is tripping on some uncontrolled substance when he says “their playbook reaches from exactly the same place that leads to excusing a wife’s divorce on the grounds of decreased romance and attraction”. I have never made any such claim and SoSHater has failed to show that my Song of Solomon “playbook” necessarily excuses a wife’s divorce. My claim is that Game will make divorce less likely and that SoS teaches Game. The One who inspired SoS must have been cognizant of hypergamy and the difficulty that men would have “just getting it”.
Let’s suppose that a wife let herself go (say, from 130 lbs. to 200 lbs.) and became sexually unattractive. Would that mitigate somewhat against a husband cheating? Do you see how a wife would take it when a husband “lets himself go” emotionally speaking? Suppose he stops teasing her and flirting with her and playing with his wife and just expects her to have two-minute sex, no foreplay, no bedroom talk, etc. Is that gonna be attractive to a woman?
Are husbands commanded to love their wives? Does “loving your wife” include romance and giving her emotional pleasure?
theasdgamer
There is more to love than romance and pleasure. Keeping a wife happy in todays family law environment is a fools errand. More effort needs to be correcting the civilization than playing Christian house. This line of conversation is becoming sick madness trying to avoid reality.
Spacetraveler.
MGTOW is a path and if the man chooses to have a family in peace and confidence that is a path he should take. If it can be done in peace and confidence with out her interference all the better. Maybe your focus should be directed at the family law that will make surrogacy a viable solution for a loving family man. The use a worthless cunt we have today and make sure she is happy isn’t a viable solution for the well being of a child or a civilization. If she wants to enjoy the benefits of a productive man working in confidence at his best providing leadership and material for the benefit of his family then maybe you should spend more effort ensuring the laws and culture respect that as much as you feel she entitled to such a man. If she doesn’t respect it she doesn’t enjoy it. That is how it is supposed to be.
Boxer
I wear boxer briefs and not a college boy and damn sure not a child of a rich family. I don’t even know anybody that fits the bill. But somebody is enjoying some slut pussy. Enjoy the decline
Spacetraveller
The UK is done. Why any man would fight for that country is beyond me. The woman is behaving normally. The real story is the government is enforcing the behavior on a man or any man that has given his body to a nation the has shown cares nothing for him or any man period. The UK is finished and will suffer as it should. .
Pinelero says: “The religious stuff is driving me crazy… I need to unsubscribe from this thread”
Relax, this group is just getting warmed up. After 30 or so posts arguing contrary interpretations of the Song of Solomon, some unwitting papist will chime in with the Catholic take, and then the folks previously arguing will join forces to argue that Scripture is perspicacious and any Christian can understand it without any need for magisterial interpretation, but if you interpret it the Catholic way then you lack the Holy Spirit because shellfish or statues or Emperor Constantine or whatever.
I’m here all week, try the veal, remember to tip your waiter.
Not sure if this is a complement or not. I could see it cutting both ways, but at least I make somewhat of an impact.
@ gg
“There is more to love than romance and pleasure.
Surely. Why are you bringing this up? Are you saying that romance and pleasure are insignificant in marriage? Surely the SoS dispels that notion. Then there is the original purpose for marriage,
“and the two shall become one flesh.” Sex. Pleasure. Romance, even. Emotions. Tingles.
Keeping a wife happy
Where in scripture is a husband commanded to keep his wife happy? However, because of VAWA, a husband ought to be especially careful to amp up his game. It’s simply wise to do so.
@ pinelaro
The religious stuff is driving me crazy… I need to unsubscribe from this thread
Yeah, weird how you run into religious content on a blog where the blogger is explicitly religious and most of the commenters are as well. Is there some atheist manospherian blog somewhere? Not Rollo or Roosh and Roissy seems to have some metaphysical leanings.
Maybe you need to grit your teeth and think of England?
@greyghost says:”December 2, 2015 at 8:22 am Spacetraveller “The UK is done”
It is done.
As a current inhabitant, it is utterly finished in every way. The only advice I give my child is to extract as much education as they can and leave, and never return.
@GG
At this stage, its gone so totally to insanity, A&A is all we can do.
WOmen have sperm banks, why dont men have egg banks+surrogates ?? its sexisms !!! Misogyny!
Women have abortions, why cant men ! Misogyny !!
WOmen can give their child for adoption, why can’t men !! Misogyny !!
Women get free contraceptives – why can’t men ! Misogyny !!
If it wasn’t for the sex we were born under we wouldn’t be discriminated !!!!!
FGM affects MEN !!!! Misogyny !!
Its the only thing that makes any sense.
To you maybe, to most people it’s a bit of romance and a lot of hard work making sure the house is paid for, foods on the table, kids are healthy etc. It’s completely open to each couple. Something for them to sort out in their marriage. You get that, right? It is not some wildly speculative idea, each man must be like King Solomon and romance/court his wife again and again bullshit, and certainly not grounds to start trying to beat Christian men over the head with. Each to their own of course.
Answer me this. Who gets to tell if the husband loves his wife enough? By what lens is this looked through.
That is an easy one. The family court judge following the law she voted in. That fact alone says he didn’t love her enough other wise there would be no family court judge to inform the son of a bitch husband he is not loving enough. The tingle knows as measured by the happiness meter. Ask any preacher or pastor that man (woman, tranny, fag or any variation of the LGBT type) will tell you the same.
I’ve heard the magic underwear is just rumor. Does it really exist? Do they usually wear it, or just for going to a temple? Is it for both men and women?
Mine sweeper
You forgot to add going back for a redo if it looks profitable
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/11/woman-wins-right-seek-money-ex-husband-30-years-after-break-up-dale-vince
Vi-va le UK ha ha ha You guys can’t even own a gun. She will enjoy the decline
@ SoSHater
Who gets to tell if the husband loves his wife enough? By what lens is this looked through.
That’s easy. Haven’t you heard? God’s lens. Assuming you’re married, but this is for married men anyway–good luck with giving your wife just a bit of romance and getting God to sign on to that. For women, romance might mean getting in a fight with their man over something stupid or him telling her that she still gets his engine revved or just grabbing her tit or ass on the way out the door to work. I post about what women need in relationships here:
https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/she-be-cray-z/
Yay! I wonder who will be paying the court costs?
He doesn’t even have the court transcripts from their divorce proceedings 30 years ago. Love it! Moar please!
LSD, just another reason men should be weary for taking advice from you. Your whole diatribe could have been boiled down to one word – the wife.
Oh shoot, that’s two words.. lol.
In LSD world, man runs after wife making sure her tingles are taken care of. If he doesn’t, God hasn’t signed off on their marriage and thus no divorce is even required, the marriage is null and void.
@ SoSHater
Your whole diatribe could have been boiled down to one word – the wife. Guess again, Junior. It’s about obeying God. SoS. I know you hate SoS. Maybe God, too, Idk.
Well, I have the SoS to lean on and you have…zip. If I’m on LSD, what must you be on? lolz
@ SoSHater
Your whole diatribe could have been boiled down to one word – the wife.
Guess again, Junior. It’s about obeying God. SoS. I know you hate SoS. Maybe God, too, Idk.
Well, I have the SoS to lean on and you have…zip. If I’m on LSD, what must you be on? lolz
Dear OK Rickety:
Only observant Mormons wear the garments. It’s based upon the same verses in the OT that inspire religious Jews to have those threads hanging out of their shirttails everywhere. Basically, Mormons wanted to return to a strict Monotheism (though we think Jesus was a good example and a swell dude, he’s not who we pray to) and those are the outward signs that we’re good with God.
Both men and women start wearing them after their temple endowments. For men, this is usually right before they go do their missionary service. For women, it’s usually right after a temple marriage.
Personally, I’ve never once put any on, and wouldn’t be qualified anyway. My grandparents wore them, though.
Hope this is helpful.
Boxer
@ Minesweeper, Greyghost
Yes, it’s a horrible story. I don’t really understand why a disabled soldier’s compensation money can be taken away from him so easily by the courts to give to a wife who is clearly not going to be his carer . How is he going to pay for his care from now on??
I agree with you that this woman could only do what she did with the court’s help, yes. So changing the laws would go a long way in stemming this trend.
“The only advice I give my child is to extract as much education as they can and leave, and never return.”
Um, well I am British. I did get a good education, and now I am no longer in Britain.
🙂
I must have been listening in on the advice you gave your child!
Yes, it’s a horrible story. I don’t really understand why a disabled soldier’s compensation money can be taken away from him so easily by the courts to give to a wife who is clearly not going to be his carer . How is he going to pay for his care from now on??
I agree with you that this woman could only do what she did with the court’s help, yes. So changing the laws would go a long way in stemming this trend.
Back when I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy, I was sipping a beer one evening with one of my Royal Navy shipmates and he was telling me that, in general, the treatment that active duty military personnel and veterans get in the UK, from both the government and the public, is really disrespectfully awful. This story leads me to believe that he wasn’t exaggerating. Really disgusting. I can’t think of a better way to completely destroy the morale and effectiveness of your combat troops than to have a few more instances of this sort of travesty happen (and I’m just cynical enough to believe that maybe that’s the intended result).
May God have mercy on this poor man. The country he fought and nearly died for certainly won’t.
I got the same impression. When I was growing up in Alberta, I knew many old duffers who had migrated over from the UK and I picked up on a lot of subtle reasons for this that are rooted in differences between the UK and USA/Canada structurally.
In the UK, it is obligatory to do some sort of national service, so you will find children of wealth and privilege in the ranks as well (unlike here, where it’s largely poor kids who volunteer). This is the time when such people get a lot of shit in a class-warfare sort of way.
In the UK, people’s perception is that the military is full of losers and bureaucrats. Despite a history of serious military prowess (the UK has produced more than its share of badasses, despite what all you guys may imagine) the military is largely seen as a welfare program/summer camp and not taken seriously.
Ultimately, benefits of military service should be protected at least as vehemently as those welfare cheques we dole out to single moms and layabouts. These guys are the defenders of our civilization. In practice, this is rarely the case.
Be sure to click that asdgamer blog link, y’all. The wisdom of Solomon and a divorce proof marriage are just a click away.* Lolz
*results not guaranteed for non-alphas or in any legal jurisdiction that allows for divorce.
When I went into the marine Corps it was more than a paying job. It seems corny to some but I went in to be “john wayne.” The young man needs to have some motivation beyond a pay check to really perform. The reason no gays women or trannies etc. were allowed in was for the spiritual aspects. At least for the Marines the spiritual part was a huge part of its success and capability. 9they had to believe in what they were doing) The British historically had been invaded and actually bombed by other countries and had no problem developing motivated soldiers.
Towards the end of my time as an active duty marine feminism and liberalism crept in and the elite spirit was being eroded for elite social causes. For todays military at least in America I know a day doesn’t go by when heterosexual men are reminded they are sexist ,racist homophobes. family law being want it is the soldier family man must be treated with total contempt as an abuser of his wife and neglecter of his children. Those men are patriotic men of chivalry treated this way. all of their acheivements are minimized to cheer on women and homosexuals. These same men will be order to fight Americans one day that may decide to fight for their own freedom. What a kick in the ass it will be for these men to kill off their fellow men so they can keep in power those that will treat them and speak to them daily as abusers and second class citizen. Fighting to keep a system in place that will tell you raped your wife as she takes your child and future pay away because you are a bad person.
You can find individual vets anecdotally making comments on articles here and there when the subject comes up of the double standards and passed over promotions in the name of political correctness.
Something to keep an eye on for what it looks like is the number of people currently just saying how they hope Islam takes over and ends this madness. The Christian church could have filled that void but became just another reason to not fight. MGTOW is more than just sticking it to unworthy women the government is also on the starve of efficiency list.
In the UK, it is obligatory to do some sort of national service not since my dad’s day.
We know exactly the kind of crap the ham-faced posh kids dish out to the prole rankers under their sway, so avoid the fuck out of military careers, unless we’re after a trade for post-service abandonment by the State, or are otherwise doomed to the dole. Airforce still gets kind of a pass. Not that different from Wellington’s day. No nice warm red coats to curl up in doorways or under bridges with any more, though.
Lions still studiously avoiding the Donkeys, usually on bitterly-won fatherly and grandfatherly advice. Only going down t’pit met with sterner opposition, and that’s no longer an option anyway.
Mind you, the Kray twins did National Service, so there is still a demographic which fits, but it’s all “volunteer” (economic conscription is a deprecated phrase, bad for morale dontchaknow).
Most homeless men and street drinkers are ex-squaddies, disabled or not. I give them cash, despite the moral majority’s insistence that we oughtn’t to, because they’ll only buy booze with it. I hope they do.
Be sure to click that asdgamer blog link, y’all. The wisdom of Solomon and a divorce proof marriage are just a click away.* Lolz
I really don’t care if any churchians click on my site. I think I’d actually prefer that they didn’t. No, this isn’t reverse psychology. They’d probably just be annoying.
GG, Boxer….
The UK particularly treats its ex solders like shit, there are guys near my village still fighting for compensation for being forced to watch a A-BOMB go off a few miles from where they stood (in the 60s). This had as you would imagine serious consequences for them, their kids, truly awful. The gov+military just ignores them really. Its all part of the british mentality, sacrifice for Queen and country, then shut up about it. Your just the subject of a collapsed empire.
When any empire collapses, it tends to treat its citizens like vermin not as an asset for growth. And the blame lands on their shoulders.
@greyghost
“”The UK is done. Why any man would fight for that country is beyond me.””
Thank you! As a member of the British Commonwealth(Canada),I hate the UK.The UK represents two things to me…”Tyranny & Taxes”.I like the people(Opus comes to mind)…but,I am no fan of the British government or the Monarchy.Everything that happens in the UK eventually comes to Canada.”Crown Land” which is owned by the Queen?….The Queen can kiss my Canadian ass.That is why I respect the Americans as I do.The essence of the American Revolution to me is that “they threw the bastards out”.I believe in “Fortress North America”. We have more land,timber,oil,natural gas etc etc. that we know what to do with.Between Canada and the USA we can build anything we want and help each other out…..and both prosper! As far as having “Royal Assent” for anything that we choose to do from the UK?….F*** that! Again,I love my British Friends(I go to the UK 4 times a year).But,the British control over Canada has got to end!
@greyghost
I forgot. I am a firm believer that if the former Soviet Union would have followed the British model of socialism?….they would not have collapsed and would still be in business today!
@Boxer
“”When I was growing up in Alberta, I knew many old duffers who had migrated over from the UK””
Coming from the UK to Alberta???…….L*……..Now that would be a serious culture shock! I think you could fit the island of the UK into Alberta about three times(at least)…..and more trees,cows,horses than they could imagine!….as well as cowboy hats,chewing tobacco,rodeo etc etc…… L* That would be a sight to see!!!!!
Now that women also do missionary service, I think they do this beforehand. I was recently in Salt Lake City for the first time and went to Temple Square. I did not notice any signs of these garments on any of the thousands of Mormons there (it was General Conference time), but I wasn’t looking for them, either.
Changing topics but still Mormon, I found this statement about the LDS:
Perhaps the Mormon “church” will become much less significant in the next 20-50 years. But, with the amount of money and property they have, it is not likely to go away anytime soon.
That is why I respect the Americans as I do.The essence of the American Revolution to me is that “they threw the bastards out”
*SIGH*
Yeah, we “threw the bastards out,” alright – only to replace the British ones with domestic ones.
I often wonder about what would’ve happened had we not been victorious in The War to End Rule by British Aristocracy and Replace it with an American Variety. I wonder if the pundits are right who claim that we’d be no worse off than we are now, or maybe on balance even a little better off.
Hah. America is the greatest nation in human history; we could hardly have been better off without it. Just because Pax Americana isn’t enduring for 1,000 years doesn’t make our achievement a failure. Note our collapse is only happening with the triple hit of Soviet infiltration, the total collapse of Western Christianity and technology-induced culture shock, all of which happened with a supernatural level of success… and even after half a century of getting everything they want, the Elites still haven’t stripped all of our Constitutional protections away. I still sleep with my guns; corrupting our criminal courts has proven so difficult, the SJWs are still resorting to civil courts to enforce their Godless utopia; and state governments still occasionally give the Feds the bird.
America has proven beyond doubt that the closest humanity can come to perfection is sharply limited government serving a devoutly Protestant population. The only thing our fall tells me is that the devil can only triumph if my country is totally dead… and that is something to be proud of.
We built America once and as soon as God is pleased to grant it, we will build America again.
Feeriker
It is a good thing. I wouldn’t have my 45 if we were still under English rule. We would also be in the same boat as that British Veteran.
ASD,
I know it was a bit back, but I completely agree with that and in general with the post.
I have been working on relaxing myself over the past year or so as I have begun to realize some things just come to the territory. I need to relax more and not take it too personally. My wife had gotten fairly uptight the other night after my son and his family left after being here for several days over the holidays. I teased her a bit, including some touch and such and I was quite surprised, even for me, how quickly that shifted her attitude. I might have just pushed her to “can the attitude” in the past, but this was a clear demonstration that a different approach is often much more productive.
Yes, some of us will tolerate much less from women, even those we are married to, but we always need to keep in mind that even the ones seeking to do well are still human and thus are subject to needing some grace at times just as we do.
Brad, congrats!
My maxim really works if you can make it part of your frame when it comes to tests from the wife: “Pussy is just pussy.” Don’t take their emotional tantrums seriously. Those are just entertainment that you get to participate in.
Be fun and make sure that the party is where you’re at when you’re dealing with women.
BradA getting hard on us. Cool stuff there man.
greyghost, I guess our work here is done, Brad and LSD have set the tone. Now if we can just get those darn, naughty Christian beta husbands to tease their wives, rub their shoulders and organise a romantic getaway once in awhile there would be no more divorce. Really, about time someone got these lazy husbands to serve their wives.
In LSD land, when your wife asks for a divorce, just laugh and say, “Haha, funny one honey, why don’t you make a sandwich instead and after that, come sit in my shadow and taste my fruits?”.
Don’t forget to do the dishes as well, that’s sexy after all and will get the wife in the right mood for a back rub and a little ‘you-know-what’.. no not sex, silly.. I obviously meant a foot massage.. get your mind out the cutter.
Oh darn, gutter.. I meant gutter.
This is actually a good way to handle it.
Haha, funny one honey, why don’t you make a sandwich
Or even better stated: “Why don’t you go make me a sammich!”
Always an appropriate response to diatribe from feminists and their hamsters.
What are the odds that the women also believe men are the cause of these “womens’ sins”?
All womens’ sins are caused by men, you know that. The only time a woman has agency is when she’s pleasing herself or gaining some societal advantage.
SoS Hater: In LSD land, when your wife asks for a divorce, just laugh and say, “Haha, funny one honey, why don’t you make a sandwich instead and after that, come sit in my shadow and taste my fruits?”.
greyghost: This is actually a good way to handle it.
Even better is to pull out your cell and start flipping through texts, abstractedly responding with “Sure”, “Ok”, “Ummm”, “Huh”, etc.
@ SoS Hater
Don’t forget to do the dishes as well, that’s sexy after all
This is unsexy chodeplay.
People are living longer coupled with a culture that does not prioritize marriage and family. Add to that sexual temptation every time we log on, are we ever really “logged off” anymore? And why I’m personally against the sexual objectification of women, men and children that we see everywhere today.
It takes a village to save a marriage? Could be…
“Be the primary caregiver to your children. Your husband is there to help, but God made you to be the mother of your children. That’s why he gave you (and not your husband) a womb. Embrace the joy of motherhood. Do not incessantly complain about how hard it is to pick the kids up from school and take them to the park.”
A hands off approach to fatherhood is dangerous. Rollo’s offended by the pastor who tells wives to “allow” their husbands to lead. Most wives I know are BEGGING them to lead their children. The dads seem to want the moms to do all the care giving and disciplining and show up only for the fun and games. They think as long as they are providing home, clothing, food, their job is done. They especially back off once their daughters hit puberty. What’s going on?
@2084GO:
Incentives. Doesn’t matter if they’re “begging” for leadership from their husbands, it’s their responses any time he’s attempted to lead that’s the problem. Most Men won’t keep playing a losing game. If you want leadership, you damn well be willing to follow. The vast majority of Modern Women simply aren’t willing to follow. End of story.
Mmmm, I don’t know about that Looking Glass. These men feel they ARE leading by working and providing so much so that their wives should, “Be the primary caregiver to your children. Your husband is there to help, but God made you to be the mother of your children.” and “not incessantly complain about how hard it is to pick the kids up from school and take them to the park”.
What happens is that the kids rarely spend any significant quality time with their fathers which is essential for their moral and psychological growth and well being.
This one sounds an awful like that Mickey Singh whack-job who was shit-posting here awhile ago. Can’t tell if “he” is actually a she, or perhaps just a really, hopelessly confused mangina.
Either way “his” constant re-framing is exhausting.
I go by what I see. Fun fathers who leave the disciplining to the moms so they can be the good time parent. Then when the girls hit puberty they back off altogether. I take it something about their daughters developing into women scares them and they don’t even want to think about what their up to, much less hearing about it, seeing it and doing something about it. Nope. It just doesn’t exist in their world as they focus on work and playing games with the younger kids. Meanwhile their daughters boyfriend is….
The vast majority of Modern Women simply aren’t willing to follow. End of story.
Yep!
Dude.
Legal Fiction.
Example:“Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Canada” (AKA “Canada”).
In the Common Law [citation needed], which is how it’s done in UK/US/Oz/NZ/CND, a “Legal Person” is anyone who can sue or be sued in their own name. There are three kind of “Legal Persons”: individual persons (e.g., Sam Walton [while he was alive, anyway]); corporate persons (e.g., Walmart [which is actually a bunch of interlinked corporations, incorporated in various jurisdictions for tax law and other reasons]), and The State (e.g., the State of California, but also the United States of America; the State of New South Wales, but also the Commonwealth of Australia; the Province of Aberta, but also the Dominion of Canada [a.k.a. “Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Canada”]).
You know? Like how the “Research in Motion Corporation, Limited” was incorporated under that name (recently changed), but dba (“doing business as”) Blackberry™.
So, “Crown Land” in Canada is just whatever is owned either by the Federal Government, or by, say the Government of the Province of Alberta. That is all. That elderly Lady in that castle far away over the sea from Ottawa, has nothing to do with it, except symbolically.
And as for “Royal Assent” (i.e., signing legislation recently passed by a Canadian, Australian, UK or NZ legislature, into effect as actual Law), it’s just the local brand-name given to doing the exact same thing that the Governor of Missouri or the President of the Excited States of America does, when presented with similarly recently passed legislation. The purpose of that particular “legal fiction”, is so that there will be a calendar date and time for when a given law officially starts to apply — a before, and an after. Nothing more, nothing less.
“The British” can be said to “control” Canada at present, in approximately the same sense that they “control”, say, India, at present. Or, in approximately the same sense that the United States of America can be said to “control” its former colony, The Phillipines.
In this forum, people are encouraged to take The Red Pill. Would it be rude, then, for me to suggest that you “take a pill?”
Finally, as to “Fortress North America”, here’s a hint: why is the White House white? Wouldn’t have anything to do with American soldiers burning Toronto to the ground, while invading Canada, to conquer it, in a decidedly unfriendly way, now, would it?
Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)
[Legal Notice: IANAL, YMMV, COD, AWALT, DOA, etc., etc. — This comment is void where prohibited by law. This comment is not intended as legal advice. If you are considering suing Yac-Yac’s sorry @$$, first consult with a legal practitioner licensed to act in the jurisdiction in which you are contemplating pursuing your cause of action.]
2084GO
You don’t know what you are talking about. You are talking like some new guy to the manosphere from 8 years ago. Straight MRA stuff
“You don’t know what you are talking about. ”
You’re telling me I don’t know “hands off” dads?
Me being less of a shit is better? Didn’t expect that here.
I have always been quite demanding. I am just learning to funnel it better. I am not sure I have changed all that much, but who knows.
2084GO
>Most wives I know are BEGGING them to lead their children.
I call BS. Most church wives I know actively show contempt to their husbands, even in church. Being fat. Refusing to have her glory (1 Cor 11:14-16); instead chopping it off. Deliberately being detestable (Deut 22:5).
These contemptuous women are the women that supposedly want to give the man a taste of being in charge?
More likely, they are too lazy to discipline the children when the father is not around, and want him to discipline enough for when he is there and for it to hold over when he is not. I think that with older children that is possible, but very young children need immediate positive and negative feedback.
Or she simply wants to complain, so she complains about him not being a strong man, even though she herself is beating him down with her contempt.
Dale, 2nd. What wifies do is demand their *”husband” *”father” of their children enforces the path that she has decided for the children.
This whole thing about being the father in charge exclusively, I thought it was man submits to God, woman submits to man, children submit to parents.
*these titles (there only for show) can be revoked at at point.
Re:Men leading
I agree with Dale and Minesweeper. Churchian wives say they want the husbands to lead, but they really want them to “lead” in the way they think it should be done. Nor do these women want to be led by the husband.
This behavior is much like churchian women saying they want a godly, nice man to marry, but avoid such men until they have a college education, their career is advancing, and they are ready to settle down (and, in the end, they perceive that they are accepting a lower-quality man than they deserve). In the big picture, these women want to have exclusive control of their lives, they are taught this is the way it should be, and they live it for many years as an adult. Human nature is inherently selfish and these women are not likely to become submissive and allow themselves to be led by anyone.
No matter what women say, actions speak louder than words.
“I call BS. Most church wives I know actively show contempt to their husbands, even in church. Being fat. Refusing to have her glory (1 Cor 11:14-16); instead chopping it off. Deliberately being detestable (Deut 22:5).
These contemptuous women are the women that supposedly want to give the man a taste of being in charge?”
I made it clear I was talking about specific women I know personally. They are not church wives. The dads leave all the child rearing and disciplining up to them and are present to be the fun parent with the younger pre-pubescent kids. They don’t even want to know what their teenage daughters are up to, it scares them and they don’t know how to deal with it, so they don’t. Simple as that
All these teen daughters with dads like that .are on the border of getting into some serious trouble with boyfriends. The moms are begging the dads to step up and take action, put their foots down, but they won’t, don’t, can’t for some reason. These dads prefer to pour their attention into work and the little kids. Maybe they feel its inappropriate to involve themselves in the personal lives of their teen daughters? I don’t know what they’re thinking.
2084GO,
I bet those women you know are not quite as holy as you think if you really peeled the onion. My wife found that many feminist ideas had invaded her thinking when we really dug into it. She claimed to be an anti-feminist and would seem so to most feminists, but she shared many core attitudes.
Very few women, including those you know, will follow the husband if he disciplines the children in a way she does not like.
Women can easily be like the queen in Wonderland, believing many possible and contradictory things before lunch each day.
“I bet those women you know are not quite as holy as you think if you really peeled the onion.”
Holy? Did I mention anything about holiness anywhere? Where are you coming from with this? I also didn’t mention feminism, anti-feminism or any ism. This is a matter of teenage girls taking up questionable relationships and their dads not doing anything to stop it or at least guide them during this turbulent time and expecting the moms to deal with it all because they are too busy “working” and when they get a minute prefer to play with the little kids, not delve into the nitty gritty of their teenage daughters’ lives.
I’m asking for dads with teenage daughters to give some insight into the psychology here. Does something happen to a man when he sees “daddy’s little girl” turn into a woman that shuts him down to her?
2084GO,
Although it was relatively clear you were talking about women you personally know, it was not clear that these women were not be “Christians”. Since much of the discussion on this forum is Christian-oriented and the topic of husbands leading and wives submitting is frequent, it was easy to suppose that these women are churchian.
Why would dads “back off” from their teenage daughters? Do these women you know allow their husbands to lead them? Western society has effectively told men that women are equal to men in every way. So, if the husband is not respected by his wife by her submission and obedience, he is very likely to see a teenage daughter as beyond his authority. She can claim sexual abuse and he would be at the mercies (ha!) of the authorities. I have great doubt that these women you know would actually back the husband/father if he disciplined and controlled the daughter. In short, his wife probably does not respect him, so he is likely to retreat from both her and the daughter. If you can’t win, why play?
At 9:52 I wrote, “They are not church wives.” Brad started in on his “holy” trip almost an hour later.
Anyway, except for this issue, the marriages themselves appear to be very stable and loving. The women are openly affectionate with their husbands and vice versa. But the dads see themselves as workers and providers and fun play mates for the younger children. They leave the bulk of nitty gritty child rearing, disciplining and dealing with teenage drama up to their wives. Maybe they see this as proper role/duty allocation? Maybe they are just too tired after long hours working?
What holy trip was that 2084GO? You are the one claiming a bunch of women you know are begging their husbands to be involved, not me. Change the word “holy” to some other term you prefer and my point remains. I greatly doubt these women really want their husbands to lead overall, just these areas.
Are you the only one allowed to share experience here? I doubt that.
I happened to see your note right after I posted a previous reply. Timing is everything.
BradA, no worries. It appeared to me you were trying to make this into a religious or political thing whereas I had nowhere mentioned religion or politics. Its ok.
Dear OK Rickety:
Women have always done missionary service. The difference is that women aren’t socially stigmatized when they opt not to do so (see Dalrock’s excellent article on the draft for a parallel example).
The historical shift has been the gradual erosion of stigma for women who opt not to marry young. That actually is changing in Mormon circles.
If a woman opts to get her endowments done, she needs a man to “lead her through the veil”. Her dad might do it? I don’t know. I doubt it, though. I think it’s usually their mission president.
Best,
Boxer
This one sounds an awful like that Mickey Singh whack-job
Oh Mickey you so fine, you so fine you blow my mind…
@ OkRickety
Human nature is inherently selfish and these women are not likely to become submissive and allow themselves to be led by anyone.
Oh, I think that these women will follow if you lead them where they already want to go…which is where they would head regardless of whether or not you are going the same way.
“If a woman opts to get her endowments done, she needs a man to “lead her through the veil”. ”
LOL! WTF? I don’t know what you’re talking about here but it sounds mighty funny.
@OKRickety
>No matter what women say, actions speak louder than words.
From Matt 21:
28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.”
Seems you are right about the actions counting more 🙂
@2084GO
Agreed; I cannot comment on the particular women you know. It is possible, I suppose, that they are much different than the almost completely consistent view I have of Canadian women from my personal interactions.
@OKRickety
>Why would dads “back off” from their teenage daughters?
One possibility is the fear of having a nutcase at child protection services or other social worker accuse him of sexually abusing his opposite-sex children. One friend told me her father used to wrestle / rough-house with all the kids. After she started puberty, he continued the physical activity only with his son. She thus felt somewhat rejected or otherwise emotionally distant from him.
The father’s choice is sad, although understandable. Better a partially distant father, than a totally distant father due to the child being taken by government workers.
You’ll find more of the same if you read about the “endowment ceremony” at ldsendowment.org. The author claims to be an “endowed Latter-day Saint”.
From ldsendowment.org (emphasis mine):
Dale, I’m not talking about wrestling here. I’m talking about fathering up, getting loud and firm and setting some rules. The moms try but the teens don’t listen.
This is a matter of teenage girls taking up questionable relationships and their dads not doing anything to stop it …
I thought around these parts it was common knowledge that feminist father’s of daughters (at least the ones who aren’t expelled from their homes) play a large part in the raising of special feminist snowflakes. Please keep in mind that when I use the term feminist I mean most people in our society, ie those that are “normal” as it is understood today.
The parents don’t like the boys these girls have chosen. But the mothers can’t stop it (the girls defy them) and the dads don’t even address it other than to say “I don’t know what you see in him” and then retreat to the den to “work”.
Maybe its not a feminist dad thing but a masculinist dad/brotherhood thing? As in “all guys are basically good guys so yeah, why shouldn’t he have a shot at my daughter?”
And exactly what can the father do in that case? He has already been ruled out in many other areas.
You want fried ice.
What can he do? Father up! Nobody has ruled him out. Their wives are expecting these men to step up and step in but they’re not. They do in every other area of family life, but not this one. Its odd .
@2084GO,
You have had several responses to your question, but you don’t seem to accept these answers. It just dawned on me that you say the wives have said (directly to you? overheard?) they want the fathers to take action, but you have said nothing about talking to the fathers. Have you asked the fathers? If so, what do they say? If not, why not ask them directly?
Pingback: Father’s Day doublethink. | Dalrock