Just before Naghmeh Sabedini reiterated her charges of abuse against her persecuted husband, Christian Today published: Why evangelicals pray for persecuted pastors rather than battered women.*
Ed Cyzewski explains that God only hates divorce when it doesn’t come with cash and prizes:
It won’t serve us well to simply drop the teachings of Jesus on divorce into today’s context. At the time of Jesus, women had few rights, and Jewish men were permitted to divorce their wives for the slightest infraction, simply stating in public that they are now divorced. Women were then left destitute with few options to support themselves.
Where would these women live? How would they earn money? How would they arrange to have another marriage?
These concerns, that are quite foreign to us, were at the forefront of Jesus’ teaching (see Matthew 19:1-9). When he limited divorce to marital unfaithfulness, he was intending to primarily limit the men, not the women. Jesus didn’t provide a timeless template. He was providing a culturally recognisable protection for women. The clear implications of Jesus’ teaching on marriage in his context are that the safety and well-being of women is a top priority because a divorced woman in his day was highly vulnerable.
See Also:
*H/T David Wiley
Pingback: Why didn’t He think of that? | Neoreactive
“When he limited divorce to marital unfaithfulness, he was intending to primarily limit the men, not the women.”
Sure. Which is why Jesus said the following in Mark 10.
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
He also says “At the time of Jesus, women had few rights, and Jewish men were permitted to divorce their wives for the slightest infraction, simply stating in public that they are now divorced. Women were then left destitute with few options to support themselves.”
The roles are completely flipped. It is the exact situation men are in today. So if what Jesus said then was meant to primarily control men’s behavior, then the commandment applies more to women today than to men.
Pingback: Why didn’t He think of that? | Manosphere.com
OK, that’s it: “Christianity” Today needs to adopt a new moniker or be sued for fraud/false advertising.
I wonder why they don’t allow comments on their articles?
LOL
“Jesus didn’t provide a timeless template.”
There it is. They finally said it.
Ignores the context around “putting away” which is often mistranslated as “divorce” in modern translations.
Putting away wasn’t legal divorce (as they wouldn’t receive a writ of divorce)… hence, the wives that were put away wouldn’t receive the writ of divorce NOR the dowry back from the husband NOR would they be able to remarry because they would still be lawfully married to their husband.
God condemned this 400+ years before Jesus in Malachi 2:
This is the same thing that Jesus talks about in the NT in Matt 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16. He’s talking about treacherously “putting away” and not reasons for divorce.
Also, there is the false assumption that [legally] divorced women were highly vulnerable. Women had no problem getting men even in Jesus’ time. See: John 4 Samaritan woman at the well… had 5 husbands and was living with a man.
Historically, the studies indicate that at least 80% of women pass on their genes whereas only 40% of men do. Women have always been a relatively protected existence even when they were so-called oppressed.
Mr Cyzewski seems to give the impression that Jesus lived sometime in the 1950s … “few rights … few options to support themselves” – but hey it is 2015 now and we know better that what women want is an empowered career (and the good-looking jerk boys to go with it). It is also (should you know it) exactly the same sort of thing George Bernard Shaw says about women in his preface to Mrs Warren’s Profession – set and written in 1896 – and that being almost withing living memory is verifiable nonsense, so I suspect that Mr Cyzewski is also making it up. My reading of Josephus – who of course says no more about ‘women’s rights’ or their possibilities of supporting themselves than do The Gospels or Paul always gives me the impression that being a man in 1st century Jerusalem was tough enough, if the body count was anything to go by – and that was even before Vespasian and his Legions arrived to really increase the carnage. Stuck on the rock at Masala one can feel quite sure some woman was complaining about her lack of rights and male oppression.
“The clear implications of Jesus’ teaching on marriage in his context are that the safety and well-being of women is a top priority because a divorced woman in his day was highly vulnerable.”
Then why when Jesus condemned divorce initiated by men did he forbid other men from marrying the divorced woman? Wouldn’t that leave her vulnerable?
@ Gunner Q
“There it is. They finally said it.”
Apparently it’s a living, breathing document, too. Can’t wait for modern-day ephors to decide what other parts of it mean…at least for this precise moment in history.
“The clear implications of Jesus’ teaching on marriage in his context are that the safety and well-being of women is a top priority because a divorced woman in his day was highly vulnerable.”
The clear implications were that divorce was a last option, and that sex creates and/or fractures a spiritual bond in God’s eyes, which is why He has serious issues with sexual immorality. And the Gospel isn’t a timeless template? Seriously?
I guess now would be a good time to mention that I just got Todd Friel’s new book in the mail; it deals with the heresies and sometimes outright stupidity we’ve seen in the Church over the past few decades.
The only thing that is foreign to us today is that women have carte blanche to marry and divorce without social condemnation and man are forbidden to divorce under any circumstances.
I’m sure Ed can provide a patristic-based argument on how the Church Fathers believed that Christ’s teachings on the matter were transient and a detailed explanation of how they somehow became embedded in all Western societies through the Church anyways despite the very clear and obvious notion that Christ was speaking with regards to a specific time and place. It’s not as if he had just described marriage in celestial terms as a symbolic union of Christ and the Church. [snort]
Seems like the modern church is about as faithful to her bridegroom as the modern woman is.
May I draw the attention of those here to what Leo Tolstoy had to say about the matter: Tolstoy read Greek and so his interpretation comes form the original source (in so far as we have it). He writes about this in The Kingdom of God is Within and the book can be accessed on-line; the relevant passage is from pages 178 to 183. I always liked what Tolstoy said though I must confess I have always found it hard to follow fully, at least I would not wish to be tested as to his interpretation, but he seems to say that the words in Matthew 5 have to be corrupt, he explains why and what the correct wording must be.
Jesus didn’t provide a timeless template
I guess that is why He went back to how it was in the beginning, with Adam and Eve. Sounds like a permanent principle to me.
Hilarious, really. Well, at least the mask has come off.
I’m sure he realizes that the argument he makes is equally applicable to much of the rest of the strictures of the NT, since times have so radically changed materially and culturally, supposedly, in the past 2000 years.
Sex outside marriage? Well, that was obviously only a concern where a woman and child could be left destitute, and so it doesn’t really apply in our society where they will be cared for.
Abortion? Well, this was a concern because of an agrarian society which had high infant mortality rates and a need for a large labor supply — that doesn’t apply any longer, so we need not be so wooden in “dropping into the present” these old views about abortion.
And so on. It swallows everything up. Everything.
Has CT been taken over by leftie mainstream protestants?
I am not as brave as these folks, to summarily make the clear teaching of Jesus “of none effect” to themselves nd their hearers. The moment someone arrogates to themselves the power to select which one of Jesus’ teachings is relevant today, they have gone to the dark side.
Lol, keeping spreading the news!
This is marvelous, I love it when they come out and say exactly what they mean. Marriage, as it stands today, is a fraud, a scam, a con. Don’t be fooled. They will provide cover for women no matter what the cost. Do so at your own risk.
God never changes (Mal. 3:6). If they are so biblically illiterate that they have forgotten both the Trinity and the eternally unchanging nature of God, then they should stop pretending to have the knowledge of God.
I would expect this out of Rob Bell, not this.
NB, that link is from Christian Today, not Christianity Today. Dalrock gets it right, above. I don’t know who’s behind what or where the respective money streams come from or whether they cross, but they are clearly different websites.
A woman divorcing a man lost her dowry, am I correct?
http://www.returnofkings.com/74708/why-we-should-reinstitute-the-dowry
The entire article is framed as though this women is a victim of physical abuse. Overwhelmingly, it appears that she found the porn loophole and is now in search of a new beta provider.
I mean, just look at how selfish this women is. From the original article:
“Saeed has missed so many birthdays, anniversaries, and special occasions.”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/november-web-only/pastor-saeed-abedini-wife-naghmeh-halts-public-advocacy.html
It must truly be horrible for your husband to have missed your anniversary while he is rotting in a prison. How about – “I feel horrible that he is being tormented in a third world dungeon”. No doubt after his wife’s public betrayal, he will reasonably be angry over their skype sessions, which she will call as more verbal abuse.
I guarantee you this women will have a new white knight, beta provider within 6 months. There is no clearer example of the evangelical’s deranged understanding of abuse than this case right here. Physically and sexually abused thousands of miles away. Imagine the kind of horrifying abuse that could occur when a husband is within 100 feet of his wife!
And, just as a side-note – One of the reasons we continually read articles describing the correct (perverted) view of Complementarianism is because the majority of these authors earn peanuts as writers or work crappy, make-work, non-profit, or other low income careers. The only thing they know is not being able to adequately support a family and hence their public rationalizations for the state of their relationships. They’re all egalitarian Bitc# boyz simply because they have no hope of ever measuring up.
As for author’s conclusion – Does this man not realize that women are now doing better economically than men. Does this man not realize that men do not receive a comparable amount of alimony or division of assets when the breadwinner role is switched. If anything, there is support, based on Jesus’ qualification, that women no longer need to receive alimony along with a claim on the man’s continued labor, which constantly holds the threat of imprisonment over his head.
Wow. This guy is head-past-the-sphincter oblivious to the rebellion and feral female behavior. Not to mention reality in general.
Guys, guys, guys … we were in charge and now women are in charge. Sheesh, even Jesus their universal Husband knows that.
“When he limited divorce to marital unfaithfulness, he was intending to primarily limit the men, not the women”
Classic “Stand Operational Bullshit”.
The writer has no #$% clue what Jesus intended, but that won’t stop this wimp writer. The author now views himself as having divine clarity to interpret scriptures beyond what was plainly written.
“Jesus didn’t provide a timeless template.”
All that means is that feminist enablers will edit and re-write until it suits them for a particular pre-determined situation.
I’m sick just reading that B.S.
Oh, and by the way………..they will change it after that too if it benefits men in any way at all.
Any situation that a man could benefit from must be undone, and simping to women put in its place.
A slick lie is readily accepted, while the cold-hard truth is repelled.
For the above reason, there will be NO concessions made by women on the tyranny they wield at men.
This little 100 year experiment with ‘feminism’ will end very badly, with women very much being on the wrong side of history in the final analysis.
Any country adopting feminism as its organizing force experiences a below-replacement value drop in birth rates.
Given enough time, our collective (feminist) cultures will be overrun by those who are having the most offspring.
Sometimes it amazes me how ready and eager they are to twist the scripture and Jesus (and God’s) words to serve their own purposes.
Most of the time, though, I’m not amazed at all. It was predicted all of this would happen and their behaviour resembles their father, the devil, when he was testing Jesus in the desert and trying to twist the scripture to his benefit.
IOW, this worthless little parasite is just another vagina (idol) worshiping PC bot. Got it.
I have argued something similar to this in order to justify divorce as an option for men with sexually denying wives and it is true women in the 1st Century had few rights.
Is this idiot aware this is 20 centuries later and now it is MEN that have few rights in marriage? By his own reasoning, God must have directed His teachings at the wommminz since they are now the ones throwing their spouse onto the street on a whim.
Do writers like this really think this behavior is attractive or that it will get them laid? Why else would they fawn and bow down to this level? He is literally doing logical back flips to argue that women should be able to divorce for any reason while men should never be able to divorce at all because of what happened in the 1st century.
Pingback: On divorce Part 3 | Christianity and the manosphere
“It won’t serve us well to simply drop the teachings of Jesus on
divorceanything into today’s context.”I think Supertrendysmartcoolseekerfriendlyapostatetheologianguy really meant the above. I mean, no one actually believes the bible is the inerrant word of God, do they?
Title: Why evangelicals pray for persecuted pastors rather than battered women.
Implied: “We’re going to show you why you need to care more about the fraudulent victim-status of 1st world women than the precious few Godly men winning souls for the Kingdom of God.”
@ Novaseeker
The abortion hypocrisy occurred to me as well.
No wonder they don’t allow comments on that site—the writers would be thoroughly and regularly shredded.
“When he limited divorce to marital unfaithfulness, he was intending to primarily limit the men, not the women.” – A man could divorce a woman for unfaithfulness. A woman could not get a divorce at all for any reason. The idea that a woman would divorce a man is not even on the Bible’s radar. Find one verse of a righteaous woman getting a divorce or where it is advocated for a woman in any way. There are none.
Do writers like this really think this behavior is attractive or that it will get them laid?
Yes. Next Question.
A mangina’s brain is unreachable..
Pingback: Why didn’t He think of that? | Reaction Times
How far gone must mainstream Christian media be when the articles read like they’ve been written by a staffer for Hillary Clinton?
“Women have always been the primary victims of the Lord’s mission work. Women lose their mealticket, their utility and their ability to nag their husbands for their unhappiness.”
@Anon
Writers don’t want to get laid. They want their 30 pieces of silver from their female readership.
Caspar Reyes @ 1:43 pm:
“NB, that link is from Christian Today, not Christianity Today.”
Odd. If they aren’t affiliated then that’s a similar enough name for a slam-dunk civil suit, like starting a newspaper called the New York Time.
…
Damn Crackers @ 1:56 pm:
“A woman divorcing a man lost her dowry, am I correct?”
She lost it at marriage as I understand the practice. The dowry is compensation for the risks and costs the groom takes in marrying a woman. Her nuking him is ex post facto justification for his demanding a dowry in the first place.
Being forced to return a dowry because divorce happened would be like your insurance company sending you a bill for your own claim.
It has been that way since at least the 1980s. No new takeover, same drivel, just more edgy as the left has gained more and more ground in their efforts.
@ Damn Cracker & Gunner Q
I believe the dowry was used for 2 reasons:
1. To ease the burden placed on men by the wife.
2. The financial incentive for bride’s father to thoroughly vet both the groom and the bride’s marriageability to deter an “easy-come-easy-go” attitude toward marital unions. Anyone marrying a man’s daughter after she was divorced by her husband would demand a dowry as well. Allowing poorly raised daughters or Alpha-cads to marry could be very expensive for bride’s father.
It starts 1000 ways, but always ends “Jesus didn’t really mean it when he said…”
OT:
Someone in some previous thread (I accidentaly closed the tab) asked why european women so readily accept muslim refujihadis and gimmegrants into their countries. Sitting here right between Turkey and Germany I can see 3 reasons:
a) AF: European bachelorettes have been flying to holiday resorts in Egypt and Tunisia for years for sex-tourism with young handsome sex-starved muslim beach studs. It seemed like a good idea to save travel costs and invite their pet-boys closer to home.
b) BB: Germany has the lowest native fertility rates and fastest aging population of all developed nations. To keep the pension checks coming to retired german feminist professors, they had to find a way to replace the missing young productive generation, which was aborted and contracepted away in the last 50 years.
c) MATERNAL INSTINCT: It appears that female maternal instict is not evolutionally designed to satisfy itself with 1,2 child (and 0,6 grandchild 30 years later). So there was a gigantic ticking time-bomb of frustrated residual maternal instinct in the very heart of Europe. When media ran the picture of that drowned refugee boy on the turkish beach… BOOOM!
A man could divorce a woman for unfaithfulness. A woman could not get a divorce at all for any reason. The idea that a woman would divorce a man is not even on the Bible’s radar. Find one verse of a righteaous woman getting a divorce or where it is advocated for a woman in any way. There are none.
And that’s even more of a motivator for these apostates to pervert the Word. HOW DARE the Old Testament profits, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul trample the FI that way!!!!
“She has revealed that he subjected her to abuse.”
The guy who wrote the article does a (not really) clever yellow journalism move. Instead of flatly and ONLY saying “she has alleged”, he poses it at one point as she “revealed” it, removing any indication it’s merely an allegation of one free party, against another (who cannot defend himself), and also the use of “reveal” implies the obvious, “it’s always been there, she’s just finally brave enough to say it.”
And when guys like this “Ed” guy get accused, down the road, they will be “totally baffled” like porn boy. That’s why I feel NO SYMPATHY for White Knights (like the Princeton punching bag that let that gal scream profanity at him). Guys like this stabbed men in the back their entire lives. And somehow are baffled when they become the target.
NB, that link is from Christian Today, not Christianity Today. Dalrock gets it right, above. I don’t know who’s behind what or where the respective money streams come from or whether they cross, but they are clearly different websites.
Given the confusing similarity in names, if Christianity Today wanted to sue for trademark infringement, they’d have a pretty good case:
There are other factors that have to be considered (as can be seen at that link), but there’s definitely trademark confusion among reasonably prudent consumers.
It seems strange that, in the gospelherald.com article, Naghmeh would say she “could drop everything … and go back to being a single mom in Boise”. She must be in a special category of “single mom”. Of course, being a “single mom” is a badge of honor in churchianity, so I can see why she would desire that title.
The author of the other article, Ed Cyzewski, gives a classic example of reframing. It’s not hard to find. He even gives a section the title “The Easy Narrative vs the Complex Narrative”. I doubt he majored in logic or studied debate while getting his MDiv at Biblical Theological Seminary.
O/T
Some articles should just be quoted to be believed :
And the NZ Herald’s editorial on this phenomenon concluded thus :
Heh,
I am reminded of Isaiah 13 verse 12,
I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.
“Jesus didn’t provide a timeless template. He was providing a culturally recognisable protection for women. The clear implications of Jesus’ teaching on marriage in his context are that the safety and well-being of women is a top priority because a divorced woman in his day was highly vulnerable.”
Gold Ribbon.
Had Christianity had the likes of Cyzewski during the age of the Apostles and Church Fathers, we wouldn’t have a faith today. Nothing would be left. It would be rationalised away….
….Just like the Western world, under the influence of feminism.
@Spike:
Quite accurately, the early Church had a lot worse. And the Lord left eternal scorn upon them in Revelation. Though even with all of the heresy that ran around in the early church, we’re still here, quite the testament to a bunch of uneducated Jews saying the Lord of the Universe had come (oh, and that we killed him).
If he were to come back today,I hope he would feel the same thing for men as he did then for women because men need help badly.Whether some people feel that Feminism is on the run
it doesn’t feel that way to me,in fact women feel they are on a roll and I don’t see any deflection in their path at all.The only thing that will stop them is that those in charge may call a halt as the
“feeling”ideology comes home to roost.
When people start down the path of “Jesus/Paul/etc. and their teachings were products of their time,” where does it end? The inevitable conclusion would be that Christianity has been wrong these twenty-plus centuries about some very fundamental things, and it had to wait for our oh-so-wise generation to come along and “correct” these flaws. What hubris! We see the same thing with self-described Christians and churches that have caved completely to the sexual revolution. They “know better” than those naïve yokels of antiquity. I’m always curious about what people like that actually BELIEVE, besides their own self-affirming fantasies.
While I’ve heard of publications like Charisma News, Christianity Today, and Relevant Magazine, I’ve never heard of “Christian Today” outside of this blog. It looks like a pretty elaborate site, though. Does anyone know of any particular church, church leaders, authors, or anyone in Christian community we might have heard of who are associated with it? Does Christian Today have any kind of credibility as a print publication? Is it a new site, or has it been around for a while?
Again, I’ve never even heard of it, and I can’t find an “about me” section on the site. I tried running a search on it, but I only got links for Christianity Today, which as we know, is a different publication entirely.
Well, I’ve now found a facebook page a wikipedia page…
Christian Today seems worse than Christianity Today. Go to their homepage and most of the stories would fit just as well in the New Your Times.
Clicked a commentary on Tyson Fury
All he did was quote Scriptures and note Jesus was the only way and the author has her panties in a bunch. Sounds more like Anti-Christian Today rather than what it claims to be. No way to provide feedback either, so definitely afraid of the response they would get.
Clicking their Grace Vine link on the far right gives:
Sounds more like a click-bait site than anything really even pretending to be Christian.
Have you been rickrolled Dalrock?
The corporate page says:
They certainly have a faith, but I would not call it Christian.
Anyone care to explain why there’s a man shortage in New Zealand?
Anyone care to explain why there’s a man shortage in New Zealand?
Of course there isn’t one. The term “man shortage” is misleading here. As in every other First World nation, there are plenty of men in Kiwiland; what there are almost certainly NOT plenty of are men who are willing to completely castrate themselves and serve as abused pack mules for ball-busting, bitchy, entitled, frigid, loudmouthed, penis-envying, StrongandIndependent[TM] harpies who want a free ride from a desperate beta schlub after they jump off the cock carousel once their skanky bodies are all f***ed out.
THOSEtypes of men are, and always will be in critically short supply as long as the type of women I just described make up the majority in the English-speaking world.
Sounds more like a click-bait site than anything really even pretending to be Christian.
Genuine Christians would need to visit that site only once before recoiling in disgust and leaving, never to return. Clearly the purpose of that site is to tickle churchian ears and eyes in order to dole out FeelGoods to people who are determined to live worldly lives while doing their best to delude themselves into believing that they’re Christians.
The inevitable conclusion would be that Christianity has been wrong these twenty-plus centuries about some very fundamental things, and it had to wait for our oh-so-wise generation to come along and “correct” these flaws. What hubris!
This. It’s a perfect example of secular humanism in action, the belief that the least of man’s accomplishments trumps the best of God’s. One would have to be terminally stupid or terminally self-deluded to not recognize it for what it clearly is.
Well I am going off topic, but still on subject. I laughed hard and shook my head vigorously at this one. Lots of science, but presented in a mocking/fun way. And a very interesting chart comparing divorce rates to the use of the pill. Hmmmm….
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/
“It was hard, but Jesus kept telling me to be silent and to look to Him.”
…so then she has an on going case of diarrhea of the mouth. How predictable.
@DeNihilist
I read that birth-control article too. The coolest thing about it is that writer Milo is a member of PC-protected homosexual class. The thought of lower-ranking feminist heads exploding over it makes me merry gay (in the oldfashioned way) 😀
“It was hard, but Jesus kept telling me to be silent and to look to Him.”
It’s very important that we understand just how truly agonizing this was for our little princess heroine to pull off. Asking a woman to 1) shut up and 2) focus on someone or something other than herself is a Jack-and-the-Beanstalk type of tall order.
Hollenhund and Freeriker: the “man shortage” is explained in NZ by three things.
1. Lots of men go to Aussie — we can work there, but cannot use the social welfare system and work in high risk, isolated places. Like mines.
2. There is a cohort of women who are so “strong and independant” that we, knowing we would not be welcome. leave them with their dogs and cats.
3. We do not have to do a “general” BA before training: so guys go into Engineering and Comp Studies straight from high school, while girls do health science and the arts.
So it is better to say there is a man shortage in the Arts division of every university: that place that trains girls to be semi-employed journalists and spinsters.
Disclosure: I work for a NZ university.
Disclosure: I work for a NZ university.
Allow me to extend my sincerest sympathy.
“The shortage of partners for highly educated women is a problem only men can solve. Get your credentials, boys.”
Yes, yes, boys, get your contact lenses, tattoos and Harleys ASAP. Hurry up, highly edumacated women are waiting out there for you!
Anyone care to explain why there’s a man shortage in New Zealand?
Because hobbits are invisible to women on account of being too short, and don’t get counted as ‘men’.
Hobbits are a very male-heavy species, it appears…
“Jesus didn’t provide a timeless template. He was providing a culturally recognisable protection for women. The clear implications of Jesus’ teaching on marriage in his context are …”
According to a fellow student at the evangelical (Alliance) seminary in my city, this nonsense is taught in the seminary theology classes. They are taught to dig into the verse, see the eternal principle, and then apply that. The actual command is not to be the focus; the principle that you discern is. Now this of course makes the Bible open to re-interpretation by anyone with an agenda or pre-conceived view. Which is all of us.
Too bad God did not word these things as commands that were to be obeyed, instead of questioned and changed to fit the hearer’s requirements. Oh, actually he did!
Mat 7:6: Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls before pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet and then turn and tear you to pieces.
May God’s will be done. I have had enough of Satan’s will.
@Dale:
You might want to follow up with that friend, as there *is* culture context to much of the Old & New Testament passages. Otherwise you have no clue how “tax collector” ends up being an extra-special class of sinner and thus no Christian should have anything to do with their local revenue services.
This is especially true of the Epistles where direct questions are, generally, being responded to with direct answers. To a Westerner, “food sacrificed to idols” seems like a quaint oddity, but it’s a real issue in parts of the world still.
Though what you really are responding to is the implication you can change the direct Commands within the Bible. That should hopefully be very obvious to the Christian that certain things have little need for context within the Bible. (Murder & Theft aren’t cultural artifacts.)
Again, you guys who have the wherewithal to comment here should start a twitter account. This mangina is spreading his nonsense on social media and needs to be responded to.
There are now just 91 men for every 100 women in the 25-49 year age group
Anyone care to explain why that’s the case in NZ? It seems to be a very lopsided sex ratio for a nation not wrecked by war.
The joke about the Kiwis is that when you go there you have to put the clock back – to the 1950s.
May I offer a suggestion as to why there is a lopsided male to female in ratio in New Zealand: that there are no jobs for men – my (former) G.P. was a Kiwi and the son of a friend recently returned to Europe having failed to get work in New Zealand. I also read that Kiwi women are the most promiscuous on the planet with an average of about twenty sexual partners.
@hoellenhund:
They hit most of the points. When a Man can make 150k+ a year in the mining industry in Australia, the data suggests they’ve been all headed that way for a while. Much in the same reason there are more Men than Women in North Dakota.
Hostility against boys continues unabated, and men should not let this continue. The video below is particularly disturbing because it branded ALL boys to be bad, including those who were not even born yet. Of course the unborn girl is, as expected, a perennial and eternal victim.
IT HAPPENED TO ME: No One at Church Would Date Me, So I Quit ChristianityMe
http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/i-quit-church-when-no-one-there-would-date-me
I know this has been brought up before, but is there any way this blog could have a forum attached for these discussions? There’s such good insight and information, but you can’t directly quote in replies, it’s not sorted by topic, one has to scroll endlessly to find references for previous posts, etc…….
Poke: I agree! Dalrock should turn his blog into a Reddit type blog with his main posts and replies to posters allowed. This format works great for a dozen or so responses, not so great with hundreds of responses. Sometimes I read the blog and have to take notes to follow the multiple conversations going on at once.
My son is getting into body building and follows this Vegan Gainz guy on youtube who has a bazillion followers and female groupies. He recently got a vasectomy and says women get pregnant just to be able to live off of a man their whole lives. This sparked outrage in the online bodybuilding and vegan communities and a million hot babes wept bitter tears. Young women have been trying to get at this guy since he showed his face and body on youtube and now all their hopes are dashed. He’s a MGTOW.
I don’t know what to tell my son about this. I mean this guy is barely 20 by looking at him and my son is 14 and still uninterested in girls but as he body builds he will become interested, and they in him. Do I tell him this guy is right? Or wrong? Is Mgtow good for man? I teach all my kids not to depend on anyone but should I teach my son not to let anyone depend on him, financially that is? Is becoming a parent a necessary part of maturing?
“Do I tell him this guy is right? Or wrong?”
Putting aside MGTOW, there’s no reason for a vasectomy at a young age unless one wants to be sexually active without ever intending marriage, which is likely what this high-profile guy is doing. The guy is also wrong for being Vegan but I digress.
“Is becoming a parent a necessary part of maturing?”
Is military service is a mandatory rite of passage?
…
“Dalrock should turn his blog into a Reddit type blog…”
I prefer this format. I keep it open at I work and refresh occasionally to see new additions. A Reddit format would send me scrolling back and forth all the time.
I don’t know what to tell my son about this.
Well, what are your values? Those are the things to impart to your kid, irrespective of what anyone else decides to do.
Personally, I think the idea of MGTOW is a defeatist approach to a challenging situation. I refuse to accept that feminism is so successful worldwide to make ALL desirable women unmarriageable. Most of the members of MGTOW community are either too cynical, too lazy to do the hard work of looking for a spouse, or are too rigid to make compromises necessary to make a marriage successful. The idea that all available women are simply tainted with feminism is bunkum. Right here on this site, there are numerous men who are married even to American women, and are happy.
I think this is the time to sow the seed into your kid so that he will make the right decisions when the time comes.
“Well, what are your values? ”
My values are everyone should do what makes them happy as long as it doesn’t burden or hurt others. I teach my kids to work for their keep, both girls and boys. I don’t raise children to depend on others but my kids see there are women who still expect to be kept and men who expect (and are expected) to keep them. Though not in my family or subdivision, MGTOW says they are the majority. It was one thing when MGTOW was an obscure corner of the manosphere but its penetrated the body building and vegan communities now too? I never talked to my kids about having kids but naturally I expect to be a granddad someday.
My values are everyone should do what makes them happy as long as it doesn’t burden or hurt others.
I don’t know if you are a Christian; I’m going to assume you are.
Christians are not to do things that make them happy per se, but to focus on doing things that promote the Kingdom of God and bring glory to Him at all times. Moreover, they are to teach others to do the same.
Great Sermon Dave. Completely vacuous, and doesn’t answer the question. I’m sure the women in the audience caught all that nuance and loved it but it begs the question of whether telling son A or B “promotes the Kingdom of God.”
My 18 year old son has been MGTOW- temporarily as he puts it- for almost 2 years. He is the classic sniper, taking months to creep out his target before even talking to her but insists he will have better hunting in college. I don’t have an answer for him either except- PLEASE don’t fall head over heals in twue wuv with the first girl who shows you some affection. Pretty please.
I also think that last paragraph makes my son a pretty crappy MGTOW as well as a pretty crappy, inexperienced, and even petrified I would say (at least in awe of the magic vagina to the point he gets stupid) PUA. I wonder if Dave thinks that makes him a “good” Christian.
@2084: Do I tell him this guy is right? Or wrong? Is Mgtow good for man?
I don’t think MGTOW is good at all for a man and CERTAINLY not for a prospective grandparent, obviously. It may be something good, like monk mode, for a few months or even years but it is not a long term solution.
I tell my son we need to fight the enemy, not hide from her.
“I tell my son we need to fight the enemy, not hide from her.”
So fighting the enemy means having a relationship with her? What’s the point of that? If my wife were my enemy I sure as hell would not have married her.
2084GO
So playing dumb is now part of the schtick used to keep everybody’s mind right.
What is the best way for my sons to avoid being taken advantage of by unscrupulous women? MGTOW? Have relationships but just never live with them? Everything split 50/50? I pretty much don’t have to worry about my daughters screwing any guy over because they’re being raised to be self-sufficient but also not to marry an unemployed man. My sons are being raised similarly but the culture still expects them to support, at least somewhat, if not entirely, a wife. How is this fair?
By law your daughters can screw over any man they want when ever they want. There will always be men that marry so tell the little princesses to treat him right and respect the hopefully rare commitment they may receive. The MGTOW fellas will make that easier for the female mind to appreciate any commitment they receive. Your son can be MGTOW as an option. Make sure he is red pill and understands he owns women and this country nothing. That is real world fair.
To me, being MGTOW is like avoiding meat altogether because the neighborhood deli serves unsavory meat. With a little bit of effort, you could have gotten a better deal downtown. A lot of the so-called MGTOWs are consumed with thoughts about women, and spend a considerable amount of time talking about women. What is MGOTW in that?
If you can’t be a through and through eunuch, you are not a MGTOW. Depriving yourself of a relationship with women because of feminism does not make you a MGTOW in any practical sense; it only forces you to accept a lifestyle that you otherwise would never have chosen on your own.
“By law your daughters can screw over any man they want when ever they want”
We instill in them a very strong work ethic, fiscal responsibility, ethics and compassion. Growing up with these values I doubt they will screw anyone over, but you never know. Plus, if they have their own money they won’t need their husbands’, presumably. I’m going to assume and hope that if my sons get involved with women, they will be like their mother; gainfully employed and fiscally responsible. I really hope my sons don’t go against everything we’ve ever taught them and go after the ditzy parasites because “hawt”. If they do, they will get what’s coming and won’t have our support in any way. Parenthood is a crap shoot.
Dave @ December 13, 2015 at 7:57 am and Longtorso @ December 13, 2015 at 9:14 am
Now you know why in 1st Peter 3:7 it says, “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”
He’s not talking physically weaker but psychologically weaker.
“At the time of Jesus, women had few rights, and Jewish men were permitted to divorce their wives for the slightest infraction, simply stating in public that they are now divorced.”
The Old Testament/Torah is basically Sharia. Jews don’t follow anymore but some Muslims do.
Have we heard from the persecuted pastor yet?
2084GO
We instill in them a very strong work ethic, fiscal responsibility, ethics and compassion. Growing up with these values I doubt they will screw anyone over, but you never know. Plus, if they have their own money they won’t need their husbands’, presumably.
So you’re raising your daughters to be 2nd wave feminists. How do you think that will work out for them by the time they are, oh, 35?
Have you taken any time to read any of the many articles on marriage Dalrock has posted over the years?
2084GO
The Old Testament/Torah is basically Sharia.
Uh, no. I’m not a scholar of either the Bible or the Koran, but … no. It’s not.
adsgamer
Have we heard from the persecuted pastor yet?
Apparently the Internet connection into / out of Iranian prisons isn’t all that good…no idea why.
Dave, do you personally know any men who have been frivorced? I’m genuinely curious.
Dave: you are obviously ignorant and arrogant – “To me, being MGTOW is like avoiding meat altogether because the neighborhood deli serves unsavory meat.” nah it’s more like poisonous meat that will permanently alter your digestive system sort of like hepatitis, trichonosis, yellow fever, typhus or malaria… ‘unsavory’ doesn’t even begin to describe what causes MGTOW. But don’t listen to me – you’re special – go ahead and get some of that ‘better deal’ downtown. You’ll be fine.
Dave, do you personally know any men who have been frivorced? I’m genuinely curious.
How relevant is that question to the topic of discussion? I don’t have to know any frivorced man to know that marriage is hazardous to men, and that marrying an American woman is doubly hazardous. But focusing exclusively on American women, who constitute less than 5% of the women in the world, is not wise.
The only reason why any man would think there are no more good women he could marry is because he has never ventured outside the US in search of a spouse.
Once you have dated non-American women, you’ll never want to bother with the “men with boobs” you have in America, who portray themselves as women.
So you’re raising your daughters to be 2nd wave feminists.
That’s also how I read it. Apparently, raising one’s daughters to grow up to be submissive wives who tend to home and hearth will lead them to boredom-driven rebellion, so better to just make them StrongandIndependentWomen[TM]from the get-go, thereby eliminating the risk that they’ll f*** over some poor random beta schlub in the future.
Yep, that makes a lot of sense. /sarc
@Dave
Just be sure to not bring foreign woman to America if you decide to marry. The corrosive effect of the poisonous female herd in America and general cultural influence will generally spoil them.
@Dave
I should have used the 3rd person in my statement.
OT:
Gentlemen, it is with pleasure to report you from the disaster site, that The Great TPTB Plan for “controlled multicultivation” of Europe with Arab gimmegrants and refujihadis is going glowingly FUBAR. According to Plan, these new Europeans should have settled down in conservative countryside and in rebellious eurosceptic eastern provinces. But, strangely enough, these young men feel no natural urge to police Catholic grandmas in dirt-poor Hungarian and Croatian villages. No, they make a beeline straight to big German and Swedish cities, to get their first-world-welfare-checks and to harras liberal “virgins” in their nearest urban vicinity. No one could foresee this, I tell ya, NO-ONE! (Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small.)
Dave, do you personally know any men who have been frivorced? I’m genuinely curious.
Dave
How relevant is that question to the topic of discussion?
Fairly relevant to your comments on MGTOW, if you think about it.
PokeSalad and BPP:
>Dalrock should turn his blog into a Reddit type blog
I will copy Gunner Q’s answer:
I also vastly prefer this current format. I can easily see new additions. A Reddit format would send me scrolling back and forth all the time.
Dave: you are obviously ignorant and arrogant…..But don’t listen to me – you’re special – go ahead and get some of that ‘better deal’ downtown. You’ll be fine.
I am neither. Again here on this site, there are many men who are married and happy. Are those people ignorant and arrogant too? Don’t think. So stop the drama and the fear mongering.
You need to stop your cynicism, and go find yourself a spouse, should you decide to get married, as many people have done and are doing.
I acknowledge that American women are generally not fit for marriage; but guys saying they are MGTOW, while spending all their waking hours on websites which deals almost exclusively with male-female relationships? That does not sound consistent to me. If you are MGTOW, then be MGTOW for real, and treat women as if they don’t exist.
Gamer: “Have we heard from the persecuted pastor yet?”
I haven’t read anything. But at least now we know the context I was looking for that was missing before.
“With the news that came out recently (an email I had sent to prayer partners was leaked to media)…”
That is not how the world works. A MGTOW can be a PUA. MGTOW is unnatural as is a military tactic and action to survive in a world of misandry.
@Liz:
Shorter version:
“I knifed him in the back and I’m only sorry I got caught”.
This is, truly, an amazing example of narcissistic evasion dressed up in “Christian” phrasing. She doesn’t admit any error, humble-brags about the wealth and her “utter WEAKNESS”. While apparently entering a time of prayer and fasting, I highly doubt she’ll get the message that she is no different than Lot’s Wife.
If someone wants to do a highlight reel of all of the undertones, it could make for a great blog post.
Have we heard from the persecuted pastor yet?
He’s too busy enjoying all that Iranian porn.
Gamer: “Have we heard from the persecuted pastor yet?”
Liz
I haven’t read anything. But at least now we know the context I was looking for that was missing before.
“With the news that came out recently (an email I had sent to prayer partners was leaked to media)…”
Liz, you aren’t going to go down the “private betrayal doesn’t matter” rabbit trail again, are you?
One of the insights I gained some years back from “Julian O’Dea” aka David Collard, back when I was still struggling to see through The Glasses was this: women tend to engage in bad behaviour privately. Guess what? Private bad behaviour is still bad behaviour. In fact it can be worse; the woman who is polite and respectful in public, while a screeching, contemptuous harpie in private, is surely spiking her whats-his-name’s cortisol and thus killing him on the installment plan. But she’s certainly putting up a good-wife facade…
And betrayal, of the “he abused me from his cell in a prison in Iran” is still betrayal. I find it extremely difficult to believe that any woman would put such a message out in email, in the modern world, and expect it to remain private. The plausible deniability is paper thin.
tl;dr – she knew what she was doing, at some level.
“Liz, you aren’t going to go down the “private betrayal doesn’t matter” rabbit trail again, are you?”
I have stated, categorically and directly many many times that private betrayal is still betrayal.
Asserting this again (even if you are person number 50 to have done so) does not make it true.
But the above information does place context on the disclosure. It indicates two things I suggested were a possibility
1) that it is very likely (based on the evidence) the woman did not intend to humiliate her husband.
2) that the media took indirect information out of context and spun it for sensational purposes (notice all the exchanges between “experts” discussing this and that…no comment from Naghmeh, the person who ostensibly made these messages)..
I’ll wager one more suspicion, and then I’m done:
3) There is a very high likelihood (we don’t know, we can’t see the actual memo, second and third hand commentary on the memo) that she did not suggest that her husband is currently looking at porn and abusing her from his prison cell.
If one thing is taken out of context for sensational purposes, the rest probably was as well.
Sign of the times that news (even so called Christian news) has become nothing more than sensationalized gossip and entertainment.
“Liz, you aren’t going to go down the “private betrayal doesn’t matter” rabbit trail again, are you?”
I have stated, categorically and directly many many times that private betrayal is still betrayal.
You have also, if I recall correctly, stated directly that it’s not as bad as public betrayal. As a man, I disagree. As a man, I find that betrayal, whether public or private, is betrayal. As a man, I find that bad behavior directed towards me in private, while a public facade of “good girl” is maintained, is actually worse than public bad behavior.
I don’t expect you to understand this. You might be able to accept it, given your personal history.
Asserting this again (even if you are person number 50 to have done so) does not make it true.
This attempt at weaseling out of your previous position doesn’t impress me. But it’s par for the course, because Team Woman, Liz.
But the above information does place context on the disclosure. It indicates two things I suggested were a possibility
1) that it is very likely (based on the evidence) the woman did not intend to humiliate her husband.
Right. A woman who grew up in the US from the age of 9 or so fully expected an email in which she claims “He Abused Me!” to remain private. You really expect me to believe that? Seriously? C’mon, Liz, this isn’t Junior High school. Try harder to convince me of her utter, total, trustworthy, innocence.
2) that the media took indirect information out of context and spun it for sensational purposes (notice all the exchanges between “experts” discussing this and that…no comment from Naghmeh, the person who ostensibly made these messages)..
Yes, no comment. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Funny, isn’t it?
I mean, the loyal, dutiful wife (that she plays in public) would surely not want her own words to be misquoted or twisted, so why hasn’t she stepped up to Churchianty Today and demanded a correction, hmm? Also no comment from her gossip sisters, er, “prayer partners”, either. Gosh, I wonder why that is? Why would those oh so trustworthy women not step right up in defense of their sistah and her husband?
The simple explanation: they don’t have a problem with what’s being said about Saeed in public.
Your explanation?
I’ll wager one more suspicion, and then I’m done:
3) There is a very high likelihood (we don’t know, we can’t see the actual memo, second and third hand commentary on the memo) that she did not suggest that her husband is currently looking at porn and abusing her from his prison cell.
Uh huh. If that’s true, then why hasn’t she come forward and denounced the lies? Hmm? If she’s oh-so-loyal to her soon-to-be-ex, surely she’d want to clear his name? Yet she says nothing. Why?
Simple explanation: because she doesn’t want to clear his name.
Your explanation?
If one thing is taken out of context for sensational purposes, the rest probably was as well.
Sign of the times that news (even so called Christian news) has become nothing more than sensationalized gossip and entertainment.
Occam’s razor applies even to women, Liz. The simplest explanation tends to be the most accurate. That explanation: this is a way to cut herself loose from Saeed in a way that doesn’t make her look bad. As a man, who has seen a few men get frivorced, that explanation holds water.
I don’t expect you, or any other woman, to agree. Because of the known 4:1 ingroup preference women have for other women over men, just for a start.
If you are MGTOW, then be MGTOW for real, and treat women as if they don’t exist.
This isn’t a proper understanding of MGTOW.
The primary characteristic of MGTOW is avoiding marriage 2.0 and the litany of misandric laws that exist to decimate men personally and financially. It’s almost a “reflex” more than a philosophy, as men simply do what they need to do to get by, and that often amounts to minimizing the negative effects of the FI on their daily lives.
MGTOW is more the all-encompassing behavioral changes men make to defend themselves against some of the horror stories we see on this blog. The behavioral changes spill over into other aspects of life outside dating, such as employment decisions, living arrangements, expat vs. minimalism, PUA, etc.
A man can be MGTOW without having ever heard the term. A MGTOW can also be a PUA. The straw-man is that MGTOW is primarily about avoiding female interaction altogether. Yes, a subset of such men exist—including some who aren’t really MGTOW and would jump ship at the first inkling of serious female attention (Mark Minter being a textbook example)—but that isn’t the defining characteristic of what MGTOW is.
One morning, a few years ago, I saw a headline, “Sexual Assault Prevention Director for the USAF Jailed for Sexual Assault”. My mind said, “Whoa! That’s awful…” and I read it. The first thing I noticed was the person arrested had the rank of Lt Colonel. The Director in charge of that program is a two star. They wouldn’t put a Lt Colonel in that position. So i knew part of it was false, and after reading further I concluded the story likely had some holes. Fast forward a few weeks, and it turns out that the “victim” wasn’t even a woman, but a man, and the Lt Colonel in question wasn’t in charge of any such program.
One morning, last month, I read an article entitled, “Pastor Saeed Abedini’s Wife Halts Public Advocacy, Citing Marital Woes and Abuse”. My immediate reaction was similar to the above. I thought, “Whoa! That’s awful…” and then I read it. It was worded oddly and in a way that didn’t offer much context or any direct quotes (just an amalgamation of assertions that didn’t sound plausible). So I suspected it was a letter made in private, taken out of context. What we know now is, the above title is not correct at all. She isn’t halting public advocacy, now did she cite marital woes and abuse as the reason. What happened was, a private correspondence prayer request was leaked to the media.
To answer your charge of “team woman”, I can’t remember ever seeing this sort of tactic used on a woman until now. I”ve seen it used on men and every time I do I call it as I see it. It’s usually used to denigrate men. In this case of course, it is also being used to denigrate a man. Her husband. And if this were a female forum and forum members were citing abuse and praising Naghmeh for her “bravery” or somesuch, my response would be much the same. The evidence would indicate that she didn’t intend for this information to become public. It was leaked and used by the media after being taken out of context.
“So you’re raising your daughters to be 2nd wave feminists”.
I’m raising them to be mature adults who earn their keep.
“How do you think that will work out for them by the time they are, oh, 35?”
As well as it worked out for both their parents, splendidly.
“Apparently, raising one’s daughters to grow up to be submissive wives who tend to home and hearth …”
Are you seriously arguing for women to live off the labor of men?!
I’m impressed. All that wheel-spinning would exhaust most hamsters, but not Liz’s.
“One morning, last month, I read an article entitled, “Pastor Saeed Abedini’s Wife Halts Public Advocacy, Citing Marital Woes and Abuse”. My immediate reaction was similar to the above. I thought, “Whoa! That’s awful…”
Just to add for clarity:
By “That’s awful…” I was thinking “what sort of a stupid crack would do something like that?” NOT “oh poor her…”
She isn’t halting public advocacy,
How do we know that to be true?
“So you’re raising your daughters to be 2nd wave feminists”.
I’m raising them to be mature adults who earn their keep.
Good that you agree with me. It isn’t clear what continent you are posting from, but perhaps it is not North America. In North America, your roadmap for your daughters will pretty much guarantee that they will ride the cock carousel, just for a start.
“How do we know that to be true?”
Because she just made a statement of public advocacy on her very public Facebook account.
Imagine for a moment that none of the second hand media accounts exist at all and the information we have is what she has actually stated (she has twitter and facebook they are easy to find), and the words of the lawyer who represents her and her family.
The lawyer mentioned that she was taking a break for stress reasons, last month.
She states here the reason she has taken a break from public speaking engagements: “the Lord asked me to stop and sit. It took another step of faith to stop everything and just sit at the feet of Jesus and to hear from Him. It was freeing to see that by Grace of God none of the fame and attention or praises of men had gotten to me and that I could drop everything the moment my Savior told me to drop it and to go back to being a single mom in Boise, Idaho. It was freeing to let go of the FALSE SENSE of SECURITY that money was bringing into my life (through speaking engagements) and to know that the only thing that all I desperately needed was Jesus. That my true security rests in Jesus. That Jesus is my day to day provider.”
We can believe it or not, but I do not see how her actual words here can be interpreted to indicate that she intends to leave her husband or abandon support for him.
I don’t know what to tell my son about this. I mean this guy is barely 20 by looking at him and my son is 14 and still uninterested in girls but as he body builds he will become interested, and they in him. Do I tell him this guy is right? Or wrong?
Why would you tell him anything? It’s not a relevant issue if he’s just 14, and he probably knows that as well.
What happened was, a private correspondence prayer request was leaked to the media.
Which is totally a surprise in the modern world…
Dave @ 4:42 am:
“but guys saying they are MGTOW, while spending all their waking hours on websites which deals almost exclusively with male-female relationships? That does not sound consistent to me.”
It’s like how Israelis constantly talk about suicide bombers and rocket strikes even though they want a world without those and insist on living in their war-torn country instead of a peaceful Third World mud pit with a non-Jewish wife.
“If you are MGTOW, then be MGTOW for real, and treat women as if they don’t exist.”
I wish I could… but even while I shun women, I am forced to have them around at work, in the gym and pretty much everywhere I go. The gov’t constantly taxes and legislates me at ever-increasing rates for women. The entire Church lies to me about the Bible in order to justify feminism. Every movie celebrates Tankgirl and even the fiction at Vox’s Castalia House have strong female protagonists.
Manosphere issues are not optional even for the poolside guys.
…
Liz @ 10:56 am:
“So I suspected it was a letter made in private, taken out of context.”
Which begs the question, why does Nagmeh need prayer today for her husband’s abusive behavior, when he’s in prison on the far side of the planet? Why isn’t she loyally defending her husband’s public reputation?
…
2084GO @ 11:09 am:
“Apparently, raising one’s daughters to grow up to be submissive wives who tend to home and hearth …”
Are you seriously arguing for women to live off the labor of men?!”
It’s actually easier for wives to be submissive when they make a point of not having alternatives to hubby.
I’d be happy to financially support a wife if she treated me with a lot of affection and loyalty. As it is, I keep thinking about using massage parlors but haven’t convinced myself it would be appropriate.
Them days are over. Any man these days playing SAHM under the family law we have today is a gambler and is asking for a sure frivorce. She can frivorce and by resource collections have two husbands making payments on her. And all the while look like a proper married lady. Throw in the Christian label and you have purity of virtue.
“How do we know that to be true?”
Because she just made a statement of public advocacy on her very public Facebook account.
I do not have a Facebook account. Provide me with a pointer, if you want me to believe you.
She states here the reason she has taken a break from public speaking engagements: “the Lord asked me to stop and sit. It took another step of faith to stop everything and just sit at the feet of Jesus and to hear from Him. It was freeing to see that by Grace of God none of the fame and attention or praises of men had gotten to me and that I could drop everything the moment my Savior told me to drop it and to go back to being a single mom in Boise, Idaho. It was freeing to let go of the FALSE SENSE of SECURITY that money was bringing into my life (through speaking engagements) and to know that the only thing that all I desperately needed was Jesus. That my true security rests in Jesus. That Jesus is my day to day provider.”
But Liz, But LIz, you said she was still publicly supporting Saeed. This clearly says she’s taking a break from that. It in fact contradicts your claim of She isn’t halting public advocacy, since she obviously has halted public advocacy. Maybe only temporarily, maybe not, I can’t tell.
Now, where are the words saying “Those claims in Churchianity Today were false”? Nowhere. Where are the words saying “People have made things up about me”? Nowhere. Where are the words saying “People have betrayed my Christian trust by relaying private mails to the press”? Nowhere.
It appears to me she’s pretending it didn’t happen. I’ll discuss that in a couple of paragraphs.
We can believe it or not, but I do not see how her actual words here can be interpreted to indicate that she intends to leave her husband or abandon support for him.
You don’t find “…go back to being a single mom in Boise” to be the least bit suggestive, Liz? Really? She’s not a single mother. At least on paper she’s a married woman whose husband is in prison in Iran. Look, suppose an Air Force milwife married on paper had a husband deployed overseas and she walked around talking about herself as a “single mother”, would you find that normal ? I kind of doubt that.
This looks like backtracking to me, with a touch of gaslighting. She got caught out in her claim of abuse, and now she’s pretending it never happened.
It’s pretty standard behavior for women to (1) say or do something ugly that betrays a man’s trust, (2) then pretend it never happened. Often the next step will be something like “I don’t remember saying that” followed by “I didn’t mean it they way you are taking it”.
Nowhere does she deny making allegations of abuse. Nowhere does she retract those claims.
Liz, this woman betrayed her husband in a way that was sure to go public. That’s fact. Deal with it.
Oh, and we’v heard from the imprisoned pastor. It’s not hard to find.
http://aclj.org/iran/pastor-saeed-after-beatings-torture-did-not-recognize-myself
We have just obtained a new letter from imprisoned American Pastor Saeed Abedini written to his wife, Naghmeh, and his family in Iran. In it, as in his previous two letters written inside the brutal Evin Prison, he documents the results of the continued abuse and torture he endures.
This letter, likely written weeks ago, was received by his family just yesterday. Written on the margins of scraps of newspaper, it is only the third letter Pastor Saeed has been able to get to his family in the past nearly 180 days of imprisonment and underscores the difficulty of getting any information from Iran about his condition.
Pastor Saeed writes that he cannot even recognize himself after all the beatings and torture he has endured: “My hair was shaven, under my eyes were swollen three times what they should have been, my face was swollen, and my beard had grown.”
He’s gotten three (3) letters out, writing on the margin of scraps of newspaper. Yeah, he totally must be abusing his wife from prison in Iran, right, Liz? Those scraps of newspaper, they’re so painful…
Here’s another take on the same story, since Liz doesn’t seem up to the whole “support an assertion with evidence” thing.
http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/60500/20151209/naghmeh-abedini-advocates-for-imprisoned-pastor-husband-i-cannot-deny-saeeds-love-passion-for-jesus-despite-marital-abuse.htm
So she says she will continue advocacy. But Liz, you left out a bit from her Facebook post, I’m sure it was an accident.
“I had to turn off every voice including my own and only care about what Jesus was saying to me. It was hard. With the news that came out recently (an email I had sent to prayer partners was leaked to media), stones were being thrown at me left and right and many religious leaders who saw me wounded and bleeding passed on by afraid to touch me or this whole mess/situation. It was hard, but Jesus kept telling me to be silent and to look to Him.”
Translation: “I decided to betray my husband, but only to my besties / BFF’s and I’m completely shocked that a private email was leaked to the press. Really. I’m completely naive about how the US press works. The pushback that I got was a shock to me, I thought that in America any woman can get what she wants by playing the “abuse! Porn!” card. Plus I realized that the only way to keep living the style I am accustomed to is by being a visible advocate for whats-his-name”.
Liz, she nearly broke her rice bowl. She’s apparently smart enough to realize that, and therefore we have this gaslit partial walkback. But only partial, because she has to keep her besties / BFF’s happy as well.
Abedini asked supporters to continue praying for her husband, but this time “not only for his physical chains, but also for “the spiritual chains that have bound him for so many years.”
“Those chains that have stuck to him from the culture he was raised in (Middle East) and from his former religion (Islam). I believe that God will use Saeed’s imprisonment to break Saeed of these chains and to refine him and use him as a vessel for the work that He has prepared for him,” she continued.
So of course now she is playing the Noble Wife Who Will Give Her Horrid Abusive Husband Another Chance. Mighty nice of her, given that he’s the one actually being beaten on a regular basis, isn’t it? Plus she leaves enough bread crumbs behind to enable her to actually divorce him if he is ever released back to Stateside, yet if he dies in Iran she’ll also be able to play the Noble Widow.
Pretty good performance. Not good enough to fool men who wear The Glasses, though.
Nag Me Abedini is the new Jenny Erikson.
What happened was, a private correspondence prayer request
Ummm Hmmm. Those private prayer requests look like this fictitious one below. Women can reconstruct this in the past so that they can file it in their memory in the folder that gives them the best feeling, not the one that represents their motive when they did it.
These -prayer requests- come in handy when the need for empathy sends them to the phone late at night calling all BFFs, calling all BFFs
“Honey, I need to tell you something….now Im not gossiping I just wanna get some prayer warriors on this ya know. Please pray for my husband because, well, he’s been staying up later than me and there is a PC in the den and I saw low light filtering under the door the other night at 11:30, you know, he is in bondage obviously to lust and porn is his outlet and he wants to then have relations with me and well….NO WAAAYYYY after he has been looking at thousands of naken bodies, and oh, just pray for him and for his deliverance…..”
AR….ok then, simultaneous expositions. Nice
“Oh, and we’v heard from the imprisoned pastor. It’s not hard to find.”
I thought Gamer was asking for something recent. The letter in this link is from 2013.
“But Liz, you left out a bit from her Facebook post, I’m sure it was an accident.’
I did provide the handy-dandy link anyone can click on and read the whole thing right up there in its entirety. I don’t have a Facebook account either.
Nag Me Abedini is the new Jenny Erikson
She’s worse. At least Jenny didn’t bury her betrayal in pseudo-religious rhetoric.
To their tremendous credit, Jenny Erikson’s church de-fellowshipped her for her betrayal of her husband and violation of her marriage vows. Will Nagmeh Abedini’s church do the same to her if she frivorces Saeed (and a frivorce is EXACTLY what it will be)? I very seriously doubt it.
“You don’t find “…go back to being a single mom in Boise” to be the least bit suggestive, Liz? Really? She’s not a single mother. At least on paper she’s a married woman whose husband is in prison in Iran. Look, suppose an Air Force milwife married on paper had a husband deployed overseas and she walked around talking about herself as a “single mother”, would you find that normal ? I kind of doubt that.”
It would be a little odd, I admit, but I wouldn’t give it this level of excoriation. I’ve noted before she seems very simple in my estimation and I’m taking that into account when I try to analyze her behavior.
@Dale
PokeSalad and BPP:
>Dalrock should turn his blog into a Reddit type blog
I will copy Gunner Q’s answer:
I also vastly prefer this current format. I can easily see new additions. A Reddit format would send me scrolling back and forth all the time.
Don’t conflate my request with BPP’s. I said nothing about a “Reddit-type blog,” (I’ve never visited Reddit and have no idea what that blog looks like) I said a “forum.”
There are many types of forums out there other than Reddit’s. Probably hundreds.
What level is sufficient? Listen and believe, right?
Liz, I’ve noticed that you’ve mentioned several times that Nagmeh’s words were possibly taken out of context, but what would be the right context? That is, what kind of context would make what she did OK or at least not that bad? Sure, it’s a given that the media are going to spin things to a certain extent, and I’ve kept up with your examples of ways in which they might do that (i.e. the man beating a dog in front of a kid; the Lt Col story), but what about this story do we not already know that could make what she did less severe and more understandable? We already know that a private correspondence was made public, but are you implying there’s something else the general public is missing regarding Nagmeh’s words against her husband? Are you just saying that she never halted her public advocacy for her husband? (Maybe I’ve somehow just missed where you’ve addressed these questions before, and if so, please feel free to reiterate what you’re getting at).
Empath
These -prayer requests- come in handy when the need for empathy sends them to the phone late at night calling all BFFs, calling all BFFs
Phone, yes, for older women. Younger? Texts. Or even (drumroll) emails…
AR….ok then, simultaneous expositions. Nice
You covered the gossip-partner, er, “prayer request” well.
I’ve heard a few of these in my invisible man mode; sitting at a corner table at some church event, with hens clucking next to me who don’t notice my existence. “Well, she’s such a patient woman to put up with…and we simply must pray for grace for her, and for him to come around to his senses…”.
Prayer partner. Yeah. Now, I don’t doubt that there are people out there, both men and women, who actively do pray for others and who pass requests around without gossiping.
However…dare I write it? Yes…
Not All Women Are Like That.
“But Liz, you left out a bit from her Facebook post, I’m sure it was an accident.’
Liz
I did provide the handy-dandy link anyone can click on and read the whole thing right up there in its entirety. I don’t have a Facebook account either.
You did? Really? Where?
Not here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/why-didnt-he-think-of-that/#comment-196877
Not here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/why-didnt-he-think-of-that/#comment-196888
Not here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/why-didnt-he-think-of-that/#comment-196884
Not here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/why-didnt-he-think-of-that/#comment-196869
Not in any of your postings today that I can see. Maybe you attempted an embed that failed. Or maybe you are pissing on my shoes and telling me “It’s raining! Really!”. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, and suggest that if you want to post a link just put it by itself, since embedding sometimes fails to work in comments on this blog.
But no problem, as I posted a link that has what is purported to be her entire Facebook note, and dissected it as well. So we have a source other than you to rely on…
Liz
I’ve noted before she seems very simple in my estimation
I’ve looked at her image, and read her text. She is above average in looks, and her text shows a good command of the English language in general, and an ability to use standard Evangelical turns of phrase and tropes with facililty. She doesn’t look simple nor does she write like a simpleton.
What reason do you have for that “very simple estimation, beyond the obvious “it enables me to excuse her bad behavior”, please?
Before you answer, bear in mind that I actually have known Iranians in real life, both Moslem and Christian, including some pretty plain women and some not very intelligent men. I know what an Iranian who is “simple” looks like and sounds like. This woman doesn’t come across to me as either.
She’ll be celebrated as the empowered Christian feminist that she hopes to be. That’s what is happening now, simply as she repeats her false allegations. If she does divorce him, she’s sure to get more fawning praise from the mangina gallery.
e.g.: Look at this c**t who is already singing her praises. It’s disgusting.
You Christian bros need to police your own. It’s tough for me to be the lone voice in the wilderness who calls out these phony preachers, as they lead your brothers and sisters into the divorce courts.
Join me on twitter, and let’s start shouting back at these idiots.
Quoting the mangina from the NZ article above:
The shortage of partners for highly educated women is a problem only men can solve. Get your credentials, boys.
Ironically enough, men will indeed be the ones to solve this “problem”. And the resulting collapse of the Education Bubble will primarily be a disaster for women, not men.
Just to sum up: it is my opinion (everyone has one..) that Nagmah Abedini got wrapped up with the usual churchgoing crowd of conservative feminists as part of her advocacy for her imprisoned husband. Over time, the conservative feminists inevitably began to bring her into their orbit, because that’s what women do to each other – “join the herd, filly”. At some point, some conservative churchgoing feminist, probably a Boomer, perhaps along the lines of Sheila Gregoire to pick one example, started fillng Nagmah’s mind with the whole Duluth “wheel of crap”. Suddenly, behavior that was not all that bad became Abuse.
Then, perhaps at the “need for comfort” phase of her monthly cycle, Nagmah had a bad day, and the only people she could talk / share with were the gossips…er…”prayer partners”. Whatever she said, some conservative feminist gossip took it and ran it through her Duluth interpreter, then passed it on anonymously to the manginae at Churchinity Today.
Alternatively, once Nagmah got the Duluth “wheel of crap” in her head, some conservative feminist began with The Whispers in her ear and divorce began to seem attractive, then as above on one lousy day she let some nasty stuff out to her gossip…er…prayer partners, and bingo. Then she went silent, probably on the advice of some Evil Patriarch or maybe an older herd mare, along the lines of “You don’t have any other source of money for your children, so…”.
Both these scenarios explain the available evidence. And, sorry, Liz, but she’s responsible for her own words either way. I’m not going to debate women’s agency so long as I live in YouGoGrrl world. Both scenarios illuminate just how dangerous conservative feminists in churches are, too.
I won’t waste time expecting any real recantation, apology or obvious repentence from her. She’s a woman, apparently surrounded by other women, and so the best that can be expected is more of this “uh, mistakes were made” kind of non-recantation recantation. Only a man with authority over her could make her really go through a full, repentent, reconciliation with her husband, and that clearly won’t happen.
Plus if she really is positioning herself to divorce him later, any real recantation would not work in her favor at that later day. And pace’ Liz, there are women who plan their divorce years in advance.
And finally, the whole episode demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt how feminized the so-called “Christian” press has become, just like the churches.
@Opus
Maybe not as bad yet. At least she isn’t writing horrid articles about the horrors of dating after divorce and sleeping with men who don’t care about her etc. etc. etc. Oh, and the “sexy” online pictures for our viewing pleasure…
Boxer,
Join me on twitter, and let’s start shouting back at these idiots.
Fat chance, sad to say. The number one ethos of the manosphere is ‘Thou Shalt Do No Activism’.
Dalrock’s archives alone are enough to topple Driscoll, Stanton, CT, CND, and other aspects of ‘Feminism with Christian Paint on it’. Yet these commenters and readers just don’t organize. Not just here, but in the entire ‘sphere. Even for anonymous Twitter battles.
@AR@ 22/14/15 @4:39pm
I’d say you’ve nailed it. It should by now be apparent to anyone not in denial and who is paying any attention that “conservative” churchian feminists, as a not-so-stealth infection within the church body, are infinitely more toxic and destructive to it than any atheist progtard feminists on the outside ever could be.
Dear Anon:
Sadly, you’re right, and I don’t understand it. There are tons of these idiots who spend their lives virtue-signalling, 24 hours a day, in the lame hopes some elderly divorcée will give them some poon. It’s a fertile field of faggots, ripe to have their bubbles burst, and we’re the men to do it. All it takes is a throwaway email address and ten minutes a day, and you too could make a real difference in the world. Impress your friends as you humiliate one of the many moronic male feminists of twitter! Be there now!
greyghost says:
December 14, 2015 at 12:25 pm
“Are you seriously arguing for women to live off the labor of men?! ”
“Them days are over. Any man these days playing SAHM under the family law we have today is a gambler and is asking for a sure frivorce. She can frivorce and by resource collections have two husbands making payments on her. And all the while look like a proper married lady. Throw in the Christian label and you have purity of virtue.”
BINGO!!!! That’s exactly what I’m talking about.
Gunner, “It’s like how Israelis constantly talk about suicide bombers and rocket strikes even though they want a world without those and insist on living in their war-torn country instead of a peaceful Third World mud pit with a non-Jewish wife.”
Third world mud pit? Aren’t most “Israelis” from UK, US, Canada, Australia, Russia and Europe?
” I keep thinking about using massage parlors but haven’t convinced myself it would be appropriate.”
I’ll assume you’re referring to happy endings? Even just a normal, non-sexual full body (sans genitals) massage from an expert massage therapist can fulfill our longing for human touch. Go for it. Its well worth it if you get someone who’s actually trained.
Boxer,
All it takes is a throwaway email address and ten minutes a day, and you too could make a real difference in the world. Impress your friends as you humiliate one of the many moronic male feminists of twitter! Be there now!
If there were only 300 MRAs doing as you described, things would be a lot better. Each mangina counter-tweet would take on Streisand-effect properties.
But most people, even red-pill guys, are not leaders, and don’t want to stick their neck out. Even if anonymously. Conversing with like-minded people is easier, so that is what they do.
Nag Me Abedini is the new Jenny Erikson.
Nah, I disagree for the simple reason that he has not divorced her husband. We all recall that Jenny Erikson came to our attention after she’d (a) frivorced her beta bux husband and (b) gotten thrown out of a church for it. Maybe Abedini will frivorce her husband, maybe she won’t, but until she does she isn’t in the same League of Destruction as Jenny Erikson.
For what it’s worth, it would appear that Christian Today is based in the UK, which is not exactly a hotbed of conservative Christian belief.
Nag Me Abedini? LOL!
Morality of Kissing
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=991372
Should I tell my husband?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=991409
NZ Herald: ‘The failure of men to foot it with them educationally in equal numbers is no reason to change the education system or promote men undeservedly. The shortage of partners for highly educated women is a problem only men can solve. Get your credentials, boys.’
I got your credentials, right here. Boy.
@MarcusD
I’d say “don’t tell your husband because it’s not worth mentioning”. Lesbian mutual masturbation does not count as sex IMO.
“After a month of resting and healing and sitting at the feet of Jesus, today I felt led to share”
Nag Meh Abudabi spent a month at Jesus’ feet. With him and Father, exalted in heaven. Sitting there soaking up the holiness. Now, Nag Meh has descended from the celestial mount to share!
Yeeks, officially. And people get mad at me for saying it must be last days.
Nag Me Abedini? LOL!
It depends on whether you take it as a full sentence, or simply as a name.
Are there any party people here? Could you look at my post about parties and comment about any insights that you have to offer?
https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/why-are-some-parties-fun-and-others-arent/
@ AR
Oh, and we’v heard from the imprisoned pastor. It’s not hard to find
Not recent. Liz was correct–I was looking for something recent. I consider this to be an unusual error on your part.
The Bible is universal and applies to all eras and people. There are prophecies that have not been recorded because they are limited in scope and do not apply universally.
What people fail to see is that our culture needs to match what is written in the Bible. We are who need to change. Explaining something you don’t agree with the culture of that time is a technique that can be used to explain anything away that the Bible says.
@ Disillusioned
The Bible is universal and applies to all eras and people.
“Judas went and hanged himself…go thou and do likewise.”
Was the land of Israel given to Abraham and his descendants or to all peoples?
Your interpretive lens is faulty.
@Anonymous Reader December 14, 2015 at 12:45 pm
Oh, and we’v heard from the imprisoned pastor. It’s not hard to find.
http://aclj.org/iran/pastor-saeed-after-beatings-torture-did-not-recognize-myself
Thanks for posting this AR
That Pastor Saeed. He sounds the epitome of the Abusing bastard husband.
It’s my hope that Mrs Abedini takes a good long look at herself and repents.
So what type of abuse is she accusing him of, exactly – slapping, punching, throwing?
Saeed looks strangely like Driscoll, another pastor accused of having similar issues. Could they be the same person? I’ve read conspiracy theories that actors are used for “media events”.
So what type of abuse is she accusing him of, exactly – slapping, punching, throwing?
Maybe the abuse of not making her life more comfortable because he is in prison. You see, he won’t be celebrating the anniversaries and the special holidays with her. Spousal neglect is a serious type of abuse, you see.
Maybe the abuse of not making her life more comfortable because he is in prison. You see, he won’t be celebrating the anniversaries and the special holidays with her. Spousal neglect is a serious type of abuse, you see.
Alas, I think you’ve nailed it, Dave. Also, I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that this episode serves as further evidence of my assertion of the extinction of the “Titus 2 woman” in the modern church. I’m compelled to ask: where are the “older” women in Nagmeh’s church family, the ones who should be counseling and guiding her, helping her keep her hamster in check?
The obvious answer is that there are no such women. Indeed, it’s probably “older women” who are egging Nagmeh on, giving her “the whispers” about claiming “abuse” from Saeed and guiding her towards ultimately dropping the frivorce bomb.
“Maybe the abuse of not making her life more comfortable because he is in prison. You see, he won’t be celebrating the anniversaries and the special holidays with her. Spousal neglect is a serious type of abuse, you see.”
This is an American and British woman concern. They’re Iranians. My experience with West and South Asians is that they don’t care about that sort of thing. If she’s adopted American culture to that extent, something’s amiss.
Naghmeh was born in Iran, came to the USA at the age of 9, and is now a US citizen. Depending on her family’s culture here, it would not be surprising if she more American than Iranian in outlook.
As to the possibility that she would like to have biblical reason for divorce, there are “Christians” who believe that imprisonment is abandonment by a non-believing spouse, so she has acceptable grounds. I think the argument is that a person who commits a crime presumably knows that it can result in imprisonment and the inability to support a wife and family, so the offense means they have chosen to abandon the marriage. Somehow, I’m not sure how, this also shows that this person is not a Christian, therefore she has been willingly abandoned by a non-believer which constitutes a valid biblical reason for divorce (at least by the majority of Protestants).
Perhaps the notion that imprisonment is abandonment has come from the civil courts. Some states, for example, New York and Texas, allow divorce when imprisonment for a felony has exceeded a length of time (unless, in Texas, your testimony was involved in the conviction). In New York, this is an allowable reason up to 5 years after release.
Nagmeh is (as I suggested before) re-positioning herself: she has over fifty thousand Facebook followers (not Friends like us ordinary mortals) although it has to be said that she has been remarkably quiet on Fb since the beginning of November, however she has a hot-line to Jesus which is something else I cannot claim to have – though that is no fault of Mr Zuckerburg.
My only experience of an Iranian woman (probably naturalised American); young and good looking has not enamoured me of that country’s females. I was no doubt trying to ingratiate myself with her with some up-chat when she threw the following curve-ball of a fitness test at me: she told me that The British were anti-Iranian – this was the 1980s. Not only was that not correct – we were making overtures to them at the time – it was surely America (the country of her choice) who was with its support for Hussein Saddam, anti-Iranian – you may recall President Carter’s half-baked and hopelessly unsuccessful mission of Navy Seals (or whatever the American equivalent to the SAS/SBS is). I did not have a ready answer: Reader I did not score.
“At the time of Jesus, women had few rights, and Jewish men were permitted to divorce their wives for the slightest infraction, simply stating in public that they are now divorced. Women were then left destitute with few options to support themselves”
That is a FLAT OUT LIE!
If you will permit a Jewish woman reader to comment on this subject, he is basing his argument on a counterfactual,proposition. The truth is, two thousand years ago Jewish women had the protection of a written marriage contract, the Ketubah. I have one, too. It’s framed on my wall, and guess what language it’s written in? ARAMAIC! That was the vernacular among Jews in Jesus’ lifetime.
The wording of the Ketubah has not changed since then, and it clearly specifies the amount of money a husband is to pay his wife in the event of a divorce. It also specifies that this debt is a primary lien on his possessions, and that he must “sell the shirt off his back” to satisfy the debt if necessary. That is where the expression “the shirt off my back” originated.
Divorce among Jews was never an easy matter of a husband declaring that he no longer wished to be married (thats Muslims, by the way). A religious court of three rabbinical judges is (and was two thousand years ago) required to break a marriage contract.
When someone lies so outrageously about known historical facts, he is a weasel whois not to be trusted on any subject.
Thanks for letting me put in my two cents.
2084GO
come on man, she’s using social media and is a topic of discussion. God damn right she cares about that stuff and the attention that comes with victimhood.
Define “sex” as you and Bill Clinton like but you can’t lawyer your way out of the obligation to be chaste. For a spouse the offense is not only against God but also against the other spouse and against the marriage.
OT: After 2 years of The Red Pill from Dalrock and Rollo, I can’t even enjoy pop music anymore. The things I used to find beautiful I now see as the disgusting lies they are. It’s still amazing to me how inundated by feminine primacy noise we men are.
I was just now listening to Annie’s Lennox’s “Why”, and for the first time, all I’m hearing now is a woman losing the tinglez for her lover and rationalizing her leaving him (with an unspoken love interest waiting-in-the-wings no doubt). It’s everywhere and it’s hiding in plain sight.
@ Regular Guy
This may help balance things:
and this:
“14-carat mind” is far more accurate than “Gold-digger”, the former shows exactly where the problem originates from, while the latter implies working hard for something precious.
A Baptist pastor teaches what the bible says and it makes news.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/baptist-pastor-commands-wives-to-submit-the-feminist-rebellion-is-destroying-america/
An alledged Baptist news site reports it as news with lots of scare quotes around his siting of scripture.
https://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/30731-pastor-cites-feminist-rebellion-in-moral-decline
The comment section is predictable.
Remember Enrique’s rule, “That which is best for White Women, is that which will be”. Even if others (non-white women) collaterally benefit, if a law, policy or war is necessary to benefit white women, it will eventually happen. Even in situations that are analogous or symmetrical to situations involving men–all efforts (and eventually results) will be designed to have the proper outcome for women. We will see that with women in combat eventually.
So, per Enrique’s law. This.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12051984/Woman-tricked-into-having-sex-with-transexual-tells-how-she-was-manipulated.html
No matter how in-congruent such stories may be with the otherwise progressive agenda and political correctness, when it involves a poor, put upon white woman, the law will back her, as will the common culture. (we are seeing this as well with the pushback on shared bathrooms, showers…no one has a problem with it for men…only women, many of whom complaining are the same liberal women that voted for the progressive agenda in other situations…trannies are just a bridge too far).
I should add, almost every single quote in that article is PRICELESS, and completely proves the absurdity of the liberal position on this matter.
“If I had thought for one moment that this was a case where his motivation was to get into bed with a woman to sexually satisfy himself I would have no hesitation in imposing an immediate custodial sentence but it is not that situation.”
PRICELESS.
A Regular Guy says:
December 16, 2015 at 6:19 pm
Ya gotta love it when churchians so enthusiastically “out” themselves as the frauds that they are.
Anyone wanna bet that this pastor is gonna very soon be given the pink slip by his congregation?
Remember Enrique’s rule, “That which is best for UMC White Women, is that which will be.”
FIFY
An alledged Baptist news site reports it as news with lots of scare quotes around his siting of scripture.
I was sorely tempted to leave a comment there in response to the half dozen rebellious churchian whines already posted, but realized the futility of such an effort. Among churchian denominations, Southern Baptists are notorious for squelching dissenting voices, mostly because they know how paper thin and flimsy their exigesis is and how easily their legalism is shot full of holes.
enrique,
Remember Enrique’s rule, “That which is best for White Women, is that which will be”.
So the government policy of doing most of Islam’s work for it, is good for white women?
Well, Islam does give gina tingles to women (white or otherwise), so that explains why we are going out of our way to ensure there are more terrorist attacks.
@Just A Regular Guy:
I gave up on most secular music a long time ago, and most Christian music as well. There’s a few good acts around, but I tend to focus on classical symphony stuff these days or certain electronica genres. (I quite enjoy voiceless Chillstep while I work)
1000 years of Western Music development and we’re left with almost nothing worth listening to that has a voice track. It’s quite sad, actually.
@ Feeriker
They’ve already deleted 2 of my comments. It seems most of the readership of Baptistnews.com are ashamed of the Bible as it is written.
@ Looking Glass
I’m in the same boat when it comes to Christian music, it’s such dumbed-down, feminized, Jesus-is-my-BFF garbage. I’ve grown to appreciate electronica as of late.
How to get a Get:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20151216_Rabbi_gets_10_years_for_arranging_divorces_with_cattleprods_and_beatings.html
@Don:
I’m reminded why the few Jews I’ve known have steered away from Jewish women. DAMN.
Oh, and may the guy rot in that prison.
@Just A Regular Guy:
Functionally, the only Christian music (since WW2) that has tended to work comes from one of three places: 1) A worship leader that writes something that’s really good, 2) something from the mind of Steve Taylor or 3) something with expert musical skill.
The thing people rarely understand about music is that it’s a way to convey emotion. That’s why songs tend to only cover a few topics. Either Love, Sex, Depression or Enjoyment. When Christian music works, it’s either from a place of expertly creating praise music (so the message gets across honestly) or from a place of deep lament. This is the reason Handel’s Messiah is a brilliant piece and the greatest lyrical Christian song is Amazing Grace. (And very likely will remain as such.)
@Anon: So the government policy of doing most of Islam’s work for it, is good for white women?
Disclosure, I practice Sufism, but having said that, I think it’s all about proportionality (or “percentage-based” political correctness). White women, like liberals in general, can happily maintain two conflicting positions due to the size, population and diversity of our country. So on one hand, they can be a confused 18 year old Smith College grad who sits behind Obama at some speech and nods in approval hearing him talk about Islam or “Muslim Refugees”, and in another context, she can be drunk off her ass at a party, pointing her finger at some (secular) Muslim kid from Lebanon and yakking in disapproval of FGM, surrounded by peers, aware of her White Female entitlement status. Same woman, different contexts, audience and forums. This is just one example. And there are many generalities, and layers of misunderstanding (FGM is typically only practiced in African cultures that had that practice BEFORE Islam). No one at the party–esp no White guy, is going to say, “Wait, aren’t you the one that completely supports Obama’s importation of millions of these people?” And for now–to the near silence of all–Islam is being treated like a “race”, and anyone who is Muslim is being treated like “people of color”, so to say anything is to be subjected to allegations of racism or whatever.
Point being, no one at this point is going to, or HAS to call out White Women (or progs or libs for that matter) about seeming incongruities in their social, personal or political positions. And my guess is, within 20 years, the big “religion” of the US (as practiced) will be Islam, with Christianity being more on the margins, or so watered down as to be merely an ethnic marker (see: Evangelical Movement). “Nones” will be the driving force, and if and when liberals gain even more prominence (esp LGBT) they will begin to turn their canons toward Islam. Right now, they stay with the politically safe targets. Think of California, the whole Prop 8 think (forgot if it was to FORBID gay marriage or what exactly the details were). Anyhow, libs/progs went after–you guessed it, the MORMON church, not that anti-gay “deeply religious” black church down the way–they targeted the whitest of the white, to label them anti-gay bigots. They didn’t protest a single Masjid either.
Enrique’s law applies in all practical applications, outliers be damned. Show me a world where 30 year old female gym teachers ROUTINELY sleep with 16 male high schoolers, and I will show you a world where women will fight to make that legal. It’s a matter of proportionality, mostly. For now, such things that can throw a white woman in prison, are still marginalized, but once adopted by white women generally (see coming sexbot issue, give it time/technology, where it is established to be useful/utilized by women to “get off”, or make money off of), it will go from shamed, to generally accepted, to legal, to encouraged, to tax funded, by men. Discussions about prostitution I believe will focus on that. WW who realize that Alpha F&$^$ can be turned into cold, hard, cash, and social shaming is gone, will rush to get in on it, and then have female oversite.
That which is best for White Women, is that which will be.
>Show me a world where 30 year old female gym teachers ROUTINELY sleep with 16 male high schoolers, and I will show you a world where women will fight to make that legal.
No need, they already do their damnedest to spin it off as a minor thing already. Go check any news article about it; they’ll always call it a “relationship” instead of calling it “rape”.
It seems most of the readership of Baptistnews.com are ashamed of the Bible as it is written.
EXACTLY. One of my comments would’ve been that, given the whiny, rebellious responses posted so far –by churchian manginas as well as women– that the only honest conclusion that any of these people can reach –and the only honest admission that they could make– based on their comments is that the Apostle Paul was a lying misogynist who was stating his own opinion in Ephesians 5, not a God-given commandment. And if that was true, then why should we lend any credence to anything else Paul ever wrote? And if we can’t lend credence to anything Paul ever wrote, should we then trust the rest of the Bible if it contains the works of a misogynist liar (etcetera, etcetera, and on down the rabbit hole we go)?
I would have concluded by demanding that these people just be honest and admit that the obvious: that they have a problem with obeying God’s commandments, that they are both in AND OF the world, and that they don’t really intend to follow Jesus except when it “feels good.” Needless to say, there is ZE-RO chance such comments would have stayed posted.
I’m in the same boat when it comes to Christian music, it’s such dumbed-down, feminized, Jesus-is-my-BFF garbage.
Female artists in the contemporary Christian music genre are all but unlistenable for that very reason.
@nick012000, right. They are trying to get it to the “generally accepted” stage. It already actually is, but it never hurts to keep pushing the envelope. Remember the Prime Time special with Latourneau a few years back (20/20? 60 min?), I recall catching a few clips and the interviewer…was it Katie Couric, was talking to the bitch like she WASN’T a child rapist, like “how has the relationship you two have, changed?” with giggles and smiles, like it a celebrity interview. To date, Latourneau is one of the few women to actually do some hard time.
Btw, it doesn’t help that White Knights like Geraldo (happy divorce rape victim) go around saying how a 14, 15, 16 year old boy (“Young Man”) sleeping with his 30 year old teacher isn’t a big deal. Seemingly forgetting children are not rational, therefore, don’t consider the consequences of STDs, or getting her pregnant…and as I recall, some semi-famous cases of the 1990s that swirled around the manosphere even back then, boys who were statutorily raped HAVE BEEN FORCE to pay Child Support to their rapist.
But Geraldo would simply dismiss that as “appealing to fear” and all that.
@ Looking Glass
I completely understand why Jewish men avoid Jewish women because I used to date one in my Blue Pill days. Looking back with my Red Pill Lens, the entire relationship was be directed by her on her terms, leaving me disgusted with my former Blue Pill self.
A guy I worked with years ago described his experience working in a Jewish families’ retail store. He became friends with the oldest son and he thought it wouldn’t have been a bad place to work if it wasn’t for the Matriarch. All the sons behind their mother’s back made it clear to him they were all prisoner’s of their mother’s directives. In his personal dealing with her, he described the mother as a stereotypically insufferable monster that routinely found ways to steal the joy out of everyone’s daily lives.
The Believer, 2001, Ryan Gosling sums it up (see 1:20 min). Rightly or wrongly, many Jewish men, feel the same way.
@ Looking Glass
Re: “Christian” music, you’re spot on. I was just thinking, why modern “Christian” music is simply inappropriate is because the one word that best describes it, IMO, “irreverent”. Any artistic expression that is mundane in nature when the subject is Christ is antithetical to bringing Glory to his name.
Oh, btw. I’m recalling all sorts of red flags around this Jewish woman I dated:
-From a broken home in the Jewish section of major Shithole Democrat controlled city
-Mother turned her into a replacement spouse when her henpecked father left at a young age
-Former Stripper
-High double digit N count
-Numerous disastrous bisexual relationships with anything and everything regardless of nationality, faith, race and social status
-Formerly frequent Alcohol, Marijuana and Cocaine use
-Allegedly “Raped” twice under dubious circumstances
-Found Christ, got “Saved” and went to Seminary and sought teaching authority over male classmates with the approval of Seminary staff
-Rationalized all sorts of sins after being saved and graduating seminary: Oral sex, Drug and Alcohol use, asserting authority over men, pro-abortion politics, pro-gay politics.
-Tried bossing around her mom’s new Israeli husband in his own home about how he should be helping her mother with the housework
-Was deciding whether to join the Peace Corps or teach the New Testament to children in a Christian Private School. Does that sound like she’s committed to serving Christ to you?
-We met while she was living in my home town for about 2 years before finding her new job in another state. She wanted me to follow her and build a life with her on her terms
-She finally decided on teaching (corrupting) young people at a Christian Private School teaching the New Testament (Yes, a Conservative Christian Protestant private school made her sign an employment contract with a morality clause in it so you know they “vetted” her!) Sad thing is, even if I told her boss what I know, no doubt they would rationalize keeping her on staff. H O M E S C H O O L Y O U R C H I L D R E N!
Why did my Blue Pill self fall for her? She had a great ass and a smile that was infectious. Oh yeah, and she said she loved Jesus… She even had the diploma to say that she did. Not to mislead any of you, there were lots of bright spots in the relationship that I enjoyed so it wasn’t all darkness despite the red flags I listed.
However, I am disgusted with what a fool I was. I can’t believe I was actually considering building a life with this damaged woman. My exposure to pornography, no doubt, had role to play in how easily I allowed my lust to override what I knew was right. In the end, we had a mutual break up, thank God. Shortly after, I discovered the Red Pill and I became enraged with her but also disappointed with myself.
This whole relationship showed me how much more I need to mature as a follower in Christ; I certainly have some work to do with the Lord. Honestly now, I pity and pray for her.
I thank Christ Jesus for opening my eyes. He has me right where I need to be.
@ Enrique
That’s what my coworker was pointing to. He said it really wasn’t the Jews per se, but Jewish women and the power they have over the men in the community that puts them at odds with the natural order of things.
Wonder what would happen if men, while still WITH the chick, in your position started posting “prayer requests for my former stripper, drug-using, ambiguously (c)hristian g/f…” with thoughtful questions like, “is the sin of bisexuality redeemed upon the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, or baptism, or what? just trying to get a good fix on this, and better understanding” “Pray that the NAMED Christian school looks past these indiscretions, and does not hold it against her, and that she rightly guide the children there, who’s parents have put their faith in this school and in her…PRAY PEOPLE, she needs, I need it, to support her and love her through all this”
It would be funny if you got men posting “Be Strong Brother…she will come out of this sin” and stuff like that. We know the reaction would be the OPPOSITE of Naghmeh’s. Accusations of slander, public shaming, airing dirty laundry, all that.
@ enrique
The sh**storm woul be epic.
Back on topic:
If men are held to account by Elders in the Church, other bretheren AND their wives for their testamony in Christ, who holds women like Nagemeh to her testamony in Christ? What Church can I find this demonstrated or are “Servant Leadership” types implying women are without sin therefore in no need of a Savior in Christ?
@Just A Regular Guy:
But hilarious!
As to the Blue Pill days, almost everyone has been there. Some of us came out a lot cleaner and simply found this part of the web because “what you’re supposed to do” had the opposite effect. Conventional Wisdom is supposed to functionally work, which it didn’t. Thus, find out what actually does.
Of course, we also have a lot of Men around here that got put through the meat grinder, and may the Lord’s peace be with them.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi4genJ9ePJAhVLpYMKHc0CAXUQFgglMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fafricanspotlight.com%2F2015%2F12%2F17%2Fman-jailed-for-28-years-after-woman-dreamed-that-he-raped-her-photos%2F&usg=AFQjCNGNBK8fvoyu2Sz0GRw3N1wyvcRF7Q
Just a Regular Guy, you sure know how to pick ’em!
Enrique,
“No matter how in-congruent such stories may be with the otherwise progressive agenda and political correctness, when it involves a poor, put upon white woman, the law will back her, as will the common culture.”
You make the mistake of assuming the woman is down with the trans agenda. I don’t know why you would assume that seeing as this whole trans business is new to virtually everyone and very controversial. Perhaps in a few more decades your assumption might have merit but for now it doesn’t. I don’t begrudge anyone their right to “identify” and lead their lives as they see fit, for themselves, but I draw the line at deceiving others. . That “trans-man’s” freedom should have ended at the other person’s genitalia. In other words, s/he should have told the lady what’s up before s/he put “what’s up” inside her. .
Just A Regular Guy says:
December 17, 2015 at 11:06 am
I too was spared a bullet. I too believe it was by God’s grace. All the signs were there, I just couldn’t see them. I am very grateful to God that he spared me from marrying a western girl who follows the culture.
-Tried bossing around her mom’s new Israeli husband in his own home about how he should be helping her mother with the housework
Geez, how desperate was this guy to get out of Israel that he married an American Jewish woman?
Definitely NOT the sign of a high-value man.
In the Biblical wisdom of Bel Biv Devoe…
Truth spoken @ 1:18 that all men must know.
@JDG:
It’s definitely the Lord’s Grace when you dodge a bullet. It’s just a matter of using that Grace for the Lord’s Glory.
“Remember Enrique’s rule, “That which is best for White Women, is that which will be”.”
That’s a perceptive Rule, Enrique. You must live on this planet.
Good wording, but in the interest of memory retention, I’d like to suggest ‘Enrique’s Equivalence’ as potential tag.
Ray: I’d think that was funny if I hadn’t run into about a million people, including some Red PIllers, most MRAs and FRAs who think it’s otherwise (they think it’s about gay rights, or blacks, or other minorities,or just women in general). Everything is run as to what, ultimately, benefits white women the most. Not “women”…white women.
You’re very welcome.
@2084GO
No, I don’t. The humor in the article is how the judge appeared (as society), conflicted in how to properly handle a case in which both parties were women. It’s nearly impossible for a White Knight to have the right computer software to make a moral judgement about any woman, let alone when her victim is ALSO a woman.
I’ve been saying since this whole trans thing started, it would only get so far, but the minute a consensus was developed that it bothered white women, it would have clear boundaries set. The showers and bathrooms situations, are testing that. It’s early, but eventually you will see otherwise liberal women (feminist types), start to argue, “But this is different…men who claim to be women,are not really women…and it’s creepy, and I need a safe space, etc etc”, EVEN THOUGH this same group is largely responsible for the Caitlyn effect even being accepted as normal. White women will control where the boundaries of political correctness are–not blacks, or gays, or neckbeards.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/28/germaine-greer-i-dont-believe-in-transphobia/
As Dalrock has previously pointed out, TradCons often have the same beliefs about women, as feminists (that’s an oversimplification). TradCons are not going to come out against Greer’s “transphobia” and force her and other feminists to live with their liberal agenda, any more than ultimately women will get killed in any large numbers in combat, or be drafted.
Baltimore has had over 300 murders this year, what do you think would happen if 300 white women had been murdered in one year anywhere in the US, say, by illegals as in this case:
http://abc7news.com/news/family-devastated-after-woman-shot-killed-in-sf/824358/
A wall would be built overnight.
@ Enrique
As far as social politics goes, your law stands until it comes into conflict with Corporate Interests. In that event, no matter how much screeching and grandstanding will take place, I have no reason to believe a fence will be built. Only a daughter being killed from the politically connected ruling class would spur such a change in border policy. The sisterhood of the traveling pants falls apart when a privileged member has her resource generator threatened by a policy.
It would be interesting to see how the Pro-Amnesty, Leftist Elite scumbags would like a taste of their own medicine when they used the local media to publish the names and addresses of legal holders of Gun Licenses in the State of New York when they met resistance over a new assault weapons ban in NY. Now THAT would make the wall go up.
Case in point:
Is America an Oligarchy? Princeton study finds the majority of citizens have little to no influence over our political process as opposed to corporate interests. Warning, link is NSFPP (Not safe for processing power) due to aggressive ads.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
Direct link to the study.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310
Enrique, you assume the woman in the article is a “liberal” and a “progressive”.
“Geez, how desperate was this guy to get out of Israel that he married an American Jewish woman?”
Plenty of Israelis are Americans themselves.
enrique,
Everything is run as to what, ultimately, benefits white women the most. Not “women”…white women.
I’m not so sure it is always universal. For example, in Brtain, that Rotherham situation specifically targeted white girls (some of whom are now adults). Nothing is being done…
Your universal rule, applicable in all other cases, may finally have met its impossible opponent…
“Is America an Oligarchy? Princeton study finds the majority of citizens have little to no influence over our political process as opposed to corporate interests.”
It took Princeton this long to notice? The Constitution Party struggles constantly to have ballot access, in a couple cases pressing charges against officials who break the law to lock us out. It’s a major reason we have trouble getting anything done. The Libertarians and Greens also have horror stories.
Meanwhile, the Trumpening and the Lizard Queen fight for the chance to be America’s first potentate like Kaiju monsters over Tokyo. Spectators, please stay off the field.
Somewhat OT, but I wondered what readers would think of this piece:
http://www.scarymommy.com/co-parenting-with-a-narcissist/
Amazing how surprised the woman is that the man didn’t take kindly to her destroying the family.
As one of the saner commenters point out, this hatchet job is going to hurt the children terribly whenever they read it.
Anon, good point, but it’s still relatively rare (the rapes, overall), but I grant, when two COMPLETELY radioactive PC groups butt heads–it’s harder for the WW maxim to be established–but it will be. Give it time. Heck, give it a H.R.C. presidency.
People have, quite naturally, brought up the issue of how feminists “support” radical Islam, etc etc. Thing is, they DON’T. Right now, with population size, proportion of Muslims in the US anyhow (being small) and the relatively unbothered WW population–it still hasn’t come to a head. If an unfaithful wife’s head gets sawed off, chances are she’s from that same culture (witness the NY case of the broadcasters).
I think the coming boundaries against, and/or defining transgender rights will be a good example. It isn’t THAT big of a deal yet, but give it a few more 6’0 dudes with wigs in women’s bathrooms and let’s see. Remember, by liberal standards, it’s a spectrum, so there is ZERO burden for anyone (man) to prove he is really a tranny or whatever. That’s gonna lead to more bathroom/shower issues.
@ Heidi
All the signs are there: Writer, independent, organic food, pleas for “equal” respect, the slanderish nature of the article, the projection of narcissism…
She’s a backstabbing monster and a cliche. Her husband, to his credit, has the will to employ a scorched earth strategy against her. If more betrayed husbands would realize their exes will turn his children against him anyway and they have nothing to gain by making her betrayal painless, maybe we would see fewer frivorces.
“Anon, good point, but it’s still relatively rare (the rapes, overall), but I grant, when two COMPLETELY radioactive PC groups butt heads–it’s harder for the WW maxim to be established–but it will be. Give it time. Heck, give it a H.R.C. presidency. ”
The White Nationalists should love it then if WW win out over ferners and dem dar tranniez..
“People have, quite naturally, brought up the issue of how feminists “support” radical Islam”
I’ve never seen evidence of this. Feminists, native and global, are working against radical Islam in the countries where it rears its head the most such as Afghanistan. Feminists are celebrating the first vote of women in Saudi Arabia, just happened this month, and along with that first vote, Saudi women ran for office for the first time too. In all my years of reading I don’t think I’ve ever come across a feminist championing radical Islam and/or its treatment of women. Unless you are referring to muslim women in hijab who claim their hijab is somehow “feminist”?
“The other night the kids and I were playing a game with friends. We were supposed to use one word to describe someone. We asked all our kids to describe their parents. My daughter described me as “writer.” When my friend asked my daughter to describe her father, she said, “Hates Mommy the most!” Obviously, she didn’t get the memo on one word, but I wasn’t expecting those four.”
Her ex is an asshole. Whatever one feels about one’s ex, one should never drag children into it.
@Heide: That piece is pure MGTOW porn! Absolutely marvelous.
>My heart can’t make sense of the fact that the other half of my children’s parental structure has sworn himself as my enemy. A man I spent 13 years sleeping next to, decorating Christmas trees with, going on vacations, cooking meals for, the only family member to watch me give birth is now someone who takes a large, if silent, amount of joy in any suffering I should endure, the mother of his children.
So filing for divorce and dumping your man, literally dropping a nuclear bomb did not destroy your enemy like you thought? He fought back? The Hell you say! Enjoy your cats and eternity in the lake of fire you evil harlot. In an earlier society we would have shown you mercy, buried you up to your neck and then stoned her to death. Now you get to live a long lonely life of regret for listening to the Whispers.
Daddy dude needs to get a young hot woman and take a family photo with all the kids- the perfect Christmas present for crazy mommy.
>I would do anything to give my children a safe home free of oppression and dehumanization, a home where everyone is respected, heard, and free…
The sound of a rebellious woman. Freedom > Happiness
@2084: It’s an asshole thing to let the kids in on your agony but sometimes it can’t be helped. Doesn’t mean the guy is an asshole just because his emotions for the ultimate betrayal have got the best of him. The little girl probably saw her dad crying and sobbing. She heard him whining on the phone. There is NO evidence that he tried to poison the minds of the kids against mom deliberately. Parental alienation is a FEMALE specialty and they are outstanding at it. This guy shows us a just a bit how to turn the tables. I applaud the man’s use of the hostages and note that if more of these Frivorcing harpies were DESTROYED there would be fewer frivorcing harpies.
2084GO
I don’t think women are supporting Islam…I’m saying, people in the US, like TradCons, keep “calling out feminists” because they don’t see feminists bashing Islam, or stopping the refugee stream–that’s my point, they AREN’T supporting Islam…they are just laying low–they applaud “feminist” things in other Islamic countries and remain silent for the most part, here–because they generally support AllThingsLeft. In a nation our size, with as much diversity as we have, you can maintain a social position that conflicts with your political peers, without too much consequence-for now at least. Muslims (who tend to support dems nowdays, although we didn’t use to), aren’t out fighting Feminists either, to be fair.
I’m not sure how you are reading my posts, but you’re drawing opposite inferences. My entire POINT is that people keep acting like they are shocked that feminists aren’t out banging the drum against Islam and thus seem to be “supporting” it. THEY AREN’T. There’s NO EVIDENCE THAT feminists support Islam–they support “People of Color” and “Diversity” and “Anti-White Male Patriarchy”, and if that means remaining silent for now, while cops are killed, or Muslims shoot up the joint, they will do so. And for TradCons, they keep trying to “shame” feminists, AS IF they are supporting Islam–my entire point is that TradCons are completely oblivious to the tactic being used. Same with Islam. They gays will be the first to be hanged if radicals get in place, and women (rightly) will go back to shutting up and raising children.
Her ex is an asshole. Whatever one feels about one’s ex, one should never drag children into it.
Probably no more so than she is. It reads to me like she’s doing her fair share of “dragging the children into it” too. Remember: in modern Anglo-American society, children serve no purpose other than being pawns, status symbols, and weapons for adults.
She might have been the source of the “Daddy hates Mommy” vibe; she’s on record as derogating the father of her children in a public forum.
Is this guy really so bad that she needs to nuke him in front of the world? Playing loud music and dancing with the children doesn’t seem too vile to me, nor does wishing to avoid child support when you have 50-50 custody appear evil.
“Her husband, to his credit, has the will to employ a scorched earth strategy against her.”
Dangerous though, and probably not worth it. The woman always has the ultimate weapon of last resort – false accusations of abuse. At least she didn’t do that here.
But she is the one accusing the husband of narcissism. Who is the narcissist here? The story is all about how she’s been wronged. Her her her. Even going by her own account, her husband sounds like a decent man who put up with what I bet was constant nagging, perfectionism and pettiness.
Women like this are the perpetual Grocery Store Checkout girl who routinely shortchanges her customers and acts like she is being inconvenienced by cretins when a pricing error has been brought to her attention or deny the charge altogether. Hypocritically, they scream bloody murder, angrily accuse, embarrass and rudely call attention to a customer who inadvertently failed to give her enough cash to cover the bill.
To these women, this is their world and we men are just blessed to be a prop in it.
Thing is Enrique, we live in democracies that value liberty and religious freedom. Sure, there’s a lot of loony, sexist and often dangerous stuff written in religious books but in democracies people are allowed to be whatever religion they want to be as long as they don’t break any laws. Why anyone would expect feminists to speak out against Islam generally more than any other religion is difficult to understand. They want feminists to tell Americans or Brits that they should leave Islam if they are muslims? Or they should not convert to Islam if they are considering it? Or that they should be given the option of following any other religion besides Islam? All religions should have a place in the our country EXCEPT for Islam? Enrique should never have the legal right to be a Sufi? What do they want feminists to say, exactly? I don’t understand.
BluePillProf, “So filing for divorce and dumping your man, literally dropping a nuclear bomb did not destroy your enemy like you thought? He fought back? The Hell you say! Enjoy your cats and eternity in the lake of fire you evil harlot. In an earlier society we would have shown you mercy, buried you up to your neck and then stoned her to death.”
OK so who was it that took umbrage when I said the Old Testament and Sharia are the same?
That said, I don’t think either one calls for stoning a woman who divorces her husband. And both the Torah and Quran do allow for female initiated divorce.
“Daddy dude needs to get a young hot woman and take a family photo with all the kids- the perfect Christmas present for crazy mommy.”
More than that he needs to get laid. His oneitis is dragging on far too long. For criminey they split all of 2 years ago! Nothing like some “good, good” Beyonce-Jay Z style to kill the inner and cure what ails ya!
“I would do anything to give my children a safe home free of oppression and dehumanization, a home where everyone is respected, heard, and free…”
“The sound of a rebellious woman. Freedom > Happiness”
Never trade freedom for security is a motto from ’round where I grew up.
” It’s an asshole thing to let the kids in on your agony but sometimes it can’t be helped.”
Its been 2 years. See above.
” Nothing like some “good, good” Beyonce-Jay Z style to kill the inner and cure what ails ya! ”
the inner asshole.
Back to Mrs Abedini, look at one of the articles linked:
‘Those troubles include “physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse (through Saeed’s addiction to pornography),” she wrote. The abuse started early in their marriage and has worsened during Saeed’s imprisonment, she said. The two are able to speak by phone and Skype.’
If the “physical abuse” constitutes beating (which would be actual abuse, and reprehensible on his part), then why not be more specific? “Eemotional, psychological” abuse, without being specific, is so vague as to be meaningless. By “sexual abuse” she apparently means him privately masturbating to pornography. This is not good, but saying he is “sexually abusing” her by doing this is just silly.
And oh yeah this “abuse” has somehow worsened when he has been imprisoned and only able to interact with her sporadically via phone and skype. Which is effectively stating that the “abuse” can’t have been that bad in the first place.
It seems highly likely no real abuse has taken place.
I agree. Nag Me sounds like a nut. Either that or her clever lawyers are advising her. I’m sure Saeed’s porn fantasies are getting fulfilled in jail, although perhaps not in the way he envisioned – or maybe? What was the nature of the porn he watched?
That joke was in bad taste, sorry.
@ CSI
““Eemotional, psychological” abuse, without being specific, is so vague as to be meaningless.”
I disagree. She using the term “Emotional Abuse” the way almost all women use it today; he made her feel bad over the phone when calling from prison.
Nevermind being physically and psychologically tortured. He needed to be strong for her even if this meant faking a bright, sunny and chipper attitude over the phone so that she could handle this ordeal in a Godly way. The fact that she is gossiping about him shows that he’s failing to lead her as God commanded him, therefore, is justified in frivorcing him or, at the very least, having her needs met in an adulterous affair with another brother in the congregation.
Ugh. I hate the fact that I’m getting better at speaking Churchianese.
“If you can’t be through and through eunuch then you can’t be MGTOW”
Excuse me? I was under the impression that MGTOWs were the apex alphas of the Manosphere. They are the men whom women want but can’t tie down. They are the gatekeepers of commitment who deny women marriage and kids but are happy to indulge their bad boy fantasies. They are the amog’s cucking omega and beta husbands. Or they are the hyper-masculine Jack Donovans of the world – so manly that it extends into their sexual preferences, thus pissing women off even more, “all the good ones are gay!”
A MGTOW is that ever aloof, super attractive, independent He Man who marches to the beat of his own drum, sending tingles into the loins of women everywhere. He’s no incel. He’s the 100+ notch count playa. PUAs got nothin’ on MGTOW!
Dating advice (…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=992035
Wow, great straw man there! Did you think it up all by yourself?
I notice they delete dissenting opinions at Scary Mommy rather quickly. Can’t question the narrative..
Seems that Japan has its own version of MGTOW: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2009/06/the_herbivores_dilemma.single.html
Young men are increasingly uninterested in sex, women, money, power, careers, or consumerism.
They prefer spending time alone, taking walks, surfing the internet, reading comics, focusing on solitary hobbies. They do NOT care whether women or society-at-large approves of them. They do NOT strive to meet others’ expectations.
@2074Go
”Sure, there’s a lot of loony, sexist and often dangerous stuff written in religious books but in democracies people are allowed to be whatever religion they want to be as long as they don’t break any laws.”
Sexism is being realistic dear. Else they wouldn’t have been passed down as traditions that stood the test of time.
And democracy is not what it is cut out to be.
Sexism is being realistic dear.
Yep! So is a host of other “ists” and “isms” that make up the new “morality”.
Where is it written “Thou shalt not be sexist” or any other PC mandated no no? NO WHERE!
@Red Pill Latecomer:
The “herbivore” Men in Japan bit has always been overblown. (Also, given how the term is actually an explicit insult, if you ever catch a Feminist spitting off about it, lay on that they’re bigots for it. 🙂 ) The ones that exist are simply a response to similar effects that are rampant across the modern economies. It was also the first push for bringing more Women into certain business sectors in Japan. (Something they’ve become more explicit in doing, but it really isn’t working. Mostly because “get married, quit work” is the life goal of most Women in Japan. Feminist Merit Badge doesn’t work when the business culture won’t change.)
Japan still has a lot of trappings from the feudal age. (The titles of nobility only ceased in 1947, after all.) If you’re not in a “good” family, you’re going to need a will of iron to “get ahead”. Their entire school system is about being the best on tests, so it really screws with your mind. This also causes a lot of people to drop out of the rat race. That is all that’s being reflected.
Japan does have a lot of problems with early stages of 2nd Wave Feminism, but it’ll end up being pretty resistant to it. Mostly because if you expect certain things in Japan to change, you’ve never paid attention to the culture there. (There’s also a long discussion about how most of the culture is more highly feminized than any Westerner would ever consider. The system has just worked better for the Women there for a whole lot longer than any Western Feminist can conceive.)
http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/muslim-cabby-fined-for-not-allowing-woman-up-front/
The hearing’s judge, Laura Fieber, told the cabby he needs to keep his religion to himself when serving the public. [*Enrique note: Anyone wanna bet what the judge looks like, sounds like, and her political beliefs?]
“That his religion did not allow him to sit next to a woman is not an acceptable defense in an occupation that is operated to serve the public,” she wrote. “Of significance, respondent made it clear that the husband would be welcome in the front seat, while the wife/complainant would not be.”
I also agree that if you are in a public service position you need to serve without discriminating (including marriage licences), but make no mistake, despite how many seeming concessions will be made to our faith (over Christianity), when it butt’s up against what is perceived as the rightful pedestal of WW, we will all lose. Other jurisdictions have forced agencies and private sector companies (like cab companies) to permit us reasonable prayer times, the right to not haul alcohol or ham, and other considerations, that probably ARE taken more seriously than Christian beliefs/petitions of a similar nature. But NOT if it bothers women.
I guess the best test would be a pretty white woman that attempts to enter a Muslim-operated cab from the airport with a bottle of Merlot and a pet ferret in a carry-on cage. Then demands to sit up front.
@2084GO: I think TradCons (libertarians know better) want feminists at places like NOW, and well-known feminists to give press conferences bashing Islam, like they would any other “encroaching elements of patriarchy”. If I am reading them right, I think TradCons, and others who are around the Gen-X age who grew up listening to them bitch about everything, would like to see what they perceive as equality of outrage. And the other part, is clear White Knighting. Lots of Evangelical Christians are completely liberal and open to the refugees and the situation in general, but also like to say, in other appropriate circles, “It’s just the way the treat women [with appropriate head-shaking]”. Said carefully of course.
If I ever let on I am Muslim (many do not know, since I am White Hispanic), I get the usual apologies and “I didn’t mean ALL Muslims” and all that, that you would expect from timid millennials, but if there are WW present and/or White Knights, it gets backed off a bit with deeper questioning, and/or confrontational style…ONLY on how Islam is perceived to “treat women”, NOT ANY OTHER FUNDAMENTAL disagreements with our faith, like the status of Jesus/Isa (as), the person of our Prophet Muhammad (saws).
Liberals generally have no standards, boundaries or thresholds, so the acceptance for example, of the argument “OMG, NOT ALL trannies are post op!” naturally leads to 6’2 dudes in your daughters shower at the community pool, resting in the sauna, balls out–which led to parents complaining (women) in a recent case. Then the obvious conflicting social positions and confrontations follow, because liberalism leads to chaos–and per Enrique’ law, whenever you are not sure–always bet on WW. Whenever you feel that “Well, I wonder how they are going to resolve THIS one!?” That’s your answer. Ask Judge Laura Fieber.
@enrique:
“So open-minded that their brain leaked out”. It’s a great statement for most Moderns.
As for Feminists vs Islam, it’s not about equal outrage. It’s explicitly about highlighting the hypocrisy of all of the stages of Feminism. The instant they have to focus on what Islam brings with it is the instant they lose all of the rhetorical leverage. It’s partially about a desire to be liked, but the people making the point also, at a deep level, get that the culture is utterly hypocritical.
Dalrock, check http://swanluv.com/ : free financing of wedding… to be paid back with interest at divorce.
@Santa:
Given the correlation been “High cost of Wedding” and Divorce (and if enforceable), it could logically have a positive return. But given the likelihood of post-divorce Bankruptcy by one or both parties, good luck on that.
Is it MGTOW if you do it as a group?
http://news.yahoo.com/angry-single-men-stage-anti-christmas-rally-tokyo-104128179.html;_ylt=AwrC1jHTUnVWamoAqkvQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByZnU4cmNpBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM5BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg–
“In this world, money is extracted from people in love, and happy people support capitalism,” said the head of the organisation, formally called Kakumeiteki Hi-mote Domei, or the Revolutionary Losers’ League.
“Christmas is the most symbolic event for this,” he added.
The man, who identified himself only by the pseudonym MarkWater, said the rally was also in support of unloved men.
“Unpopular men, who don’t have a girlfriend or are not married, are overly discriminated. We want to break this barrier,” he told AFP amid the shouting protesters.
That is wear America is going wrong: You can’t sit up front in a Black Cab (in London) because there is only one seat and that is for the Cabby. In the back you can find up to about six seats. Even in a Mini-Cab (that is the equivalent if a Yellow Cab to you) I would not feel particularly at ease sitting next to the driver, and certainly not if that driver was female, in fact I think I would refuse to get into a cab driven by a woman and not just because of the risk of false allegations – they drive so badly.
I fail to see that Islam treats women poorly; Islam cares for its women and indeed it appears to treat women considerably better than does The West. Were I a Cabby I would not want a woman up front with me; it’s not even as if the Cabby was refusing her fare. By having the woman sit in the back the cabby was showing her far more respect.
“Anti-Christmas protesters calling themselves “Losers with Women” marched through Tokyo’s streets Saturday, bashing the upcoming holiday as a capitalist ploy that also discriminates against singletons.”
What to speak of it is not a traditional Japanese holiday. Good on these guys for resisting the globalization of the Evil Imperialist Western Corporate Religious Axis. May Kami-no-Kaze bless them in their struggle. Continue to speak truth to power, my brothers!
Feminism vs Islam. Many Muslim women say they are feminists and that wearing hijab is a feminist, socio-political statement. The rationale goes like this; “By covering my body I resist ‘the male gaze’ and men are forced to interact with me on the basis of my mind alone”.
Non-Muslim feminists often address the sexist elements of Islam, as they do the sexist elements of other religions. And of course there are other feminists who call for the abolition of religion altogether, particularly the Abrahamic faiths. Then you have radical feminists like the Mancheeze blogger who convert to Judaism. Anyone who knows anything about Jewish conversion knows its no joke. They have strict guidelines and you have to study under an ORTHODOX rabbi, a man, because in orthodox Judaism there are no women rabbis like their are in reform Judaism. Yet she’s a self-identified radical feminist.
There’s also no reason to expect radfems to accept transwomen into their ranks. Many are TERFs, “Trans Exclusionary Rad Fems”. They see transwomen as men invading womens’ spaces and trying to control the female narrative. They do not believe that “gender is fluid”. Libfems, that is liberal feminists, are generally the ones proposing gender fluidity, but there’s a lot of variation there too regarding trans. The trans phenomena is new and all of us, me, you, the rest of the world, are newly learning about it. Some transwomen look like biological women, even better. We’re going to see a lot more hetero men unwittingly dating these women only to find out later that they’ve been dating, even sleeping with, biological males. And some won’t even find out. The medical technology is getting that good.
In all honesty I can’t say I’m thrilled about this. I can’t say I could just shrug off finding out my girlfriend (or even wife!) was born a boy.
“May you live in interesting times” is a blessing, or a curse? I prefer the predictable and boring myself.
” And some won’t even find out. The medical technology is getting that good.”
It just dawned on me, why bother with sexbots and VR sex when real live humans with the same equipment, even better, they’ll feel real because they are, will be available for the “girlfriend experience” except – they’ll originally have been male, which means they’ll, in Steve Harvey tradition, “act (and look, and feel) like a lady but think like a MAN!” Imagine – she’ll screw you like a porn star, roll over, go to sleep without expecting cuddles and zero “let’s talk about us”. Then after a snooze its beer and World of Warcraft. It will be the best of both worlds for some lonely incels out there.
Off Topic:
A man named David Carroll realtalks the Black community…
Long, but must listen. The destruction of the Black family is due to single parent homes, and the decisions of Black women to align themselves with White feminists.
@ Enrique
“Liberals generally have no standards, boundaries or thresholds, so the acceptance for example, of the argument “OMG, NOT ALL trannies are post op!” naturally leads to 6’2 dudes in your daughters shower at the community pool, resting in the sauna, balls out”
The Liberal Mind is one that is avoid sources of anxiety at all costs. So when anyone who isn’t a Liberal warns them of impending danger or of a consequence to a suggest plan of action, their gut level instinct is to avoid or dismiss the source of anxiety (e.g. “You’re just fear-mongering”, “You’re a bigot”, “You fear change”, etc.). Normal, healthy people use anxiety to form a plan and then act on that plan in spite of it’s perceived initial discomfort to alleviate the source of anxiety long-term.
When I was young, my mom ran over a family of baby rabbits tucked away in a very shallow hole in our front yard with a lawn mower, leaving on 2 to survive. We cared for them and raised them and they became family pets. In the first days we brought them into our home, I would take one of the baby bunnies and sit him on my belly while I would watch TV. Until the bunny became accustomed to us, I would cup my hands and make a hiding hole for him on my belly. The bunny would climb inside and it would calm down. When I took my hand away, it became anxious again.
Yep, liberals are bunnies. Anxiety is to be avoided, they are at the mercy of their environment and they live for today. All they care about is f*cking and consuming. The words of the languages they use in politics are simply a way to facilitate those two objectives.
“Liberals generally have no standards, boundaries or thresholds, so the acceptance for example, of the argument “OMG, NOT ALL trannies are post op!” naturally leads to 6’2 dudes in your daughters shower at the community pool, resting in the sauna, balls out”
“…they are at the mercy of their environment and they live for today. All they care about is f*cking and consuming. ”
Most of my friends would probably be what you would call “liberal” but they don’t fit those descriptions at all. I have to stick up for them because they are genuinely good, solid people.
Boxer,all
New youtuber just one of many. Black men are waking up and speaking out Sotomayor was not the first just the biggest.
This attitude is how a civilization is destroyed. Christianity is now churchianship and has provided topic after topic for this blog.
What the west needs is “red Pillism” By default that will restore the Christian foundation. A worldly civilization founded guided by the red pill will cause the “winners’ to be those that follow Christianity. The thugs, sluts and non believers will remain but we aren’t talking to them anyway. It is the average person thinking they are good people following evil that needs to be removed.
“It is the average person thinking they are good people following evil that needs to be removed.”
So people who are not members of your religion are “evil”, eh? Did you hear that, Boxer? You’re evil. So are you, Enrique.
“A worldly civilization founded guided by the red pill will cause the “winners’ to be those that follow Christianity. The thugs, sluts and non believers will remain but we aren’t talking to them anyway. ”
You replied to Boxer above, so yes, you ARE talking to “non believers”.
Boxer, I guess you’re new to black youtube. Its been around for decades and was actually the first “mens’ rights” internet platform. Thugtician, who is no longer participating, was one of the more prolific and articulate back in the day. You can find his archives on youtube. Whatever you white boys are thinking you are just “discovering” now, has already been addressed, a million ways sideways, by black youtube years ago.
As far as David Carroll, he disses black women for making bad choices but is simultaneously against swirling. The swirlers make it clear that the reason they are swirling is precisely because they don’t want to make those bad choices that other black women are making. They site all the statistics, the most glaring one being that the marriages with the most longevity in the USA right now are black wife/white husband marriages. And then of course you have the crime states, unemployment stats and all that. Bottom line: The best choice for a black woman right now is a white man. So if David Carroll wants black women to get wise and make good choices, why is he against swirling?
So people who are not members of your religion are “evil”, eh?
We are all “evil”, that is why we need a savior. “Evil” people cannot save themselves, and there are no “good” people.
Matthew 7:9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
John 14:5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
“We are all “evil”, that is why we need a savior. “Evil” people cannot save themselves, and there are no “good” people.”
There are no good people. What a way to think.
A Denver, Colorado, man has spent 28 years in prison based on a dream!
2084GO
You are one of those trouble maker types that likes to play dumb. You Know full well what is being commented on here and go and make your own context. That quoted comment was yours and yet you projected that on to Boxer. Only a woman, some simp ass that was raised by a single mom or a straight up asshole playing dumb will do that with a straight face.
BTW liberalism is the evil in this context.
Dear Grey Ghost:
Her endless attempts to start fights between regular contributors here was noted long ago. I find these antics amusing, though not really worthy of response. 2084GO is welcome to find me on twitter if she wants to have a conversation. lol
Best,
Boxer
There are no good people. What a way to think.
God has told us that all mankind is fallen and “evil” (in need of a savior). God knows our deepest thoughts and truest motives. He knows that the heart of every man (and woman) is deceitful and wicked. God is holy, righteous, and perfect. Even the best of us fall short before Him.
Our righteous deeds are as filthy rags to Him. That’s how holy He is. We are (all of us) hopelessly lost with out His redeeming work in Christ Jesus.
You obviously don’t believe the Bible (God’s written word), so on what authority do you disagree with the Bible? How do YOU decide who or what is good or evil? On what do you base your judgement, and why should anyone believe you over the Bible?
Mark Driscoll announces intention to set up his new shop in Phoenix.
He’s baaaa-ack…
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/12/14/mark-driscoll-rising-from-the-ashes-in-phoenix-ex-megachurch-pastor-starts-new-church/
Isn’t Driscoll the “pastor” who preached fellatio from the pulpit? The x-rated godman? And isn’t fellatio a sub-category of sodomy?
Anyway, as white people with no insight into black America (remember the “outrage” over that black pastor who’s church Obama went to a few times? That’s what I mean. Y’all are out of touch), believe me, take these black youtubers with a kilo of rock, that’s crack. To the man (and most likely woman), all of them practice what they preach against. Railing against single baby mamas? Dude has 4. Railing against “coons and bojangles in the entertainment industrial complex”? Dude knows all of NWA’s lyrics and puts them on loud blast at the beginning of all of his podcasts. Railing against “arab and asian owned stores in the ‘hood”? Dude can’t scrap together 2 dollars to start his own business. But oh yeah, ALL of them are self-described “entrepreneurs”.
Its a joke. Now their latest rant is against black women fed up with the b.s. marrying gainfully employed white men so they can have a stable family unit in a safe middle class suburb. You’ll notice the difference immediately between the two demographics if you go to any of their videos. The black women speak proper English and cite statistics while the black men use every f-word, n-word, b,c and d-word found on NWA tracks. The black women dating and marrying white men are an entirely different caliber and class than the black men dissing them and blaming “swirling” on feminism.
Christalyn Karzin is their latest target. She’s a natural haired, “nappy headed” as the black men say, attractive, THIN, chocolate skinned woman. She is not most American black mens’ “type”. Too skinny, too dark. She has a responsible, gainfully employed, white beta husband and is advising other black women to expand their options beyond Pookie and Ray Ray so that they too can experience life with a committed husband and devoted father in a proper house in a proper neighborhood.
This eats black men like David Carroll up. Notice the language and demeanor in David’s videos vs the language and demeanor in Christalyn’s. Worlds apart. And yet the Davids of the Americas think they deserve a woman like Christalyn.
They also spread the lie that feminism forced married black fathers out of their homes in the 60s to put black moms on welfare. So we’re supposed to believe that feminist social workers went into the homes of married black people and told the wives “we will put you on welfare if you divorce your husband”?!?! We’re supposed to believe these black wives agreed and went through the process of long, messy, and very expensive divorces AND got alimony and child support AND STILL GOT WELFARE!?
If the families were struggling how could they afford divorce lawyers? If the women got alimony and child support how did they still collect welfare?
The REAL case was that social workers were helping single baby mamas who’s baby daddies were not around in the first place . As is common in the hood even today (more than ever, actually), random black men come ’round these women for food, sex and a place to sleep. The social workers did not want these single, able bodied and childless men taking advantage of the tax payers’ help that was supposed to go the children of these single moms.
All these black men currently on youtube railing against swirling are afraid of losing their means of livelihood – the black woman. I was just watching one David Carroll vid today and a commenter wrote, “Its all about money! These sistas want the black man to suffer!”
OK so what does a black woman getting her’s via marrying a proper provider and protector (gainfully employed middle class suburban man) have to do with the “black men suffering”? I’ll tell you – with each black woman getting wise and marrying right, a black man loses his meal ticket, couch surfing cred and pocket money!
Its no secret that black American men like to live off their women. NABMALT but enough are to garner a reputation that extends beyond borders. So now black women are saying “no more!” and expanding their options to include ‘real men’ (not boys) of other races , these David Carrolls and youtube “entrepreneurs” (LOL!) are shittin’ bricks!!!
“Oh you black women become real soft and submissive around white men” they say. As the ladies explain, its because they can finally RELAX and let their (nappy) hair down around white men because they don’t have to support them like a mother. Chrstelyn gives beauty tips to black women seeking to expand their options beyond black men and she says fitness is more important to white (and other) men than it is to black men and she’s right. What passes for “thick” in the hood is often fat outside it. Black men have always encouraged black women to be thick and they love big booty. She tells the black women that white men love nappy hair. Only now that white men are on youtube singing odes to black hair are black men like Sotomayor calling out “hair hats”. Before that black men called natural black women “nappy headed” and they still do!!!
Christelyn says everything which black men found unattractive about her is considered attractive to her white husband and other whites. So now these black men want to pipe up and change their tune? Too late! Go get a job and a white Becky girlfriend!
GG, you identify him/her/it/them as a troll, then you go Feed The Troll, yo.
ZOBA60 *might* be a troll (or not), but if you think he a troll, what fo’ you feed dat troll yo?
Comments made her are not necessarily just for the person addressed.
here
All these black men currently on YouTube railing against swirling are afraid of losing their means of livelihood – the black woman.
Really? It is obvious the author is ignorant about back culture generally, and black men in particular. The black family was ruined through slavery many years ago. This was followed for many years by specific denigration of the black male through discriminatory government laws until just 40-50 years ago. Even today, systematic denigration of the black male continues through massive incarceration. It is like Pastor Driscoll attacking husbands in the presence of their wives and future wives on a massive scale. Recovery for the black family is near impossible under these circumstances. It is disingenuous to look at a situation from the middle, without considering all the data.
Incidentally, the so-called idea of MGTOW, which is making rounds among white Americans today, is already established among the black men for many years, but for completely different reasons. Men who are MGTOW are generally less productive, have much less motivation, and couldn’t care less about society. Yes, that is black men. And that is what white men are going to be, though for different reasons.
Responsible black men generally avoid marrying black women, not the other way round. There are countless examples out there. The black women have proven themselves unmarriageable, years ago, just as the white women are proving themselves to be unmarriageable today. If human nature is anything to go by, the results will be the same.
@2084GO
You sound like you’d be better suited to your own blog.
Question, you said earlier “white boys”. Is that like “black boys”, but just white? Just curious since I hear blacks often say that in passing, like it’s ok or somehow white men are not “manly” like all those big strong black men (who despite outnumbering white men on the planet something like 1000 to 1 have not produced any world’s strongest men or powerlifting champs). Are black boys, like, the last dozen (of a few dozen?) or so black males that Klitchko knocked out as heavyweight champion for ten years (before losing recently to an Anglo-Irish White Man)…were they boys? Actually, he knocked out almost every single black…uhm, boy (?) he ever faced in the ring. Embarrassingly so.
Or do you have to be small or short or something, like black Brazilian Jose Aldo (5’7/145) who was knocked in 13 seconds during their MMA championship fight, by Conor McGregor–also Irish. Is it a size thing, or an intellectual capacity thing?
Like, is a black “boy” someone who went to Ivy League schools, but doesn’t speak a foreign language (despite living in a foreign country and attending the finest schools, like Columbia), who also misses 20 of 22 freethrows, but “keeps it real” (and confuses the Jeffersons’ with Sanford and Son, or can’t pronounce “Navy Corpsman”…is HE a “boy” also?
Just checking with you. What do black women like you think?
It’s all the black man’s fault. Never mind the welfare incentives and changes in law that facilitated “independence” for black women and took away any authority the black man had in his family.
Its no secret that black American men like to live off their women.
How many of these were raised by black single moms?
What do black women like you think?
I was thinking agnostic black woman with a strong dislike for black men.
It turns out that independence for women is poison not only for women but for society as well.
I recommend a return to bible based patriarchy. Women + kitchen = sammiches is a good hamster defeating equation. Plus women seemed less miserable back in the days of their “oppression”.
Thanks.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
Dave, “Incidentally, the so-called idea of MGTOW, which is making rounds among white Americans today, is already established among the black men for many years, but for completely different reasons. Men who are MGTOW are generally less productive, have much less motivation, and couldn’t care less about society. Yes, that is black men.”
Yes! This! The entire world has been aware for decades now exactly how much American black men reject marriage/monogamy/gainful employment/civil behavior and “go their own way” leaving a string of babies in their wake.
“And that is what white men are going to be, though for different reasons.”
I doubt they’ll leave that many babies in their wake tho, bro.
“Question, you said earlier “white boys”. Is that like “black boys”, but just white?”
For me, yes. I take umbrage at white people with zero experience in black America commenting on it, like that Janet Bloomfield lady who wrote that white women make better mothers to black kids. I didn’t know Becky was adopting ‘hood babies now. Since when has that started? The real stat is that the pairing with the longest shelf life in America right now is the Black Wife/White Husband Pairing. This paring surpasses all other interracial pairings in the USA for marriage longevity.
When I hear white folks who don’t even have the proverbial “black friend” trying to comment on our in-house business, they sound like ignorant children.
“Just curious since I hear blacks often say that in passing, like it’s ok or somehow white men are not “manly”
Yeah well that would be the black man’s view since his idea of manly is how many kids he leaves in his wake. Bob Marley is their god for this very reason.
Dear Dave:
Really? How do you explain the existence of this here?
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sweet+auburn+neighbourhood+atlanta&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
There are neighbourhoods like this one in every major city of the American south. You’ve obviously never cracked a history book and have no business lecturing on the subject.
The reality is that despite codified white supremacy and discrimination, Black neighbourhoods and towns during the segregation era were prosperous, peaceful and very clean. It was, as Carroll points out, only after feminists promoted their welfare and female empowerment nonsense that things went to shit.
White people need to open their eyes, because the same thing is happening now in White working-class neighborhoods. Go walk around in the sketchier parts of Portland OR to get the picture. Biker gangs, nazi skinheads, homeless bums, litter and graffiti everywhere. Most of the people there don’t want to work and spend their days hitting the meth pipe or just “hanging out” (i.e. terrorizing law abiding citizens). I hear there are huge parts of West Virginia that are similar — despite these two dumps being on opposite ends of the country.
This didn’t happen by accident. It’s the result of women’s choices to become single moms. Race is irrelevant, because when fathers are devalued, human beings of every color lose their civilization. The daughters of single moms are more likely to become feral ho’s, and the sons of single moms are much more likely to be escapists and criminals.
Start holding women accountable for their shit choices and quit blaming the men or silly abstractions (slavery that hasn’t existed for 170 years lol). That’s a pathetic excuse and nobody with a brain buys it.
Boxer
“The black family was ruined through slavery many years ago”
Slaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavery is the reason black men can’t keep their d’s dry?
“I hear there are huge parts of West Virginia that are similar”
Those hillbillies reject education.They got this whole thing about “city slickers” and “smart folks”. They want to be left alone to their “appalachian ways”. And don’t forget the inbreeding. It effects IQ.
@2084GO
I could give a legendary, award-winning response to all you’ve posted–but I decided that would be ungenerous, and hurtful. Not in keeping with the Holiday spirit. You bring up some valid points, but you bring, like we all do, your own biases.
I have been checking in periodically on this thread. Unfortunately @2084GO is still here. It seems black ladies can sure talk a lot of nonsense…
This is a black woman. When you respond do not think you are speaking to some one with rational thought. It will be like making a wish with the “monkey’s paw” Take advantage of what you have and use it as a training aid for other men and to get a full understanding of why the black community is in such disarray.
… leaving a string of babies in their wake.
It just happened, at least that’s what I hear when the unmarried mothers are explaining it.
“It just happened…”
Didn’t happen to me. I got out of the ghetto, got an education, a job, and a gainfully employed husband before we had our babies. Swirlers are letting sistas know, there is another way. A better way. Don’t settle for Pookie’s pecker when you can have Ian’s last name. 😉
JDG
Those guys are not MGTOW They are the thug sexual preference of black women. Apex Fallacy in action..
Check the stats. Black husband/black wife and black husband/non-black wife are at the lowest longevity. Basically any fool who marries a black man is in line for divorce.
Check the stats, women file the vast majority of divorces.
Most black women never marry to begin with in the US. So why are they sleeping with men when they aren’t even married?
GG – The 80 / 20 rule without a doubt. How else do we explain these guys who have 23 children with six different baby mommas. Also, I’ve seen 1st hand how baby mommas kick the fathers of their children to the curb in favor of welfare checks. Tying the knot means less (or no) government support.
“Tying the knot means less (or no) government support.”
No it doesn’t. In black womens’ case it means more coz his food stamps will be used too.
” So why are they sleeping with men when they aren’t even married?”
Fools. That’s why were catchin’ ’em young now through youtube and tellin’ ’em to swirl. Ebony and ivory.
What stops a man from pursuing?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=992204
This didn’t happen by accident. It’s the result of women’s choices to become single moms. Race is irrelevant, because when fathers are devalued, human beings of every color lose their civilization. The daughters of single moms are more likely to become feral ho’s, and the sons of single moms are much more likely to be escapists and criminals.
Start holding women accountable for their shit choices and quit blaming the men or silly abstractions (slavery that hasn’t existed for 170 years lol). That’s a pathetic excuse and nobody with a brain buys it.
Nice try, Boxer, but no cigar.
You’re saying that feminism singled out black women many years ago, resulting in the destruction of the black family? That is the most ridiculous and the most absurd statement I have read so far on the subject.
Fact is, feminism in America is far more accepted among the white UMC women than any other segment of society. It was like that in the beginning, and continues to be that way even today.
The fact is, the black head of the family was repeatedly attacked, denigrated and disempowered through the barbarism of slavery. His wife was raped by his master right in front of his very eyes, and with his children in the vicinity, hearing their mother moan, and the man could not do jack about it. He was not even allowed to mourn the loss of his manhood. If that did not disempower a man, what would? Yes, the black man was literally whipped into submission by his master, while his wife watches, and you’re trying to tell me that the loss in the headship of his family came years later with the advent of feminism? Really?
Fact is, for every Sweet Auburn you have in any state of the US, there are possibly hundreds of black ghettos.
To convince yourself if indeed black men are naturally lazy and unproductive, pay a visit to any African country where the men are in their natural state and among their own people, and you will probably learn something. At the individual level black men are very hardworking, have a solid sense of responsibility, and care about the world they live in. It was those brought to America, and repeatedly denigrated, that have lost their way. Those are the true MGTOWs.
Yes! This! The entire world has been aware for decades now exactly how much American black men reject marriage/monogamy/gainful employment/civil behavior and “go their own way” leaving a string of babies in their wake.
Actually, every one of those babies came to be because their mothers decided to have them. The men did not make that decision.
Dear Dave:
Nice attempt at a straw-man. I didn’t say that. I wrote:
despite codified white supremacy and discrimination, Black neighbourhoods and towns during the segregation era were prosperous, peaceful and very clean. It was, as Carroll points out, only after feminists promoted their welfare and female empowerment nonsense that things went to shit.
and I stand by it.
Well, if a simple read of history doesn’t impress you, then statistics won’t either, so this is largely for the audience:
http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817998721_95.pdf
Note that the rates of Black and White family dysfunction were close to identical until 1960-1970. That was the great society era, when the government started sending social workers into working-class neighborhoods, teaching women that they “didn’t need no man” and that these women could “have it all”. If slavery was responsible, why were Black families so much more stable during and immediately after slavery?
A realistic view of social trends suggests that women are responsible for dysfunction. It was Black women who ruined the working-class Black family, and it is White women who are now in the process of ruining the working-class White family. When we address the root causes of all the hell these welfare ho’s are causing, we can start to fix these social problems. Blaming lots of abstract concepts (slavery, which ended two centuries ago – lol) is merely white knighting for the real culprits.
Regards,
Boxer
“Most of my friends would probably be what you would call “liberal” but they don’t fit those descriptions at all. I have to stick up for them because they are genuinely good, solid people.”
I don’t doubt what you say, but it doesn’t matter what your opinion is of them. Liberals are the natural enemies of Modern Civilized society, not because they’re diabolically evil or mean or aggressive or anything like that. I have some Liberals in my life and they are some of the most intelligent and gentle people I know. It doesn’t make them any less a threat to civilized society because of what they value. They value the things that make a just, prosperous and civilized society impossible.
Their psychological make up prevents them from seeing how things are interconnected past, present and future with cause and effect. The majority of academics of historians and most of them have glaring blind spots in the lessons they draw from history. They can’t help themselves, they just don’t see the “big picture”.
“The majority of academics of historians and most of them have glaring blind spots in the lessons they draw from history.”
Should read: “The majority of academics in history are liberal and most of them have glaring blind spots in the lessons they draw from history.”
“Check the stats. Black husband/black wife and black husband/non-black wife are at the lowest longevity. Basically any fool who marries a black man is in line for divorce.”
I guess I was a just a bit slow on picking this up, but the frequent revealing of how disconnected your thoughts are from the real world and the argumentative style with no regard for logic should have been clues I was arguing with a contentious woman. I’m done.
I just learned of a new TV show premiering next month. It’s called Shades of Blue. Jennifer Lopez stars as a (no doubt, strong and brilliant) FBI agent, who’s also a single mother.
It seems that most Hollywood heroines these days are single mothers. I suppose it’s because Hollywood knows that single mothers are a big segment of the audience. So Hollywood caters to their fantasies of being a single mom who’s also an FBI agent (or a fighter pilot, special ops soldier, fire-fighter, heart surgeon, CEO, or any number of other cool, fun, manly jobs that so many single mothers excel at).
I have dated tons of Black chicks. A disturbing number of the ones I fell for in my wild youth acted just like this. This attitude — not skin color or hair texture — is the reason Black chicks are the least desirable of all the different types of women. The way this woman talks about Black men is exactly the way she thinks of her father or grandfather. Would you want to sire children by someone this damaged? I didn’t think so.
Boxer
Boxer,
I have dated tons of Black chicks.
How many individuals are in a ton? From what I have seen lately, perhaps two…
is the reason Black chicks are the least desirable of all the different types of women.
They are the personification of big government. When I see one of them lately, it is hard to tell where they begin and the government ends.. see Michelle O.
“The way this woman talks about Black men is exactly the way she thinks of her father or grandfather. ”
A lot of black chicks don’t even know their fathers and grandfathers!
Are you aware that the argument you make is the same one your heros Tommy Sotomayor and David Carroll make against black women? “Oh just see! These crazy hair hatted heifers say, ‘you hate your mama! You hate your grandmama!’ when we critique their behavior, not the behavior of our mamas and grandmamas, unless the shoe fits”.
But as you are a white boy who just discovered black youtube last week, I wouldn’t expect you to see the irony.
Another ironic thing – I’m cheerleading for the good beta white boys out here, saying they make good hubbies and dads and encouraging young black girls and women to open their eyes and hearts to them, but you still find a way to disagree because I’m a woman. Typical of the Manosphere. That’s why Manosphere men will never know love and family.
Or is it that you’re a racist who doesn’t want to see black women happy within stable unions and intact families?
“They are the personification of big government. ”
Unless they marry white 😉
“despite codified white supremacy and discrimination, Black neighbourhoods and towns during the segregation era were prosperous, peaceful and very clean.”
In 1910 the out of wedlock birth rate was higher in the white community than in the black. Blacks had scant out of wedlock births at that time. David is a typical American black man, using slavery as an excuse to not man up and take personable responsibility for his sexual and relationship choices.
Black nationalists argue that integration with whites was the worst thing, after slavery and lynching, that could happen to black people. It may be true. But there’s no going back so going forward the best partner for an American black woman right now is a non-black man. Or even a Nigerian man (they’re at the top in education and success here in the States right now). The American black man is the absolute worst choice for us currently. It hurts to say it, it took me years to admit it, but sadly its the TROOF!
Just a Regular Guy, upper middle class liberals (and most UMC Americans are liberal) are so far removed from the harsh realities of the lower classes that they cannot connect the dots how their well meaning attitudes affect large populations. They see poor children of single moms and they want to “help”. Can you blame them? What they don’t understand is the real help is not in only throwing money to these people but in taking them under their wing and mentoring them in habits and values that ensured the benefactors’ solid, safe UMC lifestyle. The lower classes are in desperate need of real time examples and mentorship.
David and any other black man reading here, please listen to this brother;
David is a typical American black man, using slavery as an excuse to not man up and take personable responsibility for his sexual and relationship choices.
That was quite a leap. Not surprising though. No one has commented on this thread under the name of David, so I assume that Dave is who is being referenced above.
I’ve read several of Dave’s comments in several threads and never came away thinking he is the type to fornicate as is implied in the comment, or that he is looking for excuses for having done so.
Extra feminist credit though for attempting to impose a man up narrative on the men that read here, and that without any reference to any recognizable authority. At least she didn’t insist we “marry those sluts”. This is where I would say: “Get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich”.
“Note that the rates of Black and White family dysfunction were close to identical until 1960-1970. That was the great society era, when the government started sending social workers into working-class neighborhoods, teaching women that they “didn’t need no man” and that these women could “have it all”. If slavery was responsible, why were Black families so much more stable during and immediately after slavery?”
The government sent social workers only after out of wedlock births became a thing, not before. What happened was after the First Sexual Revolution (the 1920s), sexual mores changed but the most affected population were black men who within the Jazz subculture adopted this “mack daddy” and “dandy” archetype. That’s when drug use, the pimp persona and all that germinated. The Second Sexual Revolution which took place in the 1960s had a wider impact on white society, but urban black society was more affected by the first one. That is why by the time the 2nd one got underway, there was ALREADY a major out of wedlock culture going on in black areas. So social workers were helping out of wedlock kids and that is why a rule was devised that the mother could not have men sleeping in her home. Like I said before, unemployed black men would try to “befriend” these women to take advantage of free meals and a warm bed to sleep in. Its not that social workers went into the homes of married black couples convincing them to divorce in order so the kids and mom could live off welfare. That’s a ridiculous, ignorant meme that the white Manosphere invented.
I’ve discussed here two sexual revolutions. While both of those made considerable impact on society in a multiplicity of ways, affecting varying demographics in different ways, the one with the farthest reaching impact is the 3rd Sexual Revolution: The Internet.
Never before in the history of human sexuality has casual sex been so easy to obtain since the onslaught of the global internet.
Some CT background —
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2015/12/undertaker-come-quickly.html
Keep up the good works, Merry Christmas.
Off Topic:
Feministing dot com, started in 2004 by the (once moderately cute, now wall hitting ugly, but still entertaining) kook Jessica Valenti, is begging for money. It seems that the web page is going to close unless good folks pony up 7500 dollars by the end of the month.
It couldn’t have happened to nicer folks, I sweartagawd.
http://feministing.com/2015/12/21/the-future-of-feministing-is-at-stake/
I know who you are and the destruction you bring. You have absolutely nothing to offer this world and you know it. Every one knows it. And you are here trying to destroy this place as you have destroyed every community and college campus and work place you can be found.
You have nothing to teach any one other than as an example of a black women so all can see why the African American culture is so destructive and irrational.
I hope the men here can see the futile irresponsible nature of trying to reason or argue points. All women are like this but black women have no delusions of feminine kindness to project. If you want to change women you cannot but women as they are can be well behaved in their childish self centered wickedness. This black woman and her display is why the church that is the topic of this blog is as it is. don’t let the racial element cloud things. It is how women are.
Dear Grey Ghost:
Right. Arguing with women who haven’t earned my respect is a waste of time, and a waste of this blog’s resources. Kooky 2084 can find me on twitter if she wants to yap at me.
I dunno. Among the women I’ve dated in the past few years, the Black ones included a physics instructor, a sergeant in the US Marine Corps, and the owner of a hair salon (who, despite being an immigrant with a high school education, is probably close to a millionaire by now). They all had their charms and none of these women were any worse than the usual White chicks — though there are minor differences.
One thing that I’ve found is a must when vetting women (regardless of race or background) is to inquire casually about their fathers and grandfathers. If a man’s date says anything rude about her dad, immediate ejection is imperative. This should be a man’s own “shit test” and any woman who fails it will be considered undateable. Delete her number and never talk to her again.
Whatever White bro this bitch married (if she’s even honestly married, which is doubtful) is in for a world of hurt. I hope he doesn’t have children with her. He will likely be the next in line to be talked down by this woman when she divorces him and takes his stuff, and his kids will be taught that he “ain’t shit” and etc.
If she has a problem with our frank talk, I suggest she take it up with the Marine.
Best,
Boxer
infowarrior1 says:
December 22, 2015 at 2:48 am
I here by with retract my statement on Dec 22 at 12:37 am. Here is an example of why from the link you provided:
I believe that a loving husband will yield to the wife’s wishes 95% of the time; however, for that 5% area where the husband feels he knows best, the wife is to submit to the husband. It basically means that the wife gives the husband veto power over her life.
Very disappointing. God gave the husband his authority. The veto power is not the wife’s to give.
Sorry, the comment at 9:07 am was meant for the Servant Leader thread.
” find me on twitter”
I don’t “tweet”.
Pingback: How do wives petition or win their husbands | Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: On divorce Part 4 | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: On divorce Part 5 | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: On divorce Part 6 | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: Divorce Part 7 Final | Christianity and masculinity