As I wrote on Friday, the CBMW’s response to the generations long push by feminists to insert women into all parts of our armed forces is to pretend that something else entirely is going on. To avoid confronting the very open feminist rebellion, the CBMW pretends that men are insisting that women be forced into combat in their place. No one else believes this, and I have to believe that deep down even the complementarians themselves know this is a farce. However, confronting a generation of women demanding to usurp men’s roles is difficult, and to a complementarian downright terrifying. Changing the subject from reality to a fantasy world allows complementarians to avoid what is difficult and instead focus on posturing.
Look at how much tougher and braver I am than other men! Look how much more I care about women!
But make no mistake, this is only posturing. The Bible teaches us that women are more easily deceived. As Christian men we have a responsibility to Christian women to try to protect them from temptation of feminist rebellion. Pretending that no rebellion is occurring is worse than remaining silent, and it is the opposite of brave. In pretending that feminist envy and usurpation is really about men insisting that women take their roles, complementarians are actively encouraging women to be deceived into sin.
The compulsion to change the subject from reality to fantasy land is so great that CBMW member writing on the topic reads like articles from the Onion. Here is a quick review of articles by CBMW members on the subject over the last ten years. Note how the women who want to usurp men’s roles are praised as courageous, smart, and noble, while the real villains (the men who are making them usurp men’s roles) are castigated instead. All emphasis mine:
John Piper: Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice
If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea…
Piper followed up with: More on women in combat
…Women may be more courageous than men in any given situation. They may have nobler vision. They may be smarter. That is not the issue. What God has written on our hearts and designed for our survival and our joy is the issue. Manhood puts itself forward between the women and the enemy. That is part of what manhood means. That is who we are by God’s design. The courage of women will show itself in a hundred ways. But when a man is around, he will not exploit that courage to fight the battle where he belongs.
Joe Carter in Women in Combat: A good idea?
Unfortunately, many men will be more than willing to allow women in combat if it will lessen their chances of having to defend their country in wartime. One of the harsh realities we face is that American society is filled with men who are anti-woman cowards.
Denny Burk: Women in Combat and the Undoing of Civilization
Perhaps some people believe that women ought to be able to volunteer for whatever job they are qualified to do. But what if the draft were reinstituted? Under the right conditions, the draft would be a very real possibility, and that specter of a draft is really clarifying. It’s one thing for women to volunteer for combat service. It’s an entirely different matter for them to be drafted into it. I have a hard time believing that the women of America would want to be forced into such conditions. Any man that would countenance for one second his 18-year old daughter being pressed into this kind of service is abdicating his responsibility. Are we really going to be the kind of people who press our wives and daughters and mothers to fight in combat?
Owen Strachan closes Women Should Not Be in Combat (Says a Female Marine Captain) with:
Complementarian Christians, like the Lord himself, are not anti-woman. In humility and full recognition of our sin, we are the most pro-woman group there is. We love women, and want them to thrive, both in natural terms and in their walk with Christ.
Any other path is unwise; the call by men for women to fight in their place is the height of cowardice, and worthy of the strongest possible rebuke.
Strachan again in Women in combat: A complementarian perspective
If men will not own this responsibility, then women will be forced to take it on as did biblical women such as Deborah and Jael (and the extrabiblical figure Judith).
See Also: Turning a blind eye.
Pingback: Fantasy Land | Manosphere.com
Pingback: Dereliction of duty | Patriactionary
Woman are never self-seeking. Some man somehow somewhere forced her into anything that may be considered bad. On the other hand, if it is considered good, it was accomplished by her and her alone, and demonstrates her power, prestige and independence.
TL;DR it is all his fault
But of course Dalrock! Women DEMANDED the right to invade all male spaces. Women were given the right to invade and corrupt male spaces. Women then proceeded to methodically invade and corrupt male spaces.
So that means MEN ARE AT FAULT for the corruption of male spaces! We LET them misbehave after all so it is all our fault.
Haven’t you read the story of the Garden of Eden? The woman was deceived. The women ate the fruit. The woman disobeyed God. However, since the man was in the garden with her it was OBVIOUSLY ALL HIS FAULT.
Which begs the question: If an apple falls from the Tree of Knowledge, falls and hits the ground and there is no man around to see it, is it STILL his fault?
Answer: Yes, of course!
The woman simply wipes her mouth and assures God that she has done no wrong. It was completely the man’s fault, obviously. Don’t be silly.
Pingback: Fantasy Land | Neoreactive
@BPP —
Yes, as Dalrock noted in his prior post. It all goes back to the whack-a-doodle yet commonplace misreading of Genesis from the perspective of female hypoagency and male hyperagency. It becomes a worldview and mindset that then colors the entirety of how everything is viewed pertaining to men, women, sin and the world. And a heretical mindset, mind you.
@BPP
This isn’t their argument though. Their argument is that men are making women corrupt male spaces. They don’t want to usurp male roles, cowardly men are forcing them to do it. This is the ultimate rationalization of women’s sin.
Once I viewed an interesting video about the Chinese emperor whose tomb was guarded by an entire army of terra-cotta figures, models of men rendered in exquisite detail. It was fascinating to contemplate how much time and how many resources went into creating that army.
The pedestalizing, White Knighting complimentarians have attempted the modern equivalent: fabricating an entire army of straw men that they can then defeat, thus proving their moral stature is greater than other men, and of course winning perhaps a lock of hair from a Madonna [1]. Surely the straw army of the CBMW is awesome to behold…
[1] The Madonna / whore mindset is surely a fundamental premise underlying not only the neo-Victorian White Knights, but also of the conservative feminist “complimentarians”. Granted that many “complimentarians” are also White Knights, but not all.
I’ll just leave this here:
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2015/12/because-well-equalityvia-bob-on-fob.html
Novaseeker
It all goes back to the whack-a-doodle yet commonplace misreading of Genesis from the perspective of female hypoagency and male hyperagency.
Dalrock
Their argument is that men are making women corrupt male spaces. They don’t want to usurp male roles, cowardly men are forcing them to do it.
Yep. Tying both comments together without too much reduncancy: In Bible terms, the “complimentarians” are asserting that Adam forced Eve to eat of forbidden fruit. A position that is ridiculous from any perspective. Now, I’m sure every one of these men would strongly deny such a claim in so many words. But that is the practical effect of whaty they are claiming. So?
Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.
PS: Nova’s neat summary of male hyperagency vs. female hypoagency applies to all feminists, too, “It’s All Men’s Fault” being pretty standard. Furthermore, reflect a moment and it can be seen that in fact, it arguably applies to all women, just not to the extreme employed by the CBMW or other feminist groups.
This is simply another extension of the Christianized version of the Myth of Male power. Whether via divine appointment or sinister Patriarchy, Christian “leaders” believe the default presumption that men unilaterally control social affairs. Thus the buck always stops with men. It’s their fault for not manning up to police women’s rebellion or it’s their fault for encouraging them to rebel.
Any person who wants women to serve in the military wants women to be raped.
Because that is what will happen should a female soldier be captured in battle.
Just for amusement I looked up complementarianism on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism
One sentence stood out: …and ‘male chauvinism’, a generalized bias that in most situations men are of significantly greater value than women..
This definition is a classic example of projection. Biologically females are worth more than males in many, if not most all, species, and we certainly see that in humans. One thing about The Glasses / Red Pill, it tends to throw a clear light on some aspects of human behavior previously murky. Women tend to project their emotions onto others, especially onto men, the 4:1 ingroup preference women have for other women is a known feature, and so … “male chauvinism” is merely another example of women projecting their own emoting onto men.
And it’s no surprise that “men and women are exactly the same except for babies” 2nd Stage Feminsts coined the term “male chauvanist”, either.
@Rollo
But this isn’t their argument either. They aren’t arguing that women are in rebellion and men are failing to try to lead them out of rebellion. They are pretending no rebellion is occurring, and that what is really happening is men are forcing women into what only looks like rebellion. This is critical. The buck does stop with men, and this is what the CBMW is shirking.
Of course, there is some truth to the charge of “male chauvanism”, unhappily it is a truth that most with to ignore. Until very, very recently in human history, a lot of necessary tasks could not be accomplished by women. A primitive man taking his spear, his sons, his brothers, his cousins and his dogs out into the world to kill some large mammals for meat would likely not take women along as well, for example. In pre gunpowder warfare women would be a liability (yes, yes, Boadacia and Deborah and Joan of Arc were all Xenia-style warrior princesses, of course they were, now run along and play somewhere else).
In a state of nature, men can do many things women cannot, but women can do one thing men cannot. Funny how the “complementarians” can’t seem to really follow that fact all the way to the logical conclusion.
Rebellion requires agency. If you have hypoagency, and there is another actor who has hyperagency (especially with respect to you), then what you do is not a result of your agency, but a result of the hyperagency of the other actor. Therefore, even though it may look like rebellion, it isn’t, because there isn’t the agency required for rebellion, and therefore the action that otherwise might look like rebellion isn’t due to the lack of agency, and is instead actually being forced by the hyperagency of the other actor (here, men). Therefore, men are “forcing” women to do this by exercising their hyperagency in a way that “forces” women to do this ***. It all comes down to the agency issue.
—
***Even, ironically, if the “expression of that hyperagency” comes in the form of the perceived abdication of it by the hyperagent, creating a kind of “pseudo-agency” for hypoagent females which is, in this view, nothing different from forcing them to act in a certain way by the specific withdrawal of hyperagent power. That is, following this view of things, hyperagency can also assert itself through its own voluntary withdrawal, and this, per this view, does not result in assigning agency to females as inherent hypoagents, but merely describes the dynamic that led to their actions as being the result of male hyperagency exercised in a different way.
@AR
[1] The Madonna / whore mindset is surely a fundamental premise underlying not only the neo-Victorian White Knights, but also of the conservative feminist “complimentarians”.
Is it really? Correct me if I’m wrong, but at least part of the Madonna/whore dichotomy involves treating a whore like a, well you know what, which is not white-knighting at all. Whereas white knights continue to see such women as potential wife material and/or victims of “bad” men.
Remember that most of the saltiness about this supposed “complex” actually comes from Feminists and White Knights, of which their complaints mostly boil down to yet more whining about normal male heterosexual behavior.
I always thought the complementarians were the good guys, teaching biblical and traditional values for the male/female relationship, etc.
It’s funny their arguments point towards a position of “women have no moral agency”. If you continue down their road of logic, it only makes sense to take away every freedom women were granted over the last 150 yrs (not a bad idea). However, these guys would never go there. They are wannabe patriarchal leaders while white knighting and simping at the same time. Quite contradictory. Thought Piper was a decent guy too…
In my personal life, I’ve noticed through observation of actions and behavior that most “complementarian marriages” are directly run by the women, with an outward showing of the husband being “patriarchal”. The threat point must apply to even them…
@Stryker7200
When I was researching Mark Driscoll I found that Piper was probably the only man who could at times rein Driscoll in. There is a youtube video where someone interviews Piper on Driscoll, and my impression from the video was that he was a stand up man. I found him quite likable.
This is why I don’t get the fathers who go MIA wrt their teenage daughters dating choices. MIA not as in abandonment. Oh no. These dads work hard to financially support their families and everything, they just slink away from getting involved in their teen daughters’ “personal lives”. Meanwhile these girls could be being deceived, and deceiving themselves.
Oh shut up 2084 and GO!
Whilst these idiotic morons fight over who the biggest loser is to protect the right to die for women. I will be promoting women in combat wherever I can.
Screams pussy worshiper, don’t fret it, these idiots will get their turn and it will be gravy when these same nobler women throw them to the fire of war.
Whilst these idiotic morons fight over who the biggest loser is to protect the right to die for women. I will be promoting women in combat wherever I can.
The problem with this argument is that the women in uniform do not bear the cost of this policy choice alone.
Allowing women in the military decreases its effectiveness overall, thus putting other men in uniform at risk, not to mention the lives of innocent people and the very countries they had sworn to defend.
You see, there was this war. I believe it was called World War One or the Great War or the War to end all wars, some such. Well anyway, men were told to fight and die for King and country, so that women would not face the horrors of war. They were told that because some of them, not all mind you, had the right to vote and women did not, they were to take up the responsibility of keeping the country safe.
Well, after this war, what happened? How did they treat these men after they had fought and died. Oh, right, women were granted the vote anyway, they were given all the same powers of men but didn’t get the same responsibilities of men. They didn’t need to make sacrifices like men, well, screw that, screw the vote, screw it all. Put the women straight into the line of fire, in they go, if screaming for the vote was worth it, I hope they enjoy the outcome.
Here’s to you, ladies!
Have you still not got it? They have betrayed you. They have allowed the enemy into the gates. There are no innocent women anymore, they have all exercised their power over men. They have now earned the right to die and be as expendable as men.
The CBMW pretends that women ought not fight for their country, but those darned men just keep forcing these poor heroic just-as-good-as-a-man women to it. So Carter puts women in all combat positions despite countless studies that say it’s a bad idea.
This will not lead to an influx of women, but we men “forced them into it.”
Islamic countries don’t let their women drive or vote, and they count as half a witness in court. In some parts, genital mutilation and rape are a part of established order, and these are seen as the women’s fault.
Yet Western women are going in droves to marry ISIS jihadists, while a severe few will join the U.S. military.
I guess my question is why all the denial if, despite their vocal protests, women are flocking to be put lower than men? And if in both cases our Churchian friends will blame the men, why call them complementarian when we can just all it misandry?
Excellent post.
For me, this posturing came into focus with the rise of Tea Party women; particularly Palin. Despite my own confusions it was always clear to me that a female head was wrong. Yet there were all these fellow (I thought we were fellows, anyway) conservatives saying “At least she has the balls to take on…” What a load of horseshit. What Palin had was tits, hubris, and a shield of official victimization, and a big mouth. But it was the “more balls” comments by men who ended my support for the Tea Party, and my habit of voting for anything. It also ended my monetary support for PJ Media.
Similarly, this is the root from which grows my abhorrence of women in the Men’s Sphere. The men from CBMW are no different from the men who give “red pill” women’s comments positive attention, praise, yards of replies, etc.
Novaseeker
If you have hypoagency, and there is another actor who has hyperagency (especially with respect to you), then what you do is not a result of your agency, but a result of the hyperagency of the other actor.
Time for a remake of Spartacus,
The slave revolt was caused by bad masters who forced their unwilling slaves to revolt, against their better judgement!
Careful readers will follow the links that Dalrock has provided, and note that in every case the writing isn’t at all clear. It’s murky. Even Piper who can write clearly on topics doesn’t write clearly. Now, this could be a sign of obfuscation; when one is trying to hide facts, one writes unclearly about them. But it more likely is a sign of confusion, even cognitive dissonance, on the part of the writers. They aren’t thinking clearly, therefore they cannot write clearly.
Oh shoot, and they may be shot or blown up as well, shucks, such is the life of being expendable.
There seems to be more and more stage setting taking place to allow women an ‘escape clause’ in the eventuality the world (USA) finds itself in another global conflict. Could it be due to an escalation of the sound of war drums beating across the globe?
The droning on for the past 10 years or more about equality in the military will become a neatly packaged turd sandwich for men en masse.
Sign up and fight, or we will deploy the ‘white feather brigade’ upon you men who don’t fight.
It’s a stunning bit of hypocrisy writ large.
At this point, I expect it will take place just as proposed…….women will escape their own demands & drum beating to serve in the military when it’s convenient (i.e. when the risk of injury/death is all too real).
I don’t believe any man truly wishes to place a woman in harms way in military service.
Nor do men wish to be beaten down by 60 years of hypocritical feminism, and largely being told they are ‘assholes’ on a daily basis by this same group of deceived women.
That is the reconciliation that must take place within each man. Whether he serves in the military or not, he will still be considered an ‘asshole’ by the feminist society as we know today.
“feministhater says:
December 7, 2015 at 12:48 pm
You see, there was this war. I believe it was called World War One or the Great War or the War to end all wars, some such. Well anyway, men were told to fight and die for King and country, so that women would not face the horrors of war. They were told that because some of them, not all mind you, had the right to vote and women did not, they were to take up the responsibility of keeping the country safe.
Well, after this war, what happened? How did they treat these men after they had fought and died. Oh, right, women were granted the vote anyway, they were given all the same powers of men but didn’t get the same responsibilities of men. They didn’t need to make sacrifices like men, well, screw that, screw the vote, screw it all. Put the women straight into the line of fire, in they go, if screaming for the vote was worth it, I hope they enjoy the outcome. ”
You get it. Besides, why fight for an empire that projects it’s power all over the globe with 700+ bases in numerous countries? The US at least is NOT fighting any kind of defensive war. Hell it hasn’t done that in many decades. It’s all just offense now anyway. I say let the bitches die for it. They’re the ones with all the power, they can defend it. And not only that the military veterans return and no one gives a shit what they’re going through when they get home. No thanks.
@ Jim
It sounds like Jim has reconciled on the side of keeping his life intact.
That is a rational response to an absurd situation.
And yet, men will still be tarred as assholes.
@ Anonymous Reader
“Careful readers will follow the links that Dalrock has provided, and note that in every case the writing isn’t at all clear. It’s murky. Even Piper who can write clearly on topics doesn’t write clearly. Now, this could be a sign of obfuscation; when one is trying to hide facts, one writes unclearly about them. But it more likely is a sign of confusion, even cognitive dissonance, on the part of the writers. They aren’t thinking clearly, therefore they cannot write clearly.”
It’s not that they’re thinking clearly, I believe, but because they’re trying to be logical and rational while at the same time coming to an irrational and illogical conclusion. Trying to do this and write clearly is somewhat of a challenge. They want to protest the decision to put women on the front lines, but they don’t want to accuse women of trying to be men and that being a soldier isn’t a woman’s role, because they know the moment they do that they will be accused of wanting women to be “barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.” We all know the routine by now.
The problem with their argument, that women reluctantly or even against their own desire join the military because men won’t, is the obvious fact that no one is pushing these women to join. No one is conscripting them, or the men, and men aren’t trying to dodge the draft. The military isn’t woefully understaffed. Men themselves aren’t trying to pressure women to join, either, and fight in their stead.
The only logical and rational conclusion to anyone with intellectual honesty is that the one and only reason women join and fight on the front lines is because they want to be there. So if people have a problem with women fighting on the front lines, they need to take it up with the women.
This, they refuse to do.
Never make people go to war to make up the numbers.It’s both cruel and impractical.A lot of women and men are absolutely terrified of guns and war,why persecute them?By including them
the whole morale of the army is undermined.How many poor sods of english boys were shot at dawn because of shellshock.?If people,men and women want to play at soldiers,then fair enough
but I hope they realise that after a war they will not be lionised,nor will they have their old jobs.
If you don’t want to serve in the military, that’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
But we shouldn’t imperil the lives of the brave men who have chosen to fight for us by allowing women in uniform. That’s not fair.
@ Dalrock
BTW, love the title for this post. You really have to live in a fantasy land to think that women are being yanked out of their homes and forced into front line combat roles because men have abandoned their duty to serve and are pushing the responsibility onto women, and that these women are opposed to joining the military but compelled to because there are no good men left. Anyone who thinks about this issue for a few seconds without an agenda will see through this nonsense. All they need ask is “Are these women being forced to join and fight on the front lines? No? Then why are ‘they’ voluntarily choosing to sign up and fight?”
What’s sad is when you look around and see how many pastors, theologians, and others are living in it, or worse, actually know they’re in it but refuse to leave because of the consequences they know await them once they return to reality.
Dalrock, OT, you may be aware that the 2015 never married data is out but it doesn’t appear to provide the racial breakdowns anymore. Perhaps that will be added later or it won’t but just wanted to let you know and ask you if you know if the racial breakdown is available somewhere else?
http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2015A.html
They don’t want to usurp male roles, cowardly men are forcing them to do it. This is the ultimate rationalization of women’s sin.
This is getting to be the standard response. I can’t find links, but this is verbatim the excuse given why women “had” to take on leadership in churches. Those cowardly, weak men were just derelict in their responsibilities, and the church is too important just to let things go.
And of course women took the initiative to have babies out of wedlock. Why? Cowardly men, and having kids is too important to ignore.
What Palin had was tits, hubris, and a shield of official victimization, and a big mouth.
You forgot to add “a freezer temperature IQ.”
@Han Solo
I saw that. I don’t have another source, but I’m hoping MarcusD or someone else has an idea.
So if people have a problem with women [Insert Feminist Cause Of The Month], they need to take it up with the women.
Fixed it for you. The process of feminist territory-marking has been going on for, what, 40 years so far?
This, they refuse to do.
Exactly, whether out of ignorance or mendaciousness, conservative feminists of all sorts of labels refuse to take anything up with the women. Refer back to Novaseeker’s pithy post on hyperagency vs. hypoagency. It’s one of the modern ironies that the more choices and authority women obtain, the more whining we hear about Teh Patriarchy holding them down, and the more reluctant TradCons of all stripes are to “take it up with the women”.
I went over to that LDS endowment site posted in the other thread and it looks like Mormons have their own taqqiya.
“This one on the left is the mark of the compass. It is placed in the garment over the left breast, suggesting to the mind an undeviating course leading to eternal life; a constant reminder that desires, appetites, and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set; and that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole. ”
All truth may be circumscribed into one great whole? Hmmm. Suspicious. But when you meet them they look like such good, honest, clean cut, trademarked “nice guys”, no?
TradCon/Cuckservative/Churchian behavior can be described as ‘Path of Greatest Pedestalization and Cowardice’.
What they think is a highly courageous position – bash husbands and fathers while groveling to women – is actually the least courageous position to take.
I don’t believe any man truly wishes to place a woman in harms way in military service.
That depends. I would not only have no problem whatsoever with putting a ballbusting, man-hating feminist bitch in harm’s way, but would eagerly enforce laws FORCING her into harm’s way – as would be done under a military draft with any MAN she thinks she’s the equal of.
They want to protest the decision to put women on the front lines, but they don’t want to accuse women of trying to be men and that being a soldier isn’t a woman’s role, because they know the moment they do that they will be accused of wanting women to be “barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.”
Typical TradCon cowardice. The funny thing is that everyone, especially feminists/liberals, knows that this exactly what these guys want to say, but are to timid and spineless to do so. THIS is why the christofeminsts whom they pander to treat them with contempt. If they would follow Donald Trump’s example and say what they believe in while refusing to apologize, they would at least gain grudging respect.
Any person who wants women to serve in the military wants women to be raped.
Sure do. Because equality. Rape and mutilation are what happens to the men who get captured by the goat fuckers we’re fighting. And I want the women to walk point, to be on the flank, and to be first through the door in a stack. And I want them to carry the .50 tripod. And the mortar baseplate. And to not shower for three months at a time. Equality, bitches. This is all because you want to make General, right? So suck it up, Buttercup.
It’s a shame good young men are going to die as a result but sometimes the only way to teach a woman is to give her everything she is demanding, and give it to her good and hard. Yeah, that’s mean. But so is condemning a bunch of other peoples’ sons to death to implement some cockamamie utopian scheme. By the way, mandatory female draft registration *now.* If any of the Republicans had any balls they’d insist on this.
“Casey says:
December 7, 2015 at 1:57 pm
@ Jim
It sounds like Jim has reconciled on the side of keeping his life intact.”
You bet Casey. I’m not throwing my life away for these traitors. Fight to get somebody rich off war? No thanks. Fight to preserve the feminist tyranny we have here? No thanks.
” . . . I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed.”
This is a little bit funny coming from Piper, because even his fans will admit he doesn’t have much of a martial spirit. About a year ago he even gave a podcast where he came out against the idea that good Christians can own guns for the purpose of self-defense on behalf of their families. At one point he trotted out the old line pacifists always misuse about how “those who live by the sword,” and then added that “the mindset that plans to save its life by killing is not inviting the protection of God, but the violence of man.”
You can listen to it here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/god-guns-and-biblical-manhood
It’s obviously a Christian position to say you wouldn’t kill on behalf of God, I certainly wouldn’t doubt that Pastor John concurs with this. And it looks like he also doesn’t want Christians thinking they can kill for the purpose their own safety either–or that of their homes and families. But when a woman’s honor is at stake? Why, then it’s time to grab your rifle and come loaded for the enemy, THUS SAYETH PASTOR JOHN!!
Which just leaves the rest of us to ask: if he’s now shown you what he’s willing to make such a glaring exception for . . . has he also just revealed what it really is that’s the object of his worship?
@Darwinian Arminian, thanks very much for the link to Piper’s “sacrifice the innocents to evil because God says so” article. That’s very interesting. It reminds me of the PC-USA’s stance on firearms (which is a form of supersitious animism IMO). And bonus points for illuminating Piper’s hypocritical position.
You Bible scholars correct me, but at one point Jesus told his followers to carry a sword, and if they didn’t have one, to sell their clothing and buy one. The sword is comparable to a handgun. I doubt Piper would approve of a preacher telling a married man with children, “You have a duty to your family. Carry a pistol. If you don’t have one, sell your suit and tie, and buy a Glock”.
@Darwinian American
Interesting. I wasn’t aware of his extreme position against self defense. Re reading his Coed Combat article, it seems that his focus is on men dying for women, not on actually fighting or killing:
I had noticed this to a degree when I first read it, but it didn’t really stand out because the Complementarians have a fetish for men dying for women.
“As Christian men we have a responsibility to Christian women to try to protect them from temptation of feminist rebellion.”
This sentence threw me. I don’t agree with it as written. I would rewrite it perhaps as “As Christian men, we teach Christian women to resist the temptation of feminist rebellion” and leave it at that.
Neither do I feel responsible for random Christian women and feel the need to protect them for that would be impossible in today’s society. It would be noble if we still have chivalry, but that is dead.
Anyone who thinks it is easy for a man to try to have authority in a teen daughter’s life has never been a man raising a teen daughter.
The system can destroy a man who does so. I only avoided it because my daughters didn’t make up the “right” kind of lies.
Straight up……why exactly would a man fight for this society? Feminists control this society. Well, best be ready to fight……what’s going to happen when men won’t fight? We have no rights, we can be ruined on the word of a woman with no proof. Call us cowardly if you wish……that’s meaningless. Drug our boys, hound our young men, Rob us blind……and you think that we should man up?
That’s where a lot of men are at. Here’s the real problem feminists face……as male alienation grows…….well, they’ll naturally go to the other side. Do you understand what that means?
I was just thinking how effective Islamic propaganda is going to be. Frankly, all they have to do is tell the truth. This reminds me of the problem Stalin faced at the start of ww2. You see, he had shot and exiled so many people…..he had a problem getting people to fight.
Feminists are not worth getting shot for. Men understand the hatred. Feminist propaganda is going to have a real hard time facing the facts. Show trials of some famous feminists?
It is true that “men aren’t hard-wired to follow women into danger.” But that’s misleading. The issue is not that women are leading men into danger. The issue is that they are leading men. Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women, period. They are hard-wired to get in front of their women—between them and the bullets.
Ooooookay … so a confessed complimentarian who almost certainly would crucify any man who actually tried to lead his own wife (i.e., exercise headship as the Bible commands) now says, out of the opposite corner of his schizophrenic mouth, that women shouldn’t be leading men, yet men should be willing to die for people whom they are not fit to lead (that being “abuse”)?
The cognative dissonance gives me a migraine …
@ feeriker
Congratulations, you are now back at the centre of the shrubbery maze where you began.
It isn’t supposed to make any sense. It certainly does not make any sense.
What it (feminism) is supposed to do is to make sure that each and every situation results in a woman coming out on top.
That’s why there is cognitive dissonance.
There is no play book or rule book being followed.
Just the ambling, fungible feelings of the women collective telling society what it is they feel they want today.
Congratulations, you are now back at the centre of the shrubbery maze where you began.
It isn’t supposed to make any sense. It certainly does not make any sense.
Oh, don’t misunderstand; I certainly wasn’t expecting logic, or even anything resembling a coherent argument. It’s that this particular instance of acerebral defecation struck me as being so obviously nonsensical that I found it difficult to believe that a guy who appears to have a reputation for writing otherwise fairly respectable commentary could publicly write such obvious drivel without being concerned for his professional integrity or reputation. Does pussy worship really render a “man of the cloth” THAT stupid?
I know, I know … I should definitely know better. Sometimes, though, it just seems that even modernist madness HAS to have some kind of upper limit.
This reminds me of the problem Stalin faced at the start of ww2. You see, he had shot and exiled so many people…..he had a problem getting people to fight.
Worse than that, he had a problem of people (particularly Ukrainians and Tartars) actively and eagerly joining or supporting the invading German enemy. Of course when you starve people to death and then exile them to places where they might as well be walking dead, their surviving relatives tend to sorta hate your guts and will look rather favorably upon your enemies.
As you’ve mentioned before, one wonders how many beta/gamma/delta men shat upon and ignored by women and their mangina enablers among the ruling classes are going to say “hmmmmm, maybe this Wahhabi Islam thing isn’t so bad after all.”
History shows that invading armies use local executioners. It seems that they hate their victims more. That’s where the alienated men will end up……..working in the killing fields.
There’s not a feminist reading this that understands what that means. Islam means to kill most wrsterners. Plain fact.
“To avoid confronting the very open feminist rebellion, the CBMW pretends that men are insisting that women be forced into combat in their place. No one else believes this, and I have to believe that deep down even the complementarians themselves know this is a farce.”
The level of absurdity we’ve reached with things like “open” acceptance of homosexual marriage and women in the military (especially combat roles) makes me wonder what it was like under the old USSR; how many people believed Pravada and how many saw it for what it was? What is especially insidious here is that Americans are not used to propaganda (state promulgated or other) and are thus more susceptible to it.
“One of the harsh realities we face is that American society is filled with men who are anti-woman cowards.” #manshaming
What is sad is that Katie Petronio’s column was even necessary. People (that is those who honestly believe the DOD and politicians wouldn’t push this from the top down) would never listen to a man saying similar things. It is evidence of the FI being ingrained into so many.
“Any person who wants women to serve in the military wants women to be raped.
Because that is what will happen should a female soldier be captured in battle.”
Even if that were to happen, the DOD still wouldn’t let that from keeping its train rolling.
“@ Dalrock
BTW, love the title for this post. You really have to live in a fantasy land to think that women are being yanked out of their homes and forced into front line combat roles because men have abandoned their duty to serve and are pushing the responsibility onto women, and that these women are opposed to joining the military but compelled to because there are no good men left. Anyone who thinks about this issue for a few seconds without an agenda will see through this nonsense. All they need ask is “Are these women being forced to join and fight on the front lines? No? Then why are ‘they’ voluntarily choosing to sign up and fight?”
What’s sad is when you look around and see how many pastors, theologians, and others are living in it, or worse, actually know they’re in it but refuse to leave because of the consequences they know await them once they return to reality.”
This!
“I was just thinking how effective Islamic propaganda is going to be. Frankly, all they have to do is tell the truth. This reminds me of the problem Stalin faced at the start of ww2. You see, he had shot and exiled so many people…..he had a problem getting people to fight.”
Their propaganda is horrid. Stalin’s problem was that he killed off damn near all of his officer corps that was competent.
The latest hero in the Star Wars saga is a heroine. A kick-ass, first-rate fighter pilot who’s also a woman: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-ca-hc-the-women-of-star-wars-the-force-awakens-20151206-htmlstory.html
John Piper is solid in a lot of ways and has traditionally been one of my favorites. I think his blue pill delusions are genuinely matrix related, and not like some of the other CBMW stuff, which is so ludicrous as to boggle the mind. However, Piper is a driving force behind CBMW. His successor at Bethlehem Baptist, Jason Meyer, gave that horrible sermon on abuse you already took apart, Dalrock. Piper did try to rein in Driscoll a little bit, but I think it’s fair to say that he and others in the Calvinist world were also enablers of him. Piper also has some questionable things to say in the original main CBMW book.
He strikes me as a guy you could unplug if you could walk him through it. I recently shared just a couple things with my blue pill pastor, and he definitely acknowledged the feminist slant when I pointed it out. I hope to be able to unplug him completely.
Meh. “Star Wars” was a comic book movie, never meant to be a franchise. $tar War$ is just another part of Dizney, Inc. They can run that franchise right into the ground for all I care. In fact, it probably would be a good thing if they did.
On the “God & Guns” stuff, it’s the same mental gymnastics as with feminist rebellion within the Church. (Leave the historic Anabaptists aside for this.) What they want to do, because they simply have never *done the work* to be in control of themselves, is to remove entire Books of the Bible that get in the way. It’s the “Free Rider” principle brought into the church.
One of the important problems our modern societies have is that the cultural Free Riders took over the media and have spent the last 100ish years trumpeting the “virtues” of abusing the the hard work of a lot of honest Men built. Now everyone wants the “easy” life you see in Ad-Land. Only works if you’re a trust-fund baby, of which there is very few. (Much in the same way the Princess Myth is pushed.) So it really shouldn’t surprise us that this magical thinking has invaded most of theology. How’d God put it?
Genesis 3:19 ESV:
“By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”
It’s a culture of laziness in the specifically important areas. But taking responsibility for your actions is always anathema to the World. Why would we expect worldly Christians to be any different?
The latest hero in the Star Wars saga is a heroine. A kick-ass, first-rate fighter pilot who’s also a woman
Lemme guess: The newest incarnation of Han Solo (or whatever they’re naming the Ueber-Alpha male character in this latest franchise), who otherwise “don’t take no shit from nobody, especially not no woman,” is going to turn into a simpering, supplicating, self-castrating mangina in order to win this bull dyke’s love. It wouldn’t be an effective grllllllllllllpower message otherwise.
What will the cowards in the pulpits pay their salaries with when the only people who still attend their services are single moms and childless cat ladies, all of which will be broke?
The common thread of CBMW’s commentators seems to me to be that old feminist trick: “Men suck. So Women have to man up”. That they are Christian is not surprising, as Christians always get suckered into being compliant betas. It’s probably because they were the wimpy kids in high school, desperate for girl’s attention. And because they never interracted with women on a sexual level before marriage, remain blind to women’s true nature.
Fantasy land exists because , as was covered in this blog many times, the Army and the marines know full well that integrating women with men slows down the unit, interferes with morale and causes chaos in the line of command. If the Israeli Army, the most outnumbered in the world, tried and failed, then Western armed forces won’t do it.
The trouble is, it shadows what the real complimentarian principle. World Wars 1 & 2 for example were won because the Allies could out-produce the Central Powers / Axis. Men fought on the front. Women farmed, had children as replacement labor, helped soldiers convalesce and worked in factories far away and safe from front-line harm.
A question: Why is it that feminists are so worried about rape in every conceivable situation in Western contemporary society, yet push women to the front lines in combat zones where this obvious form of degradation would be most likely to occur under the worst circumstances? Have they thought this through? I don’t believe they have.
Or, more disturbingly, they have and deem their poorer sisters who are placed in harms way a suitable sacrifice in this regard to validate the feminist deity.
I want to thank you guys for all the stuff you’ve posted on this blog. As someone who has been a failure in the Christian dating scene, I’ve recognized a lot of my failures as well as the revelation that there was also a lot of things that weren’t my fault.
Previous to finding the mgtow movement, I was following the advice of my late grandmother who told me to be a gentleman, a hard worker and have direction and I would find a woman to marry and she’d be blessed to have me. While that advice may have been good for the depression era, it isn’t for our culture today. Women want jerks generally speaking, and if I have to compromise who I am and what I believe to find a wife, I’d much rather remain single. What’s sad, and not saying I’m some great catch, is that I would have been a pretty good husband. Maybe I’m being naive, but I really believe that.
I said all that so I could encourage you guys to keep up the great work. I teach Bible at a private Christian school, and my discovery of mgtow coincided with a study over divorce/marriage/singleness in Matt. 19 and 1 Cor. 7. Now I’m teaching young boys the truth about being a man in today’s culture. You’re making an impact on people who then make an impact on others. Without out bitterness or regret I say thank you and God bless!
@Average White Male
>What’s sad, and not saying I’m some great catch, is that I would have been a pretty good husband. Maybe I’m being naive, but I really believe that.
Obviously we can have a tendency to minimize our own faults and maximize our strengths. Nevertheless, you are not alone; I also thought I would be a good husband.
But, appears it will not happen. And now that I can confidently say that I am not a worthless piece of garbage, it definitely will not happen with a typical Canadian “Christian” girl. Either she accepts the commands of Scripture and genuinely tries to live it out, or Josh 24:14-15 apply to her. And yes, as we are all sinners, the application of God’s commands will not be perfect (1 John 1:8-10). I should be able to see regular obedience however (Rom 10:9-13, John 14:21-24).
Do not lose heart; we can serve God whether married or unmarried; in fact we can serve better if unmarried (1 Cor 7, as you probably already know).
God bless.
What will the cowards in the pulpits pay their salaries with when the only people who still attend their services are single moms and childless cat ladies, all of which will be broke?
They’ll probably find some way to convince those single/divorced mommies to slut it up with some thirsty beta schlubs in order to sucker them into coming to church and tossing moolah into the collection plates. It’s not like they’re real churches or anything …
I was following the advice of my late grandmother who told me to be a gentleman, a hard worker and have direction and I would find a woman to marry and she’d be blessed to have me.
Time-tested Ironclad Rule Number One for a Man: Never, never, EVER follow dating/relationship advice from a woman, any woman, even –especially– if she’s your own flesh and blood.
Did anyone notice that most of the problems of society can be laid squarely at the feet of a Church which has been derelict in its duties? The Church, being the “ground and pillar of the truth”, sets the moral tone in all societies. And, to date, no nation ever went the way of Sodom or transformed to the villages of Gomorrah without the tacit approval of the Church. “As the Church goes”, a wise man once said, “So goes the world”.
To correct America’s ungodliness and debauchery, we must bring the Church back to God.
OT a bit:
The most famous latino alpha male Pope Francis just launched a sneak harpoon attack against the very innermost black heart of feminist ideology:
“In a surprise move, he announced in September that for the duration of the Jubilee, priests would be given special dispensation to absolve women who have had abortions.”
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-open-holy-door-catholic-jubilee-022831398.html
Translated from VaticaneseDiplomatesque to PlainNoNonsenseEnglish:
Fallen women of the Catholiclands! Vatican is not your enemy. Come out of your lonely sad hamster forts, surrender to us, admit your feminist war crimes against your own unborn children and accept our general amnesty. Oh yes, and, by the way, feel free to abort your old ideology and denounce your stubborn unrepentant feminazi officerpersons and politcommissarettes, which will, to their bitter end, hysterically screech on fakebook and twatter that “abortionisnotasinitiseverywomansholyright!”. Bless you, my dear daughters.
I actually find myself agreeing with the first part of Piper’s statement … until he launches into gratuitous and utterly unfounded bashing of men, while asserting that women are so much better than men in countless ways. As I’ve said before, I believe that it is both natural and Biblical for men to assume the protecting role. To me, that suggests (as Piper reasonably begins) that it is unnatural for a man to allow his daughter to go into battle to protect him. Of course, no one wants to lose a son either, but sending sons into battle has been the way of things from the beginning of time. And in the past, protection by males was at least rewarded with female gratitude. But then Piper seems to feel it’s necessary to urinate on fellow men. If he thinks he’s reinforcing his message, he couldn’t be more wrong.
Women in jeopardy of death in a combat situation women will do what women have always done when the barbarians are climbing over the walls: sleep with the enemy. Its insane to think that women who are biologically very different from men will march into a dicey combat situation and not have their natural instincts take over if and when the battle shifts. History is replete with women bravely spreading their legs rather than suffering death at the hands of an enemy and I see no reason why that wouldn’t be the rule here. Men who are cowards exist and are shamed for it but the bulk majority of women would never fight to the last woman for anything least of all some order given by a man 1000 miles away from the fighting. Women are valuable that is why men fight over them but women themselves are not warriors and no matter how many She-ra cartoons you make it doesn’t change the biological facts on the ground.
Dave,
Yes and no. The Church has not spoken out in many areas like it should have, especially those in a society where we supposedly have the right to do so. We share blame for that.
But blaming society’s decline on the Church is just as wrong as blaming bad decisions by women on men. Both women and society have a share in their own pursuit of wickedness. We need to acknowledge that responsibility as well, especially since the only solution is for people to change their ways, not for the Church to magically be perfect.
Average White Male @ 10:16 pm:
“Women want jerks generally speaking, and if I have to compromise who I am and what I believe to find a wife, I’d much rather remain single.”
That’s where I find myself, too. I’d be happy to run Game at playtime but an aggressively dominant, rebellious IDGAF playboy is just not who I am.
…
“To correct America’s ungodliness and debauchery, we must bring the Church back to God.”
It is God’s fault the Church collapsed, not ours. A parish here and denomination there, that’s us, but not when the entire religion goes down. Until God sees fit to restore it, what we’re doing now is fine.
The strength of Christianity is that it’s true, not that it’s strong and organized.
…
Spike @ December 7, 2015 at 10:06 pm:
“A question: Why is it that feminists are so worried about rape in every conceivable situation in Western contemporary society, yet push women to the front lines in combat zones where this obvious form of degradation would be most likely to occur under the worst circumstances? Have they thought this through? I don’t believe they have.”
Women have thought it through to the point they’re sure they won’t take the blame for being rape-raped. More than that doesn’t seem to be a priority for the “fairer” sex. So, women force their way into military male space expecting all the time that men will protect her (or take the blame for her) because pedestal. Heads I win, tails you lose, until reality intervenes and everybody loses… including Omar the Jihadist when the gonorrhea starts to burn. Made in America, baby!
I suspect that risking rape-rape is exciting to some women. Thrill-seekers like to play Icarus.
Isaiah 3:12 – O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths.
“Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark”
Why are Jason and Sarah alone and unsupervised after dark?
Oh equality! Yep, just think…….what’s going to happen to the women when their position is overrun? Kurdish women know. Gang raped, tortured, and beheaded. All on video. You see, if you let yourself get captured, that’s what happens. So, the big question……do you think a modern feminist will kill herself to avoid such humiliation?
There’s no rules of engagement for Islam. They aren’t merciful. Here’s what’s certain to happen……female soldiers who have been captured……Go Pro HD video……..Barbaric torture……anyone say contrary? Yeah……the Kurdish women speak frankly about what happens. This ain’t imaginary…….not at all.
I suspect that risking rape-rape is exciting to some women. Thrill-seekers like to play Icarus.
Every “4” stateside becomes an “8” downrange. They love that.
Remo, that sounds great! However, just suppose the captured women are destined to be stars of their very own video? Remember, wars are fought in the minds in the weakest civilians back home. So, seeing women get beheaded slowly is surely going to be great propaganda, right?
Advice given was to work hard, act towards others in a gentlemanly manner and have a direction in life. I’d say it’s pretty good.
Out of successfully married men, how many can say thay did the opposite – being lazy, directionless bastards ?
Or would this advice be better if grandpa reiterated it ?
As a man who served with women in the Army/National Guard, women don’t belong in the military. I’ve never served in combat, was never activated for duty overseas but was activated several times for disaster relief efforts. I’m just a regular guy who has accomplished nothing special, but I can say without shame or remorse to the most accomplished women in uniform, to their faces they are more trouble than they are worth.
Advice given was to work hard, act towards others in a gentlemanly manner and have a direction in life. I’d say it’s pretty good.
I personally know men who followed this advice, and their wives frivorced them. Do you regard frivorce as a success?
Out of successfully married men, how many can say thay did the opposite – being lazy, directionless bastards ?
No idea, but cute attempt at reframing. Out of frivorced men, how many can say they did exactly what your grandmother advised and still wound up living in a crummy apartment, seeing their children 4 days a month, paying child support, and contemplating suicide?
You might want to search this site using the keyword “divorce” and see what Dalrock has written over the last 5 – 6 years on the topic. Also look for the postings on “interviewing a potential wife”.
The advice you tout was out of date 20 years ago, as my frivorced friends can testify, and time hasn’t improved it one bit. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Oh, and Harcerz, did she also advise you to “Just Be Yourself”, too?
Pingback: Get fire back in your belly, man of God [Rev 1] | Dark Brightness
“A question: Why is it that feminists are so worried about rape in every conceivable situation in Western contemporary society, yet push women to the front lines in combat zones where this obvious form of degradation would be most likely to occur under the worst circumstances?”
They don’t give a damn about actual instances of sexual assault. I have yet to hear a word from Feminists about the rape of adult film actress Cytherea. Rape is simply a rallying cry to them.
I personally know men who followed this advice, and their wives frivorced them. Do you regard frivorce as a success?
Why would I consider frivorce a success ? Why would anyone ?
When I said successfully married, I meant something like few children, already married, maybe few grandchildren. Wife being held under husband’s arm during all of their children’s marriage ceremonies, in church of their denomination.
Since you don’t really know what will happen next year no matter what your wife says right now, I think you can only say that you were successfully married after a long life. Or how Scott put it recently – “It seems to me, you can’t really know if you loved the person, if you were committed to them–until one of you is dead.”
You say this advice doesn’t guarantee frivorce-free marriage – I agree – but who said it does ?
Certainly not me. With 50% divorce rates, noone can guarantee lifelong marriage, and young men have to tread with unprecedented caution. Maybe even decide that marriage in the current divorce culture is not for them. That’s ok.
I just can’t imagine someone looking back at their successfully married life, and reflecting that it took no hard work(I mean a job, not “work on marriage BS”), no gentlemanly behavior and no conscious direction-setting.
If someone wants to spend their life among big family they were leading, I still think advice given is a good start.
Cane Caldo said, “For me, this posturing came into focus with the rise of Tea Party women; particularly Palin. Despite my own confusions it was always clear to me that a female head was wrong. Yet there were all these fellow (I thought we were fellows, anyway) conservatives saying “At least she has the balls to take on…” What a load of horseshit. What Palin had was tits, hubris, and a shield of official victimization, and a big mouth. But it was the “more balls” comments by men who ended my support for the Tea Party, and my habit of voting for anything. It also ended my monetary support for PJ Media.”
My sentiments exactly and I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels this way. I’m no longer a Conservative because I see the U.S. Constitution (for all of it’s good intention) for the Godless farce that it is, written mostly by Godless men who adorned themselves with the trappings of the Christian faith while denying it’s supernatural power. I refuse to identify with Republicans anymore because I see myself being more loyal to God’s agenda than the agenda of those who claim to speak for God and wrap themselves in the American flag when they sin. I never once identified with the Democrats because their hatred for all things Godly, beautiful and good. I am NOT a Libertarian because these fools strive in vain for a peaceful, prosperous, protected, strong, inspiring country under the Rule-of-Law without the Creator of Heaven and Earth that can make such a thing possible. I refuse to vote because I don’t believe for a moment the sociopaths who TRULY rule over us would allow the people to choose their leaders and I wouldn’t trust these savages anyway if they did.
What political group should I belong to? I don’t care because God has me exactly where I need to be. Let the world burn and cry out to God.
Come soon, Lord Jesus.
Time-tested Ironclad Rule Number One for a Man: Never, never, EVER follow dating/relationship advice from a woman, any woman, even –especially– if she’s your own flesh and blood.
+10000000000000
My wife and daughter started doling out advice to my son while I was in the other room. I ran in and told them nicely to cease and desist. Told my son to never take advice about women from women.
You could have heard a pin drop. My daughter kept quiet. My wife started her violin. I just held up my hand.
Of course all of this was done with amused mastery, so we all had a laugh, but when I told this to my son with the eye contact I gave he understood. This was only about a week ago, so it just rang true.
He understands that he can’t just be himself either.
I just can’t imagine someone looking back at their successfully married life, and reflecting that it took no hard work(I mean a job, not “work on marriage BS”), no gentlemanly behavior and no conscious direction-setting.
You seem to be saying that not only is it necessary to work hard, be a gentleman and have direction, but also that this is sufficient to do so, that all a man need do is these three things and he will have a successful marriage. It is not so, as the divorce rate shows. There are many discussions on this site on the topic, I suggest you read some of them.
Because you come across as both arrogant and ignorant. Perhaps English is not your first language?
Did anyone notice that most of the problems of society can be laid squarely at the feet of a Church which has been derelict in its duties?
I have made that assertion quite often. My thesis is that the Church has been caught up in idolatry, and thus is forsaking many of its responsibilities.
Oh, and Harcerz, did she also advise you to “Just Be Yourself”, too?
Harcerz is clearly either a woman or a heavily feminized man, so further engagement with said individual on this point is probably pointless.
My wife and daughter started doling out advice to my son while I was in the other room. I ran in and told them nicely to cease and desist. Told my son to never take advice about women from women.
You could have heard a pin drop. My daughter kept quiet. My wife started her violin. I just held up my hand.
Well played, Jeff! Hopefully your son took your advice to heart. Next time I see him face to face, I’m going to have to give this same advice to my grandson (who just turned 13 and, tragically, is being raised in a household consisting of his single mother and grandmother) very soon.
Average White Male said: “I was following the advice of my late grandmother who told me to be a gentleman, a hard worker and have direction and I would find a woman to marry and she’d be blessed to have me. While that advice may have been good for the depression era, it isn’t for our culture today. Women want jerks generally speaking …”
Tell me again what is wrong with what AWM wrote??? Seems to me he is agreeing with the warning to not take relationship advice from women. However, it does seem to me that grandma was speaking wisdom – perhaps born of experience? “… she’d be blessed to have me.” is a true statement that stands on its own. “She would be blessed to have such a man, for they are the bedrock of civilization. But grandma doesnt appear to be claiming that any woman would actually recognize that she would be blessed to have such a man.
Grandma’s advice that “I would find a woman to marry” is not so much wrong as it is irrelevant. Almost any man can find a woman to marry (ignoring the issue of the man’s personal standards for now). What is relevant, and is something that grandma did not address (perhaps because she did not know the answer?) is, once married, what is required from the man in order to keep the woman?
Since the divorce rate still hovers around 50%, it seems that no one has yet found the answer to that question – including the folks who post on these sites. To stay true to the scientific method, one would have to die married in order to be able to claim that a particular approach worked. But, then, perhaps it would be true that the identified approach only worked for that woman. Or do we think there is one solution that will work for all women? How can we possibly ever know the answer without performing double-blind tests?
Since answers are so elusive, I guess we could just go back to stoning to death the adulterous woman. The man still loses his wife, but at least she doesn’t take the children and 50% of the assets with her.
@ RichardP: I’m not claiming her advice was perfect, but I always interpreted that if I got busy with making my own life, women would recognize my character and would respect it. This is the antithesis of what I’ve been taught by men and women in the church. They always taught pursue, pursue, pursue. While I believe a man should initiate, the idea of having to constantly win a woman over again and again is exhausting. More importantly to me, however, is there no biblical evidence to support this. They usually trot out Jacob, but I don’t see that as a good example. Jacob worked 14 years for Rachel and she caused him nothing but trouble.
Anyways, now that I’ve rejected this notion of perusing a wife and my main function as a man is to make her happy and reproduce, I’m more at peace than I’ve ever been. I had no idea how much anxiety it was causing me.
RichardP @ 4:47 pm:
“However, it does seem to me that grandma was speaking wisdom – perhaps born of experience?”
In his grandmother’s time, casual divorce was not possible. The welfare state was not a comfortable way of life. Society had standards for women and sluts were treated harshly. When a girl’s first husband would probably be her last, she naturally chose a hard-working, pleasant man for her one-and-done. Today, she see the same man as an airbag to cushion her landing after the football team chucks her aging ass… or uses gov’t welfare as a safety net for lusting after dangerously abusive men.
I’ve met several grandmotherly women who thought I was a wonderful catch. Unfortunately, I’ll rob the cradle but not the grave.
The obvious solution is for women to stop monkey-swinging through men the way a man might sleep with every slut in the city while trusting antibiotics and condoms to keep him safe. But that requires self-discipline… that or proper legislation.
Oh man, I can relate to the grandma thing Gunner Q. I’ve had similar encounters but they always resort to blaming me, usually subtly. One lady even asked her husband if I was “weird”, which I took as code for gay. They think I have the pick of the litter and for some reason that can only be my fault, I’m not picking. I’ve gone on dates with women in the 35-40 range and its just brutal. One girl had a dog she took with her everywhere. The amount of affection she gave that animal can only be described as creepy.
One lady even asked her husband if I was “weird”, which I took as code for gay. They think I have the pick of the litter and for some reason that can only be my fault, I’m not picking. I’ve gone on dates with women in the 35-40 range and its just brutal. One girl had a dog she took with her everywhere. The amount of affection she gave that animal can only be described as creepy.
I think most older women (“older” = 75-plus) mean well, but they JUST DON’T GET IT when it comes to today’s MMP/SMP. Any why should they get it? They’re not part of it and never will be (most won’t be, anyway), and thus don’t feel any motivation to understand it. In other words, they’re permanently stuck in circa 1957. Their advice is based on what the MMP/SMP was in their own generation’s youth and what they think today’s MMP/SMP SHOULD BE – not what it really is.
Average White Male- Congrats. Your Grandmother told you the truth…. sort of. She recognized that you are not AF but BB. So all you had to do was wait for an OTW 35 year old used up slut that needed to “settle down”.
Win win.
Average White Male: I’ve gone on dates with women in the 35-40 range and its just brutal. One girl had a dog she took with her everywhere. The amount of affection she gave that animal can only be described as creepy.
I can relate. One woman showed up to our date with her “emotional support dog,” which she carried in her purse. When we entered a restaurant, she showed the doctor’s certificate to the waitress to prove that she had a legal right to take her dog into a restaurant.
The woman didn’t seem crazy. I think it was a bogus certificate, which many doctors sign for whoever asks. The woman was likely a selfish narcissist, who felt entitled to break the rules to have her own way. If not, than she really must have been crazy, to require an “emotional support dog” with her at all times.
Either way, even before the date really began, I’d already resolved never to see her again. She was pretty and polite otherwise, but that “emotional support dog” killed it for me.
Another woman I went out with, once, spent half the time staring into her smart phone. She was checking her email and texts and whatever else all throughout our date.
Another woman I went out with, once, spent half the time staring into her smart phone. She was checking her email and texts and whatever else all throughout our date.
This seems to be rather common in the 25 – 35 age group, it’s down right habitual for many. As someone’s spent way too much time online in the 21st century, I can understand how that happens, but frankly it would seem to me to be a “future time orientation” red flag. A woman who can’t resist scratching the validation itch (text, social media, etc.) for half an hour may have difficulties in other areas of self control as well. I mean, on a “date” we are putting forth our best behavior, at least in theory.
So far as I can tell, many women under 25 basically live on their phones, even if they aren’t Tinderellas. Earlier today a 20-something college aged woman stepped right in front of my moving car in a parking lot, her eyes glued to the screen of her phone and both ears stuffed with earbuds. I have good reflexes…so she didn’t need to. This time.
@manlyman: I have a great job, can do what I want when I want, and by the grace of God, made good life decisions. If that’s BB, I’ll take it. Plus, now I can always get a free psychological exam from a Dr. Phil wannabe apparently.
This is the goal. All action taken by men here should be for this to be the path to loyal pussy. This has to be done with out the requirement for women to be more than the feral sluts they are now. Believe it or not ole grannie 75 plus was the same piece of shit as cash out frivorce and collect CS on the cuckold love child. The society was such that her wicked selfishness led her to simulate respect for the honest working man. Strong civil society and not a virtuous cunt in sight.
It is staring us right in the face
A strong culture with solid law behind it guides wickedness of the cunt. Grannies looks like a wonderful woman, good enough and the best it will get.
ManlyMan’s comment is what it looks like in todays feminized society. We just have changes to make. Even if you think taking up arms and destroying the government we have now is the way the goal must be to make the honest working man the most desirable and respected man in the society at all levels. Tie a woman’s social status to how she is respectful of such men and your civilization will thrive.
Red Pill Latecomer says:
December 8, 2015 at 7:30 pm
“Either way, even before the date really began, I’d already resolved never to see her again. She was pretty and polite otherwise, but that “emotional support dog” killed it for me.”
Once you had made that determination, why did you not go ahead and end the date then? Dawdling on implementing that just wasted your time and perhaps money.
Greyghost! Back in the times of the Bible, God had a custom of smiting folks with various interesting circumstances…….sieges, famine, drought, even the odd wild animal attack. With that in mind……it seems to me that the only real hope is a real thinning of the herd. Say, the food runs out in a large city……the feminists actually believed the agit-prop against prepping……and roving gangs are exercising their manhood against any woman caught in the open. Now, you and I know that feminism is a mental illness……..just how many would have to literally starve before they repent?
Is a christian man required to help a wicked feminist? If so, how much help should he give? Like the Chinese, should I ask her behind which ear? You know, for the mercy shot? Think about the first siege of Jerusalem. Those poor dears had to choose between slow starvation and disease……ot to go out to the maltreating sword, as it was called. Point is, most all of the women were killed, except those taken off into slavery. Seems like those women were described as we would feminists today……hmmmm……
So, the argument can be made about feminist mental illness and destruction. As for Granny….well, as you say, the only reason she acted right was fear of punishment. I appreciate your reference to “simulated respect”. Feral females can’t be trusted or reformed. Young men today are crap out of luck, imo. Seems like 2nd Timothy said something about these days. Having no natural affection.
Here we are, facing the destruction of this society. Those who have read and studied the Word of God aren’t really afraid.
Once you had made that determination, why did you not go ahead and end the date then? Dawdling on implementing that just wasted your time and perhaps money.
beta male. These guys honor commitments. Going through with the date is how the beta male rolls.
Now, you and I know that feminism is a mental illness……..just how many would have to literally starve before they repent?
People don’t repent of an illness; they get cured of it if possible. Feminism is a one-way ticket to the land of the Undead. For the well baked feminist, reality is an aberration which must be twisted and explained away to fit their warped worldview.
Even sterling education is no antidote to the poison of feminism when it grips the mind and the soul of the affected. Case in point: a man with a wife and children is drafted to war, and lost his life on the battlefield. Everyone with a vestige of grey mater between their ears knows who is more adversely affected. But according to this Yale educated feminist lawyer, who also happens to have the titles of First Lady of the United States, the Senator from New York, and the Secretary of State, the man who lost his life is not as adversely affected as the wife and kids who still breath free. You see, in feminist theory, the life of a man is not worth the inconvenience of a widow with kids.
If mad people repented of their madness, Psychiatrists would be starving.
Once you had made that determination, why did you not go ahead and end the date then? Dawdling on implementing that just wasted your time and perhaps money.
Things don’t always work out that way in real life. It’s like going for an interview. Even when the interviewer knew as you walked in the door that you won’t get the job, courtesy still demands that they interview you and offer you tea or coffee. With cream and sugar, should you desire them. It’s only one treat. They are bigger than that.
If you are already on the date, why not make the best of it, and get more data to reinforce your initial impressions, or expect to be pleasantly surprised by a sudden turn of events?
“The latest hero in the Star Wars saga is a heroine. A kick-ass, first-rate fighter pilot who’s also a woman”
I’ll skip it. I don’t watch sermons from the PC pulpit. I haven’t paid money for it in many years.
It never hurts to be polite. Yeah, it’s just going to be the only date, you figure. The reason why you need to be polite is for your own self respect. You see, events are inter connected. So, if the poor thing is so invested in that dog, or she’s addicted to her iPhone, this too shall pass. Be polite. I’m not saying to be a wimp…..not at all. I’m MGTOW to the bone, but as far as I can control things, I’m polite.
I believe that what you say comes back to you. I will say this……I’m very careful about who I socialize with. I do business with literally all sorts of folks, so, bread on the waters.
I was polite to my ex, no matter what. Thing was, she didn’t understand passive aggression. So, while I was polite, I slowly moved her out of my life. I never retaliated in a way that she could understand at the time. But my long term goal was a quieter existence, by myself.
So, Gents……..I believe in some sort of karma. Just think……stuck with a dog……and that’s the best she can do. I’ve always admired the Dale Carnegie system. The point is, obliquely phrase your refusal, always misdirecting their attention. That way, she’s not cursing you to other people. I’ve even acted a little brain damaged…..to escape.
So, as Dave suggests, make the best of the situation. You see, we are all inter connected, as I said earlier. As for dealing with a true feminist, which I’ve had to do professionally, I’m always polite. I’m a real big guy, so I’ve had to learn to act softly. No sense scaring a client, is there? Fact is, in the type of work that I do, women refer me. I’m punctual, competent……and polite. And, if a client is going to be problematic, I’ll always go sideways passive aggressive…….and recommend a competitor who may have specialized equipment.
Just a few thoughts on why we should be polite. And some of the benefits. True, sometimes folks just don’t seem to be worth it…….but remember, it’s your self respect.
You really have to live in a fantasy land to think that women are being yanked out of their homes and forced into front line combat roles because men have abandoned their duty to serve and are pushing the responsibility onto women, and that these women are opposed to joining the military but compelled to because there are no good men left. Anyone who thinks about this issue for a few seconds without an agenda will see through this nonsense
It is even worse. Women have evolved to detect very early which side is winning, and sell out to switch sides well in advance.
The vast pro-Muslim actions of Western governments are because women want them. Once you realize that women get gina tingles from Islam, and women are the majority of voters, everything makes sense.
The cuckservative beta males think ‘women will have to fight’. Ha! They will have switched sides long before it comes to that, and they switched sides precisely BECAUSE cuckservatives are revolting betas in the eyes (and ginas) of women.
There is no common thread among Tradcon/cuckservative ideology other than pedestalization of women and misandry. That is all they are…
“The cuckservative beta males think ‘women will have to fight’. Ha! They will have switched sides long before it comes to that, and they switched sides precisely BECAUSE cuckservatives are revolting betas in the eyes (and ginas) of women” Anon, December 8, 2015 at 11:11 pm
Women are converting to Islam in the western world at a rate of 3 women for every man who converts.
These women fall into 2 groups. The first is the working class naive girl out of school who apparently gets bedazzled by the adventure of Islam. Whereas previously she would have met a working class man, married and started a family, she no longer sees this man as marriage material.The second is the educated, world-weary jaded career girl (called a carousel-rider here) who sees that there is something more to the empty materialism Western values offer her.
Neither group contains a subset of women who formerly belonged to an established church with sound doctrine. Both are swayed by unrestricted hypergamy and are looking for the next big thing.
Spike,
Women are converting to Islam in the western world at a rate of 3 women for every man who converts.
Of course. This is no surprise to anyone who grasps how women think, either as individuals or as a collective voting block.
1) Women vote for more gina tingles. Islam treats women in a manner that generates gina tingles.
2) The cuckservative grovelers and androgynous manginas that comprise most Western ‘men’ ARE, in fact, the reason women convert to Islam. Would a man stay in an organization full of obese, tattooed, blue-haired fem-trolls, in favor on another organization with attractive women? Women interpret cuckservative churchian males vs. violent Muslims the same way. The minor detail of female gina tingles being from where they also may suffer physical harm is relatively unimportant detail.
3) Remember that even the women who don’t convert to Islam certainly favor a media/government strategy that favors Islam against the West. Again, “It is the gina-tingles, stupid”, seems to be the dominant ideology of Western Democracies.
Body advertising affect women and men.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=990381
Question about marital problems
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=990522
A Divorced Catholic Mother in Church Tells of Being Alone
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=990405
Holy crap!
Check out the first 3 minutes of this video clip from Chris Rock’s divorce :
They were married for 19 years so he is getting reamed. 19 years = married in 1996 or thereabouts. He had a pre-nup, but the pre-nup had a clause that made it expire. Note how the woman getting custody but the may paying (with no say) is portrayed as normal.
Now, note what Chris Rock says in 1996 about alimony, divorce theft, and pre-nups.
Talk about propehtic, and how despite him knowing everything going in, could not avoid divorce theft.
Luke: Once you had made that determination, why did you not go ahead and end the date then? Dawdling on implementing that just wasted your time and perhaps money.
Mostly to be polite. I didn’t want to seem rude or intolerant, or risk a scene by walking out then and there. Whether I leave a job or a woman or any situation, I try not to leave behind reasons for complaint.
Women talk, especially on social media. Why offend her by walking out, then have her write an internet article (as women are wont to do) about “the dog-hating prick” she’d just been on a date with.
This is related to the recurring tripe I hear from fathers all over the place, including this blog. “Oh, let someone try to draft my daughter and I’ll kill him!” But no mention of what you’ll do if your son is drafted, aye?
These same fathers tend to be the ones that will pay for self-defense lessons for their daughters, but not their sons, when their sons are more likely to be assaulted, more likely to be injured in an assault, and more likely to be expected to come to the defense of another (including the father’ expectation).
These are also the men that raise their daughters to go to college and not get married until their late thirties, when having one child is far from assured, let alone the two or more the daughter says she wants, and the father agrees she should have.
Obviously, nothing can be wrong with his little princess. It’s all those BOYS that are to blame. “I know how boys think.” Says Lt. Michael Simmons (from Fireproof), ever after his daughter immediately went out and found “another saggy pants boy”.
Honestly, one of the things I consider disqualifying for a politician these days is that he has daughters but not sons. It’s a pretty good indicator that he’ll throw every other man on the planet under the buss for the collective privileges of women, while blaming men for the unhappy path the women chose.
@Anon
In Eastern Europe edumacated women’s geopolitical gina-tinglery is more multipolar.
1/3 tingles for “antihomophobic” Obama
1/3 tingles for “anticapitalist” Putin
1/3 tingles for “antiislamophobic” Erdogan
So much potential foreign sugar daddies, so little time 😉
It is even worse. Women have evolved to detect very early which side is winning, and sell out to switch sides well in advance.
I will have to disagree with this. Modern women are anything but evolved, much less thoughtful and discerning. Our mothers and grandmas were far more evolved than the modern day woman who cannot be relied upon to make decisions that will affect her in the coming week, talk less of throughout her lifetime.
It all goes back to consequences for one’s actions. The west has all but removed for women the consequences which naturally follow each decision they make. When a person knows that they must bear the consequences of their actions, they tend to be more restrained and more thoughtful before they make those decisions. That is why even the savviest investor would not rush to sell his stocks just because of a temporary downturn, and why the poorest drunkard would carefully choose between another bottle of beer or a packet of cigarettes.
But for the western woman, the consequences have been removed, and that is primarily why they could spawn kids out of wedlock, engage in debauchery with abandon, accuse a spouse/boyfriend of rape and abuse, or go join ISIS without thinking it through, knowing that “if it doesn’t work out I can always come back home”.
These are not the actions of an evolved species, but of a feminism-infected empty soul.
Why offend her by walking out, then have her write an internet article (as women are wont to do) about “the dog-hating prick” she’d just been on a date with.
My response to this would be “to show the narcissistic little bitch that 1) basic etiquette still matters to at least a few men out there, 2) she is NOT the center of the universe, 3) there are consequences for anti-social behavior even if the culture has led her to believe otherwise, and 4) men of value WILL NOT be disrespected.
So she’ll vomit all over her Fembook page her displeasure over your walking out on her and call you every nasty name in the dictionary. So what? Do you really care about what a self-centered little girlchild has to say about you? Letting your actions be dictated by what a woman thinks of you, especially an antisocial one obviously not fit for intersexual relationships, is Gamma behavior.
This is where it’s at. Women were always women and will always fall back on what they feel is their best interest regardless of what reality and God has to say. All of this talk about older women teaching young women about being virtuous is just pedistalizing bullshit from a pussyworshipper. Sluts are suppose to suffer. baby mommas are not going to live as well as wives with children, she is not going to pass the fitness test to be a fireman, the bad boy penis she is sucking is going to fuck her best friend that is what consequences are for. And rather than white knight and mangina the pain away these consequences should be celebrated. Well if career bitch with the 120k year income finds out her played out stink hole can’t make a baby at 41 that is not retarded so what that is how the stink hole ages honey. have this nice Pomeranian they are rally cute.
So if Christian men want churchian sluts to be Christian pussy the best way is to make sure to see consequences for churchian behavior. As soon as the government stops bailing out sluts the sluts in true wicked fashion take on good behavior not out of goodness but out of being women period. No virtue required.
feeriker
The path you take and the path taken by the beta that honors his date commitment are both valid. Though your take will be more effective in changing the culture from the garbage we have now.
Did you see this on Vox’s blog? This brings to zero all the bs the CMBW folks trying to defend women in combat. Enjoy:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-sergeant-major-speaks.html
All of this talk about older women teaching young women about being virtuous is just pedistalizing bullshit from a pussyworshipper.
Alas, yes, that’s very true in today’s society. As I’ve often said here, the “Titus 2 woman” is an anachronism, a fossil, a throwback to eras past when society imposed negative sanctions on women’s anti-social and ungodly behavior. Since such sanctions have not existed for over 50 years, simple arithmetic tells us that today’s “older woman” came of age at a time when second-wave feminism was in its ascendancy, which itself coincided with abandonment of the social norms that enforced negative sanctions against feral female behavior. Thus today’s “older woman” was among the first generation of second-wave feminists. You’d have to find a time machine and travel back at least six decades to find Titus 2 women in even marginally measurable numbers. Today they’re found almost exclusively in isolated relgious communities that have insulated themselves from the culture. Otherwise, “older women” are simply passing rebellion down to the younger generation (and yes, that not only includes, but is especially prevalent among “Christian” women).
I can relate. One woman showed up to our date with her “emotional support dog,” which she carried in her purse. When we entered a restaurant, she showed the doctor’s certificate to the waitress to prove that she had a legal right to take her dog into a restaurant.
I’d have turned around and left her right there, without a word.
Things don’t always work out that way in real life. It’s like going for an interview. Even when the interviewer knew as you walked in the door that you won’t get the job, courtesy still demands that they interview you and offer you tea or coffee. With cream and sugar, should you desire them. It’s only one treat. They are bigger than that.
If you are already on the date, why not make the best of it, and get more data to reinforce your initial impressions, or expect to be pleasantly surprised by a sudden turn of events?
Your mistake was going to a restaurant for a ‘first date.’ She hadn’t earned that level of financial investment from you (yet…you of course were going to provide her a free meal). First dates should be a quick coffee or bagel/whatever during the day, to see if she’s worth pursuing without the dinner-meal price tag.
Make your ‘interview’ as inexpensive as possible. If she’s just there for a free meal, you’ll know in about 3 minutes.
…Women may be more courageous than men in any given situation. They may have nobler vision. They may be smarter.
The church still will not challenge the feminist idea that that women are morally superior to men, even though they may not be physically superior.
@ Anon and every other man reading this,
Watch Anon’s video about Chris Rock’s divorce. If you watch carefully, there is murmuring and gasps from the audience when it was made known that Chris protected himself with a prenup, but when it became known the prenup expired due to a clause, the parasites sighed in relief and applauded.
“One woman showed up to our date with her “emotional support dog,” which she carried in her purse.”
In her purse?! I don’t think even Paris Hilton did that.
Quite right! Make it even worse, ask her to prepare a picnic for the local park or beach. Watch her reaction.
Regular Guy,
Watch Anon’s video about Chris Rock’s divorce. If you watch carefully, there is murmuring and gasps from the audience when it was made known that Chris protected himself with a prenup, but when it became known the prenup expired due to a clause, the parasites sighed in relief and applauded.
Indeed. Even more shocking was that in his 1996 clip, he described exactly how this plays out, and protected himself with the very pre-nup that he advised others to get. Yet, it did not save him, and his wife is playing the same “I am accustomed to a certain standard of living…” card….
Lots of inanity on this thread. CBMW is only concerned with male headship in marriage and the church. They have to allow for androgyny everywhere else, as Piper, Burke, et al. admit that there are no biblical texts (and by biblical, they mean New Testament) regarding male-female roles in public life. Not to mention that God – who would never send delicate flowers into war – had no qualms about commanding male soldiers to slaughter women and children in other contexts (1 Samuel 15:3, and my screen name).
I can relate. One woman showed up to our date with her “emotional support dog,” which she carried in her purse. When we entered a restaurant, she showed the doctor’s certificate to the waitress to prove that she had a legal right to take her dog into a restaurant.
I’d have turned around and left her right there, without a word.
You could have caused so much emotional distress for this obviously fragile woman and be liable before the feminazi court.
@Anon
Funny, my initial thoughts on the “women converting to Islam” meme was exactly opposite; that this was yet another example of ex-sluts, single moms, and post-wall women chasing beta bucks, NOT ‘gina tingles, thus continuing the trend towards feminization of all major religions we’re already witnessing.
Western women already have plenty of options to fill the masculinity vacuum—recall Deti’s infamous alpha archetypes—that I’d imagine radical Islam is essentially a non-factor. Off-hand I can’t think of ANY examples of young, attractive Western women going for the radical Muslim archetype. Whereas examples of Deti’s archetypes are so obvious (and hilarious) that no one seriously questions the truth behind them.
Perhaps this is more of a European phenomenon, as it does not fit my experience at all. Or maybe we’ll have to append Deti’s list at some point to include the Muslim archetype equivalent.
Re: the female-male conversion gap, I doubt this is unique to Islam. PMAFT’s post on the feminization of all major religions immediately comes to mind. We’re already witnessing an exodus of single men from most religions, while membership among single women post-carousel continues to rise.
This leads me to conclude that when women convert to a new religion, it’s probably for the beta bucks. Whereas when women “convert” to a criminal organization, it’s probably for the gangbang.
If women are going to take the easy stateside/shorebased/support/desk jobs that used to go to men in return for all their deployed time, women need to go do the dirty work too. I like that, though. Equality, equality. Except hand all the easy jobs to women, promote them above their talent and service and contribution and grind the men into endless deployment without the reward of a desk/shore-based job for a breather between deployments. When I entered Naval Air in 1976 you did 4 or 5 years in a Fleet Squadron aboard a carrier, then you reenlisted for a tour of three or four or five ashore, usually as an instructor. By the time I got to re-up time in 1981, they had fully integrated women into the all shore-based easy-duty billets and my only choice was reenlistment for another four years with a Fleet squadron.
Piper and Carter and Burke can kiss my ass. What are THEY chirping about? Women don’t do the hard work in the military. Have any of those pussies even served? Have they seen the failures of lady-commanders? Are they aware of failure of 80% of enlisted women to even finish a tour uninjured and not 100% service disabled for life? Do they understand the free ride the grand majority of women get in the military? Of course they don’t. These guys are getting all biblically outraged and they have absolutely no idea whatsoever what they’re talking about. Even since 9/11, when women CAN go to sea aboard warships, most refuse (what will happen to my children, I can’t go to sea!”), yet they occupy stateside jobs in squadrons and aboard ships pier side. If a man misses a ship’s movement he goes to the Brig and is court marshaled. Not the ladies of Naval Air and on ships.
In the end, in any scenario, the Navy is forced to cannibalize 3 Air Wings’ squadrons and 3 stateside carrier groups ships’ and all their escorts’ crews for sufficient MANpower to get even one carrier deployed these days. And the men get no shore side jobs even for a year out of a six-year enlistment anymore. Same for the Army and Marines and Air Force. Women in the military was about a jobs program for single women and their bastard children and with only men fighting the wars and performing the difficult work of deployment. War fighting has nothing to do with women in the U.S. Armed Forces, so Piper and Carter and Burke and anyone else with biblical concerns about the poor ladies and infantile single mothers in the military needn’t worry. It is a gravy train for women in the military. There is no equality, everything is slanted and bent to the benefit of the women and to the detriment of the men. The biblically outraged should learn something before they spout off.
The biblically outraged should learn something before they spout off.
When it comes to things military, American churchians take the cake for being blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid all at the same time. It’s amazing how ignorant they are of something that they so idolatrously worship.
Jim, they are just the usual men who like to talk big but when shit really hits the fan, they’re off somewhere under a bed.
Real men know that war is shit hard and not something to look forward to, they also realise that to get men to sacrifice for something greater than themselves means you actually have to show them respect and not shame them. These arseholes wouldn’t know that. They literally say that women are better than men and that men literally only exist as cannon fodder to make sure women are not put in harm’s way. And then they wonder why men are leaving in droves, not getting married and not putting the effort in to become marriageable men… it’s hilarious.
Let buttercup suck it up.
Jim Christian
I did one carrier deployment as a marine. (that is another way the navy fits out a CAG use a marine squadron) Them things kick your ass. Everybody lost weight no matter how much you eat. Also you are always seconds or steps from death at all times. The next few years are going to be interesting to watch.
They may have nobler vision. They may be smarter.
I’ll have to put my money on “not” – and as soon as they see a snake, or spider they will run screaming.. Yeah… You’re seeing a nation slowly committing suicide. America.. RIP….
Women excel at certain things – combat, and manly roles aren’t it… Get a grip on realities ladies… Of course the first sign of a liberal is their complete inability to recognize reality from fantasy.. Which is they they think the wimpy coward in the White House isn’t the laughing stock of the entire world.
I’m an honorably discharged veteran with a perfect record who’s never been arrested in my entire life and I would NEVER join the military today. The thought of being bossed around by feminists and homosexuals for the purpose of protecting and expanding abortion, feminism, homosexuality, and every form of immorality in the world is simply more than I can bear. And if a draft notice comes in the mail, you’d best believe I’m on the first plane out to the French Foreign Legion for my new identity and, after one tour, my new life as a merc fighting for just causes all over the globe. The immoral left can fight their own wars because all they’ll get from me is a busy signal with a gone fishing sign on the door. Affix bayonetes ladies. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Hear, hear! I love the smell of fried feminist in the morning!
So basically men are to be bound by their historical responsibilities (but without the historical benefits) and women are to have complete freedom of action with no responsibilities. As Sidney Greenstreet’s character said in The Maltese Falcon: “That’s hardly equitable, sir. No, I don’t think we can do business along those lines.”
“What political group should I belong to? I don’t care because God has me exactly where I need to be. Let the world burn and cry out to God. Come soon, Lord Jesus.”
That sounds good! When the world gets desperate enough they will cry out to God. The ones with enough sense for humility anyway. They’ll ask for Jeshua and he will help some of them as that’s his way.
One of the strangest revelations in Scripture is that even the King doesn’t know when he’s returning — not exactly. Father keeps the hour from him, probably as a sort of seal. Certainly we are not told for our protection.
Before Christ returns, God will require a certain amount of demand from the world for his chosen Son, including from Jews. We can pray to both King Jeshua and to Father, both good ideas — thank Father for the gift of his Son, and ask for the parousia. Father harks to his own and there is an organic and active aspect to Christ’s return.
“Indeed. Even more shocking was that in his 1996 clip, he described exactly how this plays out, and protected himself with the very pre-nup that he advised others to get. Yet, it did not save him, and his wife is playing the same “I am accustomed to a certain standard of living…” card….”
The answer is completely separate bank accounts, And Greer was right. Women shouldn’t be given a choice because most will choose to leech in the name of “stay at home mom”. Everyone should pay for their keep.
Dear MV, don’t eat out of garbage cans and don’t get your news about the Christian Church from Yahoo News.
What you quoted from Yahoo News was just plain wrong. You were misled and now you are misleading others.
Pop Quiz from that Catholic book, the Bible:
Who first received the keys to the kingdom?
What kingdom is that?
From whom did he receive those keys?
How many times was he instructed to forgive his brother?
Would Jesus do less?
Who is the successor in the office of the person given the keys to the kingdom today?
@Micha,
Here is the quotation used by MV on December 8, 2015 at 6:36 am:
Here is the relevant quotation as found in Pope Francis’s Year of Mercy letter (I presume you will accept http://www.catholicherald.co.uk as an acceptable source of news regarding the Roman Catholic church)
Ignoring MV’s “translation” (which I suspect is partially responsible for your comment), how was the quote from Yahoo News “just plain wrong”? As far as I can see, it is a reasonably accurate restatement of what the Pope wrote, although it does not specifically mention the necessity of contrition to receive absolution.
Here’s another gem (not) from Piper on why we shouldn’t arm ourselves:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves
Here’s a pretty good response:
http://americanvision.org/12837/a-biblical-response-to-john-pipers-denial-of-the-right-to-bear-arms/
Pingback: Unhinged | Dalrock
“extrabiblical figure Judith”
She’s only “extrabiblical” in redacted books that claim to be bibles.
@Micha Elyi
By the way, I, not MV, am the party guilty of the “sin of omission” by not quoting the entire paragraph from the Pope’s letter. I gave the hyperlink if anyone happens to want to read it.
As to your continued denigration of Yahoo News, I find a Google search for “special dispensation to absolve women who have had abortions” shows hundreds of results, primarily news sources. Perhaps the original source for this phrase was Yahoo News, but perhaps it was the Associated Press or some other organization. Are you certain Yahoo News was the original source? If not, then please stop denouncing it specifically. By the way, I have no vested interest in Yahoo News or any other news source. I object to you implying that a given news source is inaccurate because it doesn’t fit your personal viewpoint.
If it wasn’t expected that the Pope was going to grant this authority to all priests worldwide, then, by definition, it was a surprise, and the news reports describing it as such are accurate.
It seems that not all priests in the US and Canada have had this authority. The article you referenced says “most priests already have such authority” and it is “almost universally granted in North America”. Nonetheless, even if most priests have already had the authority, how many priests have not had the authority until now?
It’s also worth noting that this is not a permanent concession, but it is only “for the Jubilee Year”.
I think you have a tendency to pop in to this forum and contemptuously respond to comments negative to the Roman Catholic church. When you do so, you uncharitably demonstrate your own pre-existing, close-minded narrative.
Anti-gun pacifist John Piper requires a **Seven Fold Answer** to the question of whether a man should shoot his wife’s assailant. I hope Mrs. Piper has some good fighting skills: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves
Pingback: Weak men screwing Star Wars feminism up. | Dalrock
Pingback: Star Wars and the Crisis of Masculinity Kylo… | Honor Dads
Pingback: Is “The Force Awakens” too feminist? | Dalrock
Pingback: How do wives petition or win their husbands | Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: The Daily Mail sees the irony. | Dalrock
Pingback: Don’t fear marriage and fatherhood, but beware those who are working to destroy your family. | Dalrock
Pingback: Supplicating to rebellion | Dalrock
Pingback: Thoughts of a cultural warrior
Pingback: She wanted to run with the bulls. | Dalrock
Pingback: Cowering in front of women. | Dalrock
Pingback: Collective delusion | Dalrock
Pingback: The cult of women’s self esteem. | Dalrock
Pingback: Piper’s debilitating fear of saying “no” to women. | Dalrock
Pingback: Honor Dads
Pingback: Doing the job no American man would do. | Dalrock
Pingback: It isn’t insincerity, but fear losing women’s approval. | Dalrock
Pingback: The fear of confonting sexual sin by women. | Dalrock
Pingback: The ultimate affront to cartoonish chivalry. | Dalrock
Pingback: Don’t tell women no. | Dalrock
Pingback: Where have all the good chimps gone? | Dalrock
Pingback: Fragile femininity and our masculinity crisis. | Dalrock
Pingback: Why won’t the cisgendered serve? | Dalrock
Pingback: It is far worse than he suspects. | Dalrock
Pingback: What happens when society “puts the pussy on a pedestal”. – Adam Piggott
Great article, I believe as Men of God, we need to be confident, builders of society, protectors, guides, strong, and responsible. While also having the qualities of compassion, attentiveness, youthfulness, understanding, and refinement. Peace be to you!
-Reupac
reupac.wordpress.com
Pingback: Step up, so they don’t have to (part 1). | Dalrock
Pingback: Their husbands forced them to do it. | Dalrock
Pingback: Will more sex save Spain? | Dalrock
Pingback: Submission with a twist, and denying rebellion. | Dalrock
Pingback: Maritime Supremacy | Dalrock
Pingback: Why the blind spot matters. | Dalrock
Pingback: A tough spot for conservatives. | Dalrock
Pingback: A tough spot for conservatives. - Top
Pingback: It must be exhausting. | Dalrock
Pingback: Cross dressing snuck up in our blind spot. | Dalrock
Pingback: Tackling the patriarchy, holding the door open for trannies. | Dalrock
Pingback: The coward’s way out. | Dalrock
Pingback: Mad Dog Chandler on Toxic Masculinity. | Dalrock
Pingback: The day chivalry killed chivalry. | Dalrock
Pingback: Won’t someone call out the weight lifters? | Dalrock
Pingback: Women’s self-esteem: boosted to their self-destruction - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Male responsibility and female agency. | Dalrock
Pingback: Into the manosphere - Warhorn Media
Pingback: Complementarianism on women in the military. | Dalrock