In The decline of America is not an accident Vox Day quotes Mallory Millet on a communist call and respond chant Millet participated in back in 1969:
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
What Millet’s co conspirators couldn’t have imagined back in 1969 was how eager Christian conservatives would be to assist them in their destruction of the family. Instead of fighting back, conservative Christians jumped on the anti father bandwagon with a zeal that even makes the liberal elite uncomfortable.
One way subversives have implemented their plan to destroy the patriarchal family is via entertainment. This is why we have so many secular movies and TV shows maligning husbands and fathers. Yet as I’ve pointed out before even secular feminist reviewers are astonished at how anti-father Christian movies are. The feminists at Dame were shocked at the anti-father message in Mom’s Night Out, and worried that this kind of message is destructive to our culture:
And that’s the biggest problem with Moms’ NightOut: The moral of the story isn’t that the women are supposed to stay home and not have fun, but that the men are totally hapless morons without them around—and that this lesson is still being drilled into our heads in 2014. We’re supposed to feel better about this “men are total idiots, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” philosophy (and that latter piece of wisdom was actually uttered in the movie in case you missed the point). But this story of the helpless manchild is a disservice to men—and families—everywhere.
Likewise, a reviewer at rogerebert.com was disturbed by the way the latest Kendrick brothers movie portrayed the Christian husband and father:
Since the Kendricks have mistaken one-dimensional caricatures for people who exist in the real world, they forgot to provide Tony with any redeeming qualities that would make us want to root for his marriage.
While secular reviewers point out the problem with the anti father bias in Christian movies, Christian reviewers praise secular movies for having the courage to undermine the patriarchy. CBMW president Owen Strachan didn’t just love the feminist message of the latest Star Wars movie, he also loved the anti-father message the movie included:
4. Star Wars continues to explore father-son dynamics with power and pathos. The core of these movies is the tangled relationship between fathers and sons, a remarkably old-fashioned theme in a gender-neutral world…
TFA mines this territory in a powerful, if brief, way by putting Han Solo face-to-face with his estranged son, Kylo Ren. Ren is simultaneously drawn to and enraged by his father. We are reminded palpably of the twisted and fascinating dynamics of Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. Mark Hamill was no auteur of the cinema; his performance was reedy and shrill in many places. But he succeeded admirably in capturing the paradoxical disaffection and father-hunger of the abandoned child. This is where the true power of the original Star Wars movies was. Years later, reflecting on the Vader-Skywalker exchanges, one still feels deeply moved by them.
George Lucas takes many hits for his sometimes wooden directing and awful dialogue, but his films–and the Star Wars series–offer us vivid portrayals of the complex relationship between fathers and sons. This is a big part of why they are beloved. They give men a vocabulary for what they feel on both sides of the equation, father and son. Though, thankfully, most fathers and sons do not handle their issues with lightsabers in hand.
Pingback: A funny thing happened on the way to the matriarchy. – Manosphere.org
I remember when I first saw a trailer for Mom’s Night Out and thought, “Here we go again! Yet another man/father-bashing movie.” What I didn’t know at the time was that it was supposedly a Christian movie. The fact that the secular world is against men and fathers is something I have been aware of since I was a kid. It wasn’t until I got older that I began to realize just how anti-male Christianity had become.
What can be done to fix this?
TFA was a total crapfest
Mom’s Night Out was several tiers BELOW the crapfest that is T.F.A.
Maybe it’s just me but I always thought that Vader being Luke’s father was showing the duality of good and evil in men. I never, before reading this post, thought it was about a father abandoning his son.
I’m 28 today and have found a deep connection to Star Wars and my farther.
One thing that should be considered in all the Churchy attempts to catch up to the “safe, family humor” demo of the secular market is that it’s always portrayed in dated, easily digestible, sit-com delivery. Mom’s Night Out is a direct cop from the secular movie ‘Date Night’.
In every Christian Kosher® attempt at a mainstream movie copy the dialog is always the Christianese version of the secular template, so the in-group messaging is one of ” this movie speaks with ‘christian’ idioms and language only christians would know, so this movie is for-us-by-us”. But the delivery is always one of safety, like watching the mayonnaise humor of Full House with the approved altar-call buzzwords inserted in the right places.
This is the fast-food, easily accessible packaging in which the message of feminine-primary churchianity is sold to soccer mom christian women and the ‘lovable sap’ husbands they drag along to nod in agreement with it.
@mrb4852
Vader’s kids were taken and their existence hidden from them, he certainly never abandoned them. When he found out about Luke he tried to develop a mentoring relationship with him. In the end he destroyed the Sith and sacrificed his life rather than see his son killed. If anything Vader is redeemed through his fatherhood.
@mrb4852
@Morgan
This is just re-framing of a classic film series to reflect the current F.I.
I.E. Women good: Men bad.
If a man is not in a child’s life, it must be re-framed so that the man is at fault for abandoning the child.
No blame may be placed at the doorstep of women for the lack of a father in their children’s lives.
Rollo,
Did you get a chance to catch “God’s Not Dead” yet? I actually enjoyed it very much. I was very pleasantly surprised that the writers didn’t go full feminist imperative and portray the protagonist’s gf as being a “heroine” for her decision to dump the protagonist because of his Christian integrity.
What slays me about this sort of thing is that people like novelty. When it’s de riguer to portray fathers/husbands as idiots, the movie or show that portrays them differently will be seen as a breath of fresh air and, if done well, should stand out and be a hit. Yet nobody does it (except for The Middle).
Mike Heck (Neil Flynn) on “The Middle” is as close a patriarchal father as television will allow. And it’s only because Patricia Heaton demanded that Mike Heck be cast that way (after playing the wife of the ultimate TV sitcom White Knight mangina beta-bux male.) And even still in all his patriarchal furor, Mike Heck went full Feminist Imperative/Churchianity refusing to let his high school senior daughter stay engaged to lovable oaf but hardworking Darrin. And the writers still show Mike Heck as a man more interested in watching television than helping his son Brick in awkward social situations.
@IBB, I did actually. The parts with the Duck Dynasty guy and his wife was cringeworthy, but yet another excellent example of the 8th grade reading level the producers are aiming for in this niche audience.
The Duck Dynasty scene was the WORST PART (imho) of the movie. I got past that real quick when our hero from “Good Luck Charlie” made the very same argument on Genesis 1-3 being “The Big Bang theory” that I have been making for years with my disbelieving friends. The scenes in the lecture hall was NOT eight-grade reading level.
The Duck Dynasty interview scene was worse than horrible. The Thing at the end saying text everyone in your contacts was also bad. The dialog in the lecture hall ranged from tired but valid arguments to some very sound ones that make the counterparty look very stupid.
The problem is, the disinclined will not tend to see the better arguments rise above the pedestrian ones, and adding the Duck Dynasty stuff further decimated the chances of getting the good arguments outside of crowds that consisted of church groups.
Relevant to this topic, he didn’t Lift Chase with his gf or anyone else. He held his ground. Teddy was a better gf anyway.
Yes, he held his ground, no “lift chasing.” It was nice to see that in the movie, maybe the best part of the movie. And yes he should have just stuck with Teddy.
OT, though is any of this really off topic anymore?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434143/donald-trump-counterfeit-masculinity-feminism-dream
Cuck’s gotta Cuck.
@dale
The fixing is at your level. What are you doing, in your own life, to ensure you are an American Patriarch? Or simply do not get married.
There are two stark paths. Either don’t marry and breed, doing your part to ensure the decline of the West and the cleansing destruction it will bring, or become the American Patriarch, using all the tools available (TRP, Game, Dread Game, Debt Free, Multiple Income Streams, pre-nup, Trusts, etc.)
The level of sophistication required to be an American Patriarch is ever increasing.
If cuckservatives are going even further than secular feminists in father-bashing, then the turning point may be near….
Cuckservatives are often an indicator of major change in the opposite direction.
This is what makes it so difficult for men like myself to bear.
I can withstand an enemy or foe who openly opposes me and what I believe. What’s so demoralizing is when those who claim to be your allies or friends or believe as you do begin to preach or speak the same all while telling you otherwise. They demoralize you and try to cast doubt into your every belief.
You realize how alone you truly are.
Cicero understood well why this sort of backstabbing is so devastating.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
It reminds me of a quote from the 2011 film Ironclad. A rebel baron says to a reluctant baron, “Are you for the king or the country? Because we can’t both be wrong.”
Sooner or later people will have to choose which side they’re on. The heart-wrenching part will be watching not which “enemies” come to our side but which of our “friends” will go over to theirs.
Pingback: A funny thing happened on the way to the matriarchy. | Reaction Times
Ot but I’d like your take on Tinsley Mortimer, post divorce spinster:
40ish, born to wealthy family, married young into wealthier family(young, attractive, friendly Topper Mortimer.)
Began to be noticed as a society it girl(debutant ball type)
Divorced him in her late 20s or early 30s to ride carousel & chase fame.
No kids
Fame proved fleeting and now …http://pagesix.com/2016/04/16/the-tragic-downfall-of-new-yorks-hottest-socialite/
An arrest for stalking her lastest boyfriend.
So many bad scenes to choose from in “God’s Not Dead”, but the car accident tops the list for me.
“Everybody text!” / concert as sacrament was a close second.
I was pleased that there was no subplot with Josh winning his girlfriend back. He obviously dodged a bullet with that shrew.
peace,
Zach
Looks like the matriarchy has won. Now lets see how long they can hold on to that “belt”
I hope you all know there is no peaceful end.
I wonder when the we hit the MCcarthy point of SJW/feminism and what will trigger it? http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
He must be reading this blog, along with Rollo’s and CH:
That was frightening Enrique.
A little bit off topic, but somewhat related.
https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/transcendent-things-and-the-long-view/
Another post that does a great job at connecting the dots. The sad part is that even when the people that need to see this the most actually see it, they don’t / won’t accept it. It was depressing the 1st time I saw and understood that making a concise and sound argument using logic and facts has virtually no effect on the soundly indoctrinated.
Someone asked how do we fix this. I don’t think we do. Only God can fix this, if He wants to.
Outstanding Video Enrique. It is going to be nice to see the Muslim jack Europe. I never like socialist. Obama is trying that stunt here. The only thing different is we have guns.
…and in other news ISIS agrees to lower its physical readiness to accommodate feminists’ “equality” standards, eh wait, no…
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/04/18/marines-new-fitness-plan-pullups-women-wont-mandatory/82793128/
Re: God’s Not Dead, the Newsboys concert at the end was the contrived icing on the cake that churchies ate right up. As I said, it’s Full House sit-com intelligibleness.
The plot was likewise contrived in that Kevin Sorbo’s professor character was the over exaggerated melodramatic “science villain” churchies love to hate. It’s 8th grade science understanding because the writers put their words in his mouth and counter those (literally) straw man arguments with christianese answer they want to be valid enough to stand up to the well educated professor (who relies on “his own understanding instead of God’s”).
It’s feel-good pablum that only preaches to the choir and reassures preconceptions of christian persecution while reinforcing self-affirming righteousness.
Not following this chant. The family unit is the cornerstone of civilization. Destroy that basic unit, then what do the communist inherit?
Dalrock, the term “converged” has come into use to refer to organizations that have been taken over de facto by the SJW’s. Mozilla is clearly an example (Eich), GNOME is likely another one, certain denominations of the American church are either there or close to it. A converged org may look like it is still focused on some mission, but in reality most of the work done in the org will consist of various forms of virtue-signalling.
I can’t really point to the CBMW as a converged org, because they are a full generation behind in their feminism. Specifically they would seem to still be opposed to homosexual “marriage”, and apparently unaware of the whole tranvestite-“rights” situation. They just aren’t even close to full up SJW’s.
But CBMW is clearly and obviously a feminist org. Was it one from the start? Maybe, but for sure it is now. What should we call it? “Second-stage feminist converged” is too cumbersome. But as you have pointed out clearly, CBMW is gynocentric, second-stage feminist in nature and therefore not only useless in the larger cultural conflict, but actively on the side of anti-civilizational forces.
We need an emotionally-loaded label, on a par with “cuckservative”, to use as a reference.
Rollo
The plot was likewise contrived in that Kevin Sorbo’s professor character was the over exaggerated melodramatic “science villain” churchies love to hate.
The movie looks like a mass of caricatures to me. It’s kind of a funhouse-mirror image of the standard Christian-hating movie. A couple of men I know who are churchgoing and who have PhD’s in serious scientific fields found the film obnoxious and embarrassing.
As for the Di$ney $tar War$, it’s a massive, blunt piece of propaganda, starring Mary Sue herself and featuring enough SJW tropes to thrill the average obese Cosplay fangrrl. Cripes, it’s as if Di$ney fired all the writers and is doing script creation by trawling through the fanfic sites. I fully expect a lesbian “love” story on the side at least one of the next two installments. If Di$ney converges to SJW status any further, then likely we’ll see lesbian dinosaurs later on.
Finally: any man writing “father”, “son” and “$tar War$” in the same sentence is running on pure emotion, no thinking at all. So there’s no need to engage him in logic. Just hoot in derision.
Destroy that basic unit, then what do the communist inherit?
Utopia (translated from leftist speak means mud huts).
I thought the mention of “God’s Not Dead” was referring to the “2” version that is currently at theaters. I’ve forgotten most of the original (I’d like to forget all of it). If that’s the best movie that Christians can make, then we’re in big trouble. It was so cluttered with multiple sub-plots that you could hardly find the main plot, and, when you did, it was a sophomoric attempt to show that God is not dead. Bottom line: I’m sorry I paid to see the first one, and the likelihood I will pay to see the “2” version is almost nonexistent.
The Question: thanks for the Cicero quote. I get very discouraged too by my brothers often being the heaviest sandbags in fighting headship and not fighting Jezebels. They don’t even realize they’ve switched the roles, especially in my church where only male elders and pastors are permitted. Not much dumb guy stuff in sermons either, but silence for female rebellion and male headship. They are comfortable with wives doing whatever, as long as dudes talk sports and don’t mention anything specific and negatively about their own wife. I bust and go to bed pooped from beinga male servant and they don’t realize I’m following their script to a T. Rollo has it right, superficiality is a killer, even for brothers who are very smart, well educated, and well intentioned.
OTOH, I’m here because of posts like Dalrocks because he calls them out without personal attack, but slays strongholds using their own words and God’s Word.
Mike Heck (Neil Flynn) on “The Middle” is as close a patriarchal father as television will allow. And it’s only because Patricia Heaton demanded that Mike Heck be cast that way (after playing the wife of the ultimate TV sitcom White Knight mangina beta-bux male.)”
He’s the anti-Ray Romano. It’s so refreshing. I didn’t know she insisted on that, though, good for her. Leave it to a woman to demand they make the husband respectable, while male tv producers would be happy to keep scripting idiots. But then, she’s a devout Christian. You can tell it’s fun for her to be in a show where her husband is right 75% of the time. That’s what people who make these shows don’t get: most women like shows where the women aren’t always right or pedestalized too. Women are bored with perfect female characters probably more than we are.
God, that show’s refreshing. Has all the whackiness of 30 Rock but set in the Midwest.
“And even still in all his patriarchal furor, Mike Heck went full Feminist Imperative/Churchianity refusing to let his high school senior daughter stay engaged to lovable oaf but hardworking Darrin.”
That’s just a typical dad. For me, the show jumped the shark when they had Axl date the feminist chick at his high school. He starts mooning over her and acting completely out of character, I cringed.
“And the writers still show Mike Heck as a man more interested in watching television than helping his son Brick in awkward social situations.”
I actually like that little sub-plot, that he and Brick don’t have anything in common. Nor do they need to. I’m sure plenty of families are like that.
I don’t understand the complaint about viewing Star Wars as father son dynamic. It is a myth in the Campell tradition (whereas the new one is not since Mary Sue can take no journey only tell tales) so you can view it many different ways.
That there can be conflict between fathers and sons and that such conflict can make interesting art is hardly earth shattering.
The section you start with is sad. Satan has a plan as Paul taught us that there is evil in high places and they are not passive in their efforts to destroy Gods plan for his children.
@ greyghost
“I hope you all know there is no peaceful end.”
By 2020 we will have an open “fashist” party vying for power and all this is going to accelerate quickly. If we don’t have a Spanish-style Civil War in the next decade or two it’ll be because the country has broken up like the Roman Empire.
Trust in the Lord and keep your powder dry.
Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.
Here’s a quote from Kate Millett (Mallory’s more famous sister):
I don’t understand the complaint about viewing Star Wars as father son dynamic.
Perhaps you should consider broadening your choice in fiction. $tar War$ was a comic book from the start. Have you read Fenimore Cooper? Mark Twain? Dostoyevsky? Solzhenitsyn? Alexander Dumas? Even Edgar Rice Burroughs had more depth in his fiction than $tar War$ did.
It is a myth in the Campell tradition
No. It’s a Saturday Afternoon cartoon show with special effects and, in the third film, way too many Muppets. It’s like looking at a puddle on the sidewalk and calling it “the ocean”. It’s fiction pitched at the level of an 8 year old.
Do you mean Star Wars was comic book type content AR? I owned the original Marvel comic book of it at one point and that definitely came out after the movie unless my memory really is bad.
The Question,
Finding like minded people to build ties with is a challenge in today’s society, but that is my aim as I do expect nasty times to come.
““By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.”
The transgender movement follows right along. It’s the cutting edge in feminist insanity. I recently had the opportunity to witness the spectacle of a corporate demand that all employees respect the new “woman” working at my company who was no longer a man. Not a moment of discussion was allowed. Everyone had the option to Get Along or finding a new job.
What was once called mental illness is now merely a “personality trait”, because debate is mean.
…it’ll be because the country has broken up like the Roman Empire.
Would that we were deserving of such a blessing.
No, TPTB are going to hold onto power and territory at ALL costs, even at the risk of destroying themselves. Expect a “Doomsday” response to separatism if they feel themselves about to completely lose their grip.
Soviet Defector Yuri Bezmenov accurately predicted how America and the west would decline. Many of these experiments, like “no fault” divorce were tried in the former USSR and were scrapped. It is easier to deal with an enemy at the gates than from within.
http://www.rooshv.com/soviet-defector-yuri-bezmenov-accurately-predicted-how-america-would-decline
I thought ‘God’s Not Dead’ for a Christian movie was okay…..I had a college professor like that in undergrad…..I was not a Christian then, but I was a Conservative. Not a “Republican” a Conservative. Which is about as bad as claiming your Christian faith in the early 1990’s on a liberal arts college.
The “Duck Dynasty” scenes and the “Newsboys” scene came off as cloying to me…….and the car accident scene seemed like a “way” to tie up the loose-end of that plot line really quickly, cause the movie was almost over…..but cinematography, most of the acting…..not really that bad.
I saw one of the ladies from that movie “Mom’s Night Out” do a “christian” stand-up-comedy show at a large ‘mega-church’ in my city that claims to be “bold n’ biblical”
It was a stand-up show that belittled manhood, men’s leadership roles,christian men in general and then she told us how “men are not real men anymore”
you think???????????
Of course the place was falling over in laughter, ladies giving the thunderous applause and cheers during her show…………………………..and men were too.
Facepalm
What was once called mental illness is now merely a “personality trait”, because debate is mean.
Speaking of mental illness, KFI-AM’s Gary and Shannon Show report that the average plane now carries three emotional support animals aboard every flight. Emotional support animals are becoming an epidemic.
Selfish and/or emotionally fragile women (it’s mostly women) are bringing aboard emotional support dogs and cats — and monkeys, ducks, sea lions, and pigs! — because their “therapist” has signed a note saying that they are too afraid to fly unless they bring their ESA onboard.
Federal law requires that these wild or barnyard animals be flown alongside passengers rather than in the cargo hold.
One woman tried to bring her emotional support sea lion aboard the plane. Common sense prevailed and the sea lion was denied flight. But the woman is suing: http://kalw.org/post/airline-denies-passengers-emotional-support-sea-lion
Another woman was kicked off a plane for when her emotional support pig became disruptive: http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2014/11/29/us-airways-kicks-disruptive-emotional-support-pig-off-plane.html
This is what happens to a society that caters to women’s every whim.
@RPL
Holy F***, we are so screwed.
Feminism has made people so damn fragile that they cannot operate within the parameters of life.
Emotional Support Animal, please. Maybe if you are a returning war veteran I can get behind that need. However, I suspect most of these ESA are just for heavily medicated, terribly fragile, unable to cope, LOSERS.
Let me guess, a shotgun seat for said emotional support animal must be free; otherwise we would be discriminating against these people. Ditto for obese people who need two airline seats to sit their girth down for a flight.
The shortcomings of these people become an obligation/liability for everybody else.
There is just no room for the communications of moderate, clear thinking people in this world. Their voices are drowned out by the din of fringe idiots everywhere.
“It is going to be nice to see the Muslim jack Europe.”
I understand the sentiment, but: Shit rolls downhill. You are not at the top of the hill.
ESA. This is hilarious. Maybe Chopper Reid should be the new psych doctor. Referring to Theresa and her dog of course…
“One woman tried to bring her emotional support sea lion aboard the plane.”
He’s the only creature on Earth with a higher body fat percentage than me and I CAN’T LIVE WITHOUT HIM! BIG IS BEAUTIFUL!
Next day’s headline, sky marshal is arrested for poaching at 30,000 feet, claims passengers were in danger from sea life.
I saw one of the ladies from that movie “Mom’s Night Out” do a “christian” stand-up-comedy show at a large ‘mega-church’ in my city that claims to be “bold n’ biblical”
It was a stand-up show that belittled manhood, men’s leadership roles,christian men in general and then she told us how “men are not real men anymore”
you think???????????
Of course the place was falling over in laughter, ladies giving the thunderous applause and cheers during her show…………………………..and men were too.
Facepalm
Not surprising at all. In fact, par for the course. More and more frequently, evangelical churches, especially the megachurches, are becoming places of entertainment rather than worship. Apparently since this is what puts butts in the pews (and therefore checks and cash in the collection plates), this is the formula to follow.
My own church engaged in an example of this last Sunday morning, enraging me to the point that I almost got up and walked out mid-service. Instead of a worship service with a Bible-focused message, we were “treated” to an extended “praise service” that consisted of one of our pastor’s daughters singing one and a half hours worth of pseudo-Christian pop songs –and a couple of songs that were purely secular and didn’t belong in church at all. Granted, this pastor, his wife, and their dozen adult children are musical prodigies, some of whom, including the daughter who sang, are professional with recording experience. But the loss of focus in this case was inexcusable. Those of us who come to church to worship and feast on the word, not to be entertained (I have no idea how many of us there were, as the congregation was enthusiastically gobbling up the mini variety show) were NOT amused or pleased.
Sadly, “praise service” has been creeping steadily to consume more and more of the service at the expense of message. If there is ever a repeat of what happened this last Sunday, I will indeed make my exit mid-service and will not be returning.
Sad, because this church has been full of the Holy Spirit in the year and a half I’ve been attending and it’s tragic to see it veer so far off course. I can also be certain that my voicing my constructive displeasure at what happened will fall on deaf ears.
The comic books came out between TESB and RotJ. The plot was driven by two things, finding a new base after Hoth and rescuing Han Solo (as if there was any mystery as to where he ended up). I think I owned nearly every one.
Maybe if those movies, Gods Not dead and the Star wars franchise were subtitled, released exclusively in boutique dine in theaters that serve farm to fork fare at your table, and the actors talked incessantly about the art they would have appealed more to the third way crowd.
“My own church engaged in an example of this last Sunday morning, enraging me to the point that I almost got up and walked out mid-service. Instead of a worship service with a Bible-focused message, we were “treated” to an extended “praise service” that consisted of one of our pastor’s daughters singing one and a half hours worth of pseudo-Christian pop songs –and a couple of songs that were purely secular and didn’t belong in church at all. Granted, this pastor, his wife, and their dozen adult children are musical prodigies, some of whom, including the daughter who sang, are professional with recording experience. But the loss of focus in this case was inexcusable. Those of us who come to church to worship and feast on the word, not to be entertained (I have no idea how many of us there were, as the congregation was enthusiastically gobbling up the mini variety show) were NOT amused or pleased.”
I get you here Feeriker. I get that churches can have a day here and there to “change it up a bit” and do something a little different like you mentioned above. Yes, all of our talents that He bestows on us should be used to edify the Body. It’s a good thing.
One young soldier in my Corps (I am a Salvation Army Soldier) did a rap on Sunday during praise……and it was actually very well done. He was showing us his talents, it glorified God and the lyrics he spoke were not just “rap that was Christianized” you could tell it was a good story, thought out, and broken down / thrown down.
He was pretty good. Not my scene, but I get it.
But when I hear that we “have to look into this type of praise more and incorporate it” in order to bring “younger people” to the Corp. I disagree. We should be bringing people to Christ. To repentance. To a changed heart, to a “new” and fresh start in their lives through Him.
Praise has a place. It has meaning…but to change up everything for the sake of having younger people “entertained”???? No, I don’t think so. Church “praise” is becoming like an episode of “American Idol” now. Light shows, solos, smoke machines………it’s no longer “praise” but “entertainment”
It’s no longer about Jesus wrestling, softening, opening and changing your heart…..it is fully a “Superstar” movement in praise now, and it’s getting worse. Let me add, I am some grumpy old man who says “back in my day…..” but praise is out of hand today. It’s a show, and yes….you’re right it’s taking more and more time in the Holiness services now on Sunday across Protestantism
Ughh….let me fix the above: I am NOT some grump old man 😉
I am very glad to see the quote from Mallory Millet. I presented the quote in a comment made in June 2015:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/beta-gigo/#comment-181707
That also included an excerpt from the article “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives“, FrontPage Magazine. The excerpt follows.
>>>If there is ever a repeat of what happened this last Sunday, I will indeed make my exit mid-service and will not be returning.
That is a pure covert contract. I would make it overt. Adding entertainment like you describe is great! REPLACING the service with it is another thing entirely. You could perhaps have a slightly shorter service that segues into the entertainment hour but replacing it seems the very definition of heresy. All they need are some Asherah Poles…..
“But the delivery is always one of safety, like watching the mayonnaise humor of Full House with the approved altar-call buzzwords inserted in the right places.”
That perfectly describes that awful TV show. It’s also no surprise the Full House Redux is about the girls growing up to be masculine bitches in heat attempting to raise their bastard progeny in a self-imposed, San Francisco-based, estrogen commune. The comedy-product is supposed to be the week-to-week antics and schemes of one of the whores to land that next cuckold that will stupidly foot the bill for their collective selfishness.
The cancer is endemic in the West. We shouldn’t be surprised that religion is infected by it, and priests themselves have become devotees of their bellies and genitals.
JARG, in real life (not Full House Edux life) Jodie Sweetin, is now a tree-times divorced woman. How in the blue f-ck do you get divorced 3 times before your 32nd birthday?
@ IBB
Re: the answer to your question:
If you are Jodie Sweetin, you make a mistake in mate selection……….then wash, rinse, & repeat x 2
’cause doing the same thing over & over again will yield better results, right?
AND
We live in a society that will laud women for their pathetic efforts in mate selection, even if they are certain to fall flat on their face.
‘Keep screwing up’……….is now ‘Growth’.
Casey, to me the math doesn’t work out right. Jodie Sweetin is now 34. She’s had three complete marriages and divorces, all before her 32nd birthday. Where did she find the time for all that? I mean seriously, how many spouses can you marry and divorce before you are 32? That is has got to be some kind of… record.
I certainly hope she feels bad about what she’s done. That is nothing to be proud of….
B0xer you might find this interesting….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/byu-honor-code-action-rape-victim_us_5714fa82e4b0060ccda3b7fa?
…it appears she was drinking (violates honor code), possibly taking drugs (violates honor code), and went into the rapist’s bedroom (big time violates honor code.) And everyone is largely saying… who cares? Look what happened to her, stop the victim blaming. Its a criminal investigation. Its not the school’s business what she did “off campus.” So BYU invoked Title IX.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/19/she-got-caught-up-in-the-likes-teen-accused-of-livestreaming-friends-rape-for-attention/
The end has to be near.
Praise has a place. It has meaning…but to change up everything for the sake of having younger people “entertained”???? No, I don’t think so. Church “praise” is becoming like an episode of “American Idol” now. Light shows, solos, smoke machines………it’s no longer “praise” but “entertainment”
And that’s exactly my complaint. Praise and music are an essential part of worship, I absolutely agree, and I would never dare suggest eliminating that part of the service. My problem is when 1) praise becomes the service -ALL of it, at he expense of partaking of the Word, which is exactly what happened this last Sunday, and 2) when the form that the praise music takes is one of the performer/worship leader essentially pulling a “hey, look at me worship! (and buy some of my praise CDs out in the lobby while you’re at it)!” rather than “worship with me.”
What I described upthread would be perfectly appropriate for a concert, but is NOT appropriate for a worship service.
Further to my last, this is simply one illustrative example of one of the more pernicious trends in church feminization that is reaching pandemic levels across the Protestant evangelical church – entertainment and feeeeeeeeeeeeelz en lieu of the Truth and the Light.
If you think “Christian” movies are bad, wait until one called “Priceless” comes out later this year. I just heard a Christian entertainer talk about it, and it would have even raised my eyebrows in my non-RP days.
@Reluctant Neo:
http://www.pricelessthemovie.com/
The sad part is that there seems like a great movie to be had in there. Not that we haven’t seen that type of storyline before, but it’s always fertile ground for a good story and solid action. Not that I would expect that to actually happen.
That trailer (for Priceless) reminds me of one of the early, first blips in the matrix for me, and it was the complete adoration of Clint Eastwood’s UNFORGIVEN. The movie was a big hit, largely because he went around smacking wife beaters and all that.
Priceless might as well be called and billed as, “Sir Lancelot: She came with baggage…He came to serve her and save her.”
One bright side from the Priceless trailer is it appears the protagonist is neither a husband nor a father. This allows for a much more positive movie than would be possible if he were married, or even worse, a married father.
Eh, I dunno, Dalrock. There seems to be a lot of potential for really obnoxious stuff here.
Coming to theaters this fall, PRICELESS is a powerfully compelling, suspense-filled love story that reminds us that no matter who we are, what we’ve done, or even how far we’ve gone astray, we are of infinite worth in God’s eyes.
Just for a start:
Isn’t that the same message that the churches have been peddling regarding babymommas?
That trailer (for Priceless) reminds me of one of the early, first blips in the matrix for me, and it was the complete adoration of Clint Eastwood’s UNFORGIVEN.
Interesting, what specifically about that movie did you not like?
Go to min: 4:40
@IBB
re: Jodi Sweetin. Wow… *smh*
I specifically remember the prostitutes being white knighted having been done wrong. The movie came out at the HEIGHT of the Year of the Woman, and I remember how it had those overtones about women done wrong, a man who sets it right, blah blah (yes there were other themes).
Not long after, we would get the Western BAD GIRLS (1994): “The story follows four former prostitutes on the run following a justifiable homicide and prison escape, who later encounter difficulties involving bank robbery and Pinkerton detectives.”
Then right after that, Sharon Stone as, The Lady in The Quick and the Dead (1995), who’s a totally awesome gunslinger.
@Dalrock:
The protagonist in the movie is a Widower who lost his daughter to Child Services. He gets himself tied up with human traffickers because he needs the money (for legal fees? to afford a place?).
“Desperately in need of money with hopes of regaining custody of his daughter, James embarks on a cross-country delivery for cash—no questions asked.” From the description below the trailer.
enrique, I’m not getting what you are saying. I don’t see what your point at 4:40 is.
I specifically remember the prostitutes being white knighted having been done wrong.
Ah. That makes sense. Thanks.
I remember, even during my blue pill days, rolling my eyes at The Quick and The Dead.
Just for a start:
Isn’t that the same message that the churches have been peddling regarding babymommas?
Yup.
“No matter who she is or what she’s done, or even how far she’s gone astray, she is of infinite worth in God’s eyes.”
There. Now all that remains to happen is for some modernist scholar to artfully and stealthily insert this into the most appropriate part of the next “modern language” translation of the Bible (they could probably hide it in Proverbs or SoS somewhere). It’s not as if most people would notice anything amiss, and those who did and complained about it would just be shamed and jeered as hateful, misogynist apostates.
Someone in the Manosphere should start a campaign on Social Media with the theme “#feminstandproud”, complete with trendy tattoos. This has several advantages. First, me can find such tattoos in the courtship/ girlfriend screwing stage, and not marry them. Second,when the social decline happens, they have been identified with the ideology that has caused the decline – no getting out of it by saying that they were committed to the opposite when they were young.
I probably won’t be watching the next episode of Star Wars, since I’m sure gay characters will be placed I to the script. Mary Sue being awesome was bad enough, as were the many scenes of women pilots running to their fighter planes, doing the opposite of what women have done throughout history. It may be the bitter taste of the Red Pill, because I saw the pile of manure it was.
Oh…and even in the preview of “Gods Not Dead”, I thought the girlfriend was just SO supportive.
As a rule, any narrative in any medium (story, book, movie) that has prostitutes as victims, worthy of being saved, is probably pushing the FI. There can be layers of ambiguity and complexity, and arguably, FORGIVEN presented that, but I recall the movie seeming to focus on the redemption of a group of ho-bags. It wasn’t full-retard, but close, in it’s white knightedry.
IBB,
That isn’t new. Zsa Zsa Gabor married and divorced 9 times, and is still alive at the age of almost 100.
Elizabeth Taylor also married and divorced 8 times.
Both Zsa Zsa and Liz had most of their divorces before divorce was a common thing for ordinary people.
I mean, why did each man think he would be the exception? I bet most of them didn’t lose much money, but still.
Enrique-
I’m mulling over your thoughts/comments on “Unforgiven.”
I am always grateful when someone causes that.
@ Anonymous Reader who said;
“Perhaps you should consider broadening your choice in fiction. $tar War$ was a comic book from the start. Have you read Fenimore Cooper? Mark Twain? Dostoyevsky? Solzhenitsyn? Alexander Dumas? Even Edgar Rice Burroughs had more depth in his fiction than $tar War$ did.
It is a myth in the Campell tradition
No. It’s a Saturday Afternoon cartoon show with special effects and, in the third film, way too many Muppets. It’s like looking at a puddle on the sidewalk and calling it “the ocean”. It’s fiction pitched at the level of an 8 year old.”
GREAT post and very inspirational. I get that guys want to brave the shitshow of Hollywood to break it down and point out the FI in action etc and know where they’re at. “Politics is downstream of culture” or some such quote. So I applaud them for doing the dirty work. However, life is short and you are not obligated to be the guy who can reel off 25 examples of the FI in Hyundai commercials or something. 90% of the commenters here show an intelligence that is so far above and beyond Hollywood. Get back to the novels, older the better and get the glowing lights out of your face. Back to black and white print and wake up your brain.
Anyway, I guess I’m very much on the didactic side here but I can only say that nothing in my life has ever felt better, cleaner and more satisfying then laying a big, fat double-bird at ALL aspects of Hollywood/Pop Culture/Music/Stand-up/TV. All of it. DOUBLE BIRD. Back to Sax Rohmer novels, Ernest/Martin Booth/Burroughs/Ambler/Household and on and on. A 70 dollar kindle and hundreds of free classics to screw your entertainment budget down to about 3$ a year for the next 25 years if you wanted to be that cheap. Public libraries are there too. Get all of that rotten Hollywood shit out of your life, no matter how correct you are in your criticisms of it.
I probably won’t be watching the next episode of Star Wars, since I’m sure gay characters will be placed I to the script.
Good heavens, man – have you already forgotten JarJar Binks?!
@feeriker:
Darth Jar Jar makes the prequels seem a lot smarter. Lol.
Now we know….binks is a verb…..its what the stammering porky pig esque Jar Jar does….he binks. Stealthgae infinitive, to bink.
RE: Unforgiven, meh. They only went to Big Whiskey for the money, they didn’t give a rat’s ass about what happened to the whore. The message was clear that, without her looks, the whore was essentially worthless – she had made her choice and could not go back and become virtuous again. Everyone but Munney used the whores during the ‘operation.’ And I don’t think the cathouse matron’s intent was that Munney kill damn near every Big Whiskey luminary there was in a barroom gunfight.
In a more traditional western, the cut-up whore would have seen the error of her ways through such a traumatic experience and become a respected schoolmarm or something.
YMMV.
@Looking Glass
Interesting. Widowers are the exception in secular movies. They are the only fathers permitted to be truly heroic (eg Stratham in Homefront). But Christian movies are much darker in their anti husband/father themes, so it will be interesting to see how they apply the rules. Not interesting enough to watch the movie mind you, but it will be interesting to hear from those who do watch it.
Scott, yes, the movie is more layered than simply writing off as blue pill, but I remember seeing how the cultural reaction was to it, and how it was the anti-anti-hero Western in some ways. I don’t claim it was written by a male feminist, just that it had those blue pill overtones of saving the ho…kinda like that Western that was on Netflix recently…(or Hulu?) I only watched a few. The one about the railroads. They OF COURSE had the whore marry the black guy (former John) who then “kills” the evil Irish (re: White) racist, who then resurrects somehow, after being shot through the face, to come kneel before the black lord and white (whore) queen, that the black dude married up.
It was right out of a liberal comic book…not that stranger shit never happened in the Old West (or ancient history), it’s just that it was another example of showing white men being subservient–and lectured for all their racism, etc. I think the British white chick, who’s husband was murdered (by Indians?) oddly, isn’t particularly racist.
It’s the same pattern in Hollywood that we see in Western Culture. Traditional European culture is under assault, generally, then after that, white women detach themselves from being part of that, in terms of whatever “accountability” libs/progs want there to be.
There is a certain, effeminate group that likes to tear down traditional Western Culture–for obvious reasons. I think they are mentioned in your OT.
From the Priceless film website synopsis:
“Coming to theaters this fall, PRICELESS is a powerfully compelling, suspense-filled love story that reminds us that no matter who we are, what we’ve done, or even how far we’ve gone astray, we are of infinite worth in God’s eyes.”
Feeriker paraphrased it substituting “she” for “we”.
Yes, we are of infinite worth in God’s eyes. That doesn’t mean we are of infinite worth in other humans’ eyes. That doesn’t mean a woman must be of infinite worth in my eyes. That doesn’t mean you must overlook her past, excuse her past, and invest in her anyway. That doesn’t mean you must love her, protect her, or do anything else for her. That doesn’t mean you must sacrifice anything for her. That doesn’t mean you must toss yourself on the gears of society for her. That doesn’t mean you must set yourself on fire to keep her warm.
Deti beat me to it. Any church preaching a sinner/slut is of infinite worth to God is on the right track. Its when they add that you need to man up and marry her that they go off the rails.
@Deti
I think you are falling into the trap they have laid. We do have to love her as our neighbor, which is a tall order. But this is different than marriage, romantic love, the duty a husband owes to his wife, etc.
@Enrique
Absolutely. I once heard an interview with the creator of Deadwood and he said flat out that he wanted to destroy the Western genre.
It’s not only “Christians” who are cheerleaders for tearing down the patriarchy, Satanists are also joining in. In this article, Satanists praise The Witch and Mad Max: Fury Road for undermining patriarchy:
http://theconversation.com/can-a-burgeoning-satanic-movement-actually-effect-political-change-57619
Talk about strange bedfellows…
Enrique-
I will concede the white-knighting plot device of coming to save the cut-up prostitute line. However, I would also point out the movie does not need it to move the story forward. It is a function of, as some have pointed out all over the manoshpere that feminism is the air we breathe.
What I have always liked about the movie is that it asks the same question so many other stories have asked before–just like “A Clockwork Orange,” it asks “can a man really change?”
In A Clockwork Orange, the answer is “no.” Because in the end, Alex Delarge is released from his aversion to sex and violence and is “himself” again.
The William Munny character, however, does change somewhat in his advanced years. He is disturbed by the cries of the first guy they kill when he is asking for water on the hillside. However, he retains the nerve and ability to look a man in the eye and kill him, if he thinks the guy deserves it.
This is, of course, the reason my profession exists, so that’s probably why I focus on that part. But you are right, looking at it from the red pill perspective, its pretty obvious what the original impetus for the story is. Pure white-knighting.
Kevin
Deti beat me to it. Any church preaching a sinner/slut is of infinite worth to God is on the right track. Its when they add that you need to man up and marry her that they go off the rails.
I’ve heard the “man up and marry those sluts” phrase mentioned around these parts a good bit, and while preachers like Driscoll, Chandler, and so forth certainly seem to ignore how promiscuous women commonly are, do those preachers ever actually acknowledge it and explicitly say men should marry them, anyway?
do those preachers ever actually acknowledge it and explicitly say men should marry them, anyway?
I have not encountered this. However, its there–just more subtle. (It also doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen).
The most obvious way is by conflating “single mom” with widow, which is ubiquitous now.
Related to that is the unwritten rule that inquiring about the conditions under which a single mom became a single mom is strictly out of bounds. Especially in the Christian singles scene.
@ Dalrock:
“I think you are falling into the trap they have laid. We do have to love her as our neighbor, which is a tall order. But this is different than marriage, romantic love, the duty a husband owes to his wife, etc.”
I’m not seeing how this is a trap laid for anyone. Plainly the underlying message for men is that women who have checkered pasts, promiscuous pasts, etc. are forgiven by God, which means that any Godly man worth his salt must also forgive them. In Churchianese, this means that good men, church men, Godly men, are required to marry these women — not because of attraction or because these women love them. It’s not even because these women need husbands in the sense that they need men to lead and protect them. No, it’s about money and status. It’s because these women need good men to support them and pay the bills. It’s because they need fathers for their children. It’s because they need the status of marriage, to make them “honest” and “upstanding” women.
What’s the trap?
@Hank Flanders
As Scott noted the focus is usually on getting men to marry single mothers. This makes sense though because 1) Another man’s child(ren) is the only physical evidence of a woman’s sexual history. and 2) Women’s sexual sins are ignored like all other sins by women (see the recent examples of the pro life movement twisting itself into knots to avoid confronting women’s sins). So the real mantra is more like “Man up and marry those baby mommas!”
The best quote I can come up with off the top of my head is from a sermon by Mark Driscoll (post), where he shamed men in his congregation for having unrealistic expectations in a wife:
Driscoll also sent a famous tweet comparing single mothers to the Virgin Mary.
“do those preachers ever actually acknowledge it and explicitly say men should marry them, anyway?”
To add to what Scott says, no, preachers/pastors aren’t explicitly saying “man up and marry these used up “reformed sluts””.
It’s extremely subtle. It’s usually a combination of shaming language, questioning the man’s faith, and Scriptural distortions and contextual errors.
“Men need to step up.”
“These are wonderful women who are turning their lives around. What a testimony to God’s redemptive and healing power in people’s lives!”
“Mary was a single mother. Joseph married her anyway. YOU, little ordinary Christian man, could do WORSE.”
“You’re just as sinful as she is. You’re no better than she is. Sin is sin — it’s all filthy rags before God.”
“With God, all things are possible — even the restoration of a woman’s ‘spiritual virginity.'”
“Women become sluts only because bad men trick and dupe them into having sex before marriage.”
“If you’re rejecting a formerly promiscuous woman, it must be because you’re not really a Christian. You’re denying God’s power to heal, redeem and restore. You don’t really believe God can heal. Therefore, you’re not really a Christian. Maybe YOU need to check YOUR heart.”
“Judge not lest ye be judged! DON’T YOU DARE JUDGE!!!”
“Remove that log from your own eye before you point out the mote in your Christian sister’s eye.”
re. the video posted by enrique upthread – “Why Women Destroy Nations / Civilizations:
Seems to me that the narrator is a text to speech bot, not a human / man. Listen closely. Wonder if, given the subject matter, that was intentional.
Okay so… just accept no shame. Done. There you go. Who cares what the “subtlety” is about this. God gives all free will.
A good Christian man who wants a wife, he is free to be as choosy as he wants. And the parallel with this choosiness (that Driscoll and others are saying when they say this)….
…is that he may never in his lifetime meet any other women who would have him. For a lot of Christian men nowadays its, man up and marry this baby momma or…. you maybe don’t get a wife. Ever. At least not in this lifetime.
And you know… that is okay. There is absolute nothing in the Bible that says a man (or woman even) has to marry in order to be saved and enter the kingdom of Heaven. Marriage is not for everyone. And that is just the way it goes. So if you want to exclude never-married-moms from your possible wife category (and I excluded them when I was looking for a wife) God is not going to hold it against you. God did not command you to marry them, just love them with all your heart and mind and soul.
Driscoll also sent a famous tweet comparing single mothers to the Virgin Mary.
According to Christian doctrine, as far as I can tell, Mary was the most virtuous and most important woman in history, impregnated by the immaculate holy touch of God.
The average American single mother gets impregnated by the rancid jizz of some local alpha lout she probably met at the nightclub. She probably got drunk with him, smoked drugs with him, got jizzed on, and jizzed into. And she has no regrets, and feels no shame. In fact, she thinks she’s some sort of hero.
The glaring difference should be obvious to any Christian with a brain.
@Deti
The trap is their invitation for the viewer/reader to conflate Christian love with romantic love, and to conflate a woman’s value in God’s eyes with her SMV/MMV.
This isn’t true. As a Christian, you must love her. But the distinction is the kind of love. Our love for our neighbor is not romantic love.
The problem isn’t a mismatch between what God values and what we as Christians value. If something is valuable to God, to my Lord, it is likewise valuable to me. But God’s valuation of the woman isn’t of her sex appeal or her MMV. Again, they are inviting us to conflate two different things.
@ Greyghost
Islam will conquer Europe in 20 years and may very well do the same in North America, but I don’t see it happening in Eastern Europe. Former Soviet Bloc states are Nationalistic and are becoming even more so unappologetically. US goes belly up and I may try my luck in Poland.
Again, they are inviting us to conflate two different things.
Exactly.
Basically what they are saying is this: “Unless you extend eros to these baby-mamas, you’re not displaying proper agape towards them”. This is, of course, false. Agape is required towards everyone, and eros is not, and there has never been any idea raised by the Church traditionally that men or women discerning suitors in marriage are impugning their agape by excluding certain people from consideration. Eros is not an obligation towards everyone, or, rather, towards anyone apart from your spouse. Again, as you say, they want the two to be conflated, to suggest that a lack of extending eros to these women is an indication of a failure in agape.
I agree with arguments that have been raised that one should be careful to draw too stark a distinction, but even so, there is still a distinction to be made, and basically they are asking it not to be made so as to make it an obligation of agape to extend eros to these women, just because men like Driscoll say so.
Oh, any by the way, People Magazine just named 47-year old Jennifer Aniston the most beautiful woman in the world: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/entertainment/jennifer-aniston-people-most-beautiful-woman/index.html .
Propaganda is everywhere, really. They simply will not accept the realities of aging. There is no way on this good green Earth that Jennifer Aniston is the most beautiful woman on it, but there you go. In fact, I’m surprised they picked a woman in her 40s — should have at least been 50.
Scott, Dalrock, and thedeti, those are great answers, guys, and thanks for the responses. I couldn’t remember exactly what Driscoll had said, but that makes sense now. Also, some of the quotes deti cited are ridiculous, especially that one about claiming “you’re not really a Christian.” In fact, that one sounds familiar, but I can’t remember where I read it. Who made those statements, anyway?
What’s interesting to me about the men who would seek to shame men who don’t want to marry promiscuous women that it’s unlikely that those men would have a problem with someone divorcing a cheating spouse, especially if that spouse cheated with multiple different partners. (At least, I hope this would be true). However, somehow, you would magically owe a greater standard of “forgiveness” to a woman to whom you’re not even married yet than you would to your wife.
Superb from Heartiste :
Why White Knights are Bad for Women.
Cartoonish chivalry really is cartoonish.
@ deti:
For the past two decades we have attended a large church with a much higher than average OOW birth rate. There is even the occasional nod to how hard single mothers work, yada yada yada.
But we – I double checked it with the man for confirmation- have never, not even ONE time, heard anyone offer up the notion that the single men in our church (there are a few scattered about) need to be looking around at these women as potential wives.
That spiel from Mark Driscoll is pretty rare, I suspect. No one expects men to line up to marry women who have another man’s children in tow. And attractive enough women (even with a checkered past) have no trouble marrying a man in the church so long as she doesn’t have another man’s children in tow.
I realized we skipped an important topic while I was doing some other work: “Priceless” and “Infinite Worth” are heresies. If formalized, you used to get burned at the stake for something like that. (And, frankly, it would be richly deserved.)
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (ESV): “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
So the Soul isn’t “priceless”, as it was, in fact, bought at a Price. That price was the Blood of the Lamb on the Cross, but it was a price, nonetheless.
As for “Infinite Worth”, well: Matthew 12:31 (ESV), “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.”
If we had “Infinite Worth”, Our Lord would just forgive us without the need for repentance. That, very clearly, is not going to happen.
We’re so used to the twisting of Scripture and basic Theology that we skipped over it because it’s being used to serve the FI. But, when it comes to deep evil, this needs to be called out.
Jennifer Aniston was not even the most beautiful woman when she was 25. Now, way past her prime. Ridiculous.
But those magizines are for women. Empowerment = beauty. I wonder what the average age of Maxim top 100 or similar lists. Or average age of SI Swimsuit edition.
From Vox….
How do we defeat them?
1. Embrace monogamy
2. Support and sustain power of the American Patriarch
3. Embrace the role of the American Patriarch
4. Rebuild the family
5. Restore the culture
Number 2 is worded wrong. It should read: Restore the power of the American Patriarch. There is nothing left to support. Marriage is at worst slavery for men, and at best, life with a gun to your head. You can pretend it’s not there, but it is…..and if you, as a man, don’t think there is a problem with that, then you are part of the problem.
None of the other items on the list are even possible without the updated #2.
But that isn’t going to happen via peaceful processes. Women will never settle for mere ‘equality’ and traitor white knights will never stop simping.
That’s what Lucas wants you to believe about his Flash Gordon fanfic.
Let’s see :
* The ‘most beautiful woman in the world’ is age 47…
* In the recent DC reboots, Lois Lane is played by an actress 9 years older than the actor playing Superman.
* The bond girl was 50, and older than Bond himself… (before now, the average Bond Girl was 14-17 years younger than Bond)..
The thing is, entertainment/media content HAS to push this, as it is what sells. If they didn’t push it, they would lose revenue to those who do.
And why is this ‘what sells’?
Because Democracy causes all resources to be forcibly transferred from men to women. Female suffrage makes this general tendency organized and unstoppable. The free market is totally smothered by what women want the government to do with the nation’s wealth, so every product has to become female-centric, and since women are ultra-narcissistic, this becomes the norm for everything.
Even when men controlled all resources and all voting, we did NOT see :
1) Entertainment content geared towards a negative portrayal of women. Men just don’t have a desire to see the other gender denigrated, unlike women.
2) A female-only immigration policy. Men could have done this at any time from 1776-1920, but never once did men seriously entertain such a policy…
@Anon:
In the early 1970s, when Nixon was negotiating with Mao, Mao offered 10 million Chinese Women to the USA. (The 1-child Murder Policy came a few years later.) Nixon turned it down.
In the early 1970s, when Nixon was negotiating with Mao, Mao offered 10 million Chinese Women to the USA.
Interesting. While that was well into the era of female suffrage (and hence politically impossible), that would have been better than sex-selective abortion.
Of course, the whiteknight nationalists would have opposed that too, even if the arrivals were exclusively females, as their offspring would have been mixed (white-Chinese or black-Chinese), which whiteknights are opposed to…
I saw Mad Max as an attempt to try to revalidate patriarchy. Yeah its bad guy is a man. He has male henchman too. And he has plenty of Eva Brauns.
Then again none of the women would’ve survived without the two men that bailed the women out of their mistake, and returned them to the homes they’d run away from chasing after empty dreams… by showing them how to earn their dreams instead.
I would agree with Elspeth that I cannot recall a single sermon saying men should step up and take care of single mothers.
Plenty of FI stuff, but not that.
Utah talking of banning pornography, blames it for failing marriages. No mention of feminism, divorce ultimatum, etc.
http://fairfaxfreecitizen.com/2016/04/21/utah-does-the-dirty-work-on-porn/
@Mandy,
Tinsley Mortimer is another example of the Feminist Script messing up women’s lives. Tinsley is divorced because of an affair she participated in (she was empowered, liberated), has no kids, and at 40 years old is reduced to being a booty call for a younger man who won’t commit to her, and does not want to be seen with her in public. Her anger, fear, and frustration has caused her to participate in physical violence. Destructive. Sad. Who will take care of her when she is old and frail?
I also agree with Elspeth. Of course, I’ve spent the last 10+ years in a small church (100 or so). We’ve only had a couple of OOW moms, and neither of them from church families (both came in from our evangelistic efforts, and both later married outside the church and left). The pastor is careful to preach scripture and not modern culture, so we tend to believe that both men and women can sin, and that marriage is not a pairing of interchangeable people.
Utah talking of banning pornography, blames it for failing marriages. No mention of feminism, divorce ultimatum, etc.
No, of course not.
I would also venture to say that more than a few of the theocrat politicians behind this totalitarian move are probably closet porn addicts themselves.
Elspeth, Billy, Hmm:
At churches where the “man up and marry the sluts and the single moms” message is sent, it is not sent in official sermons from the pulpit. It’s not an “official church position”.
They’re messages to individual men seeking help. They’re messages to men’s ministries. They’re messages specifically given to men at single men’s church groups and men’s prayer breakfasts, etc. Messages to men.
While I’m on the topic, men’s ministries, or at least the one’s I’ve seen, are a complete joke. They’re ridiculous. All that is EVER talked about at men’s ministries is serving your wife and what a crappy job all men do at this; and avoiding sexual sin and what a crappy job we all do at that too. It’s no lusting, no porn, don’t push your wife for sex, and you are a BAD BAD man if you meekly insist that you’d like some sex once in a while.
.
While I’m on the topic, men’s ministries, or at least the one’s I’ve seen, are a complete joke. They’re ridiculous.
Hey, be thankful that your church at least makes a pretense of a men’s ministry. I can’t remember the last church I attended that even gave a second’s thought to such a thing.
Dianna Rigg was one year older than George Lazenby. NABGALT.
While I’m on the topic, men’s ministries, or at least the one’s I’ve seen, are a complete joke. They’re ridiculous. All that is EVER talked about at men’s ministries is serving your wife and what a crappy job all men do at this; and avoiding sexual sin and what a crappy job we all do at that too. It’s no lusting, no porn, don’t push your wife for sex, and you are a BAD BAD man if you meekly insist that you’d like some sex once in a while.
Yep. I remember.
In Orthodoxy, we don’t have “men’s ministry” because most of the men would think it was silly. We have liturgy, and after church coffee. At the after church coffee, the ladies make the coffee and put out the snacks.
On holy days, the men do all the heavy lifting and BBQing in preparation for the feast.
Heck, only a chrismated male is allowed behind the icons (the altar). The roles are baked into the cake, so we don’t need to sit around a room holding hands talking about it.
Interesting, that. What are the odds that she consented to sex outside of marriage, or that she bore children while married but then chose to get divorced (and insisted on primary custody)? Quite high, I think.
I’m very certain that it wasn’t immaculate conception for them. Driscoll seems to miss that fact when he tweeted: “Single guys: don’t overlook the single moms. Jesus’ mom was a single mom & it went pretty well for Joseph.” That certainly fits nicely with the idea that women can do no wrong.
Marriages and families would go “pretty well” today if men and women reflected the character of Joseph and Mary.
Elspeth
No one expects men to line up to marry women who have another man’s children in tow.
“No one” means “not one person”. Are you sure about that?
Deti
They’re messages to individual men seeking help. They’re messages to men’s ministries. They’re messages specifically given to men at single men’s church groups and men’s prayer breakfasts, etc. Messages to men.
I have known men who went to mega-church “singles groups” that had this experience. Being repeatedly seated next to a babymomma time after time at a “singles” event contains an expectation even if it is not overt. It’s like going to a bakery and asking to buy a loaf of bread, and every single loaf that’s offered is a day old and has the end cut off. How long would a man patronize that bakery?
Tangentially, I’ve heard from another man in a Protestant church that his leadership conflates the babymommas in with widows. It seems to be a real meme, maybe even what all the Kool Kidz are doing. Churchgoing men might want to push back on this one when they see it, because it’s pure Female Imperative at work.
DrTorch
Utah talking of banning some pornography, blames it for failing marriages. No mention of feminism, divorce ultimatum, etc.
FIFY
Bet a Benjamin that every chain bookstore will have plenty of rom-porn on the shelves no matter what. Which reminds me: 50 Shades is now officially passe’, the next step in ‘women’s fiction’ arrives. Open hypergamy, perhaps?
http://nypost.com/2016/04/21/this-years-most-erotic-novel-makes-50-shades-look-like-the-bible/
I’m fortunate in that the current church that my wife and I are currently attending, there doesn’t seem to be ANY baby mommas in it. There quite a few kids (and a few of them have parents that are divorced) but I don’t think any of them were born illegitimately. That’s refreshing. And in all the years I have entered that building, not once has anyone said anything insinuating that never-married-moms are precious or are equal to widows or that the few single men in the church need to man up and marry them. So…. no. I think this Driscoll and Chandler nonsense of speaking out for them, I just see them as outliers channeling the feminist imperative in an AMOG kind of way. All bachelor men need to is ignore their AMOG screed. They are harmless.
“While I’m on the topic, men’s ministries, or at least the one’s I’ve seen, are a complete joke. They’re ridiculous. All that is EVER talked about at men’s ministries is serving your wife and what a crappy job all men do at this; and avoiding sexual sin and what a crappy job we all do at that too. It’s no lusting, no porn, don’t push your wife for sex, and you are a BAD BAD man if you meekly insist that you’d like some sex once in a while.”
I remember some of this from a Promise Keeper’s rally in L.A. a couple of decades ago. Except then, the bottom (unspoken) line at the time seemed to be: By being a better man you’ll have a happier wife, and hence more sex. A few things have changed…
Deti,
Where do you get the fact basis for your assertions? How many singles groups seat members intentionally places?
Perhaps it really is a big conspiracy, but we should base assertions like this on a bit more than just the assertion and a few wacko preachers.
Everyone is dying today. Chyna (WWE and Playboy) dead. Prince (the artist) dead. Who’s next? They come in threes.
BillyS
Where do you get the fact basis for your assertions? How many singles groups seat members intentionally places?
I’m not Deti, but men that I trust have been to “singles” events where someone “saved you a seat” that just happened to be next to the “single” woman with two children by two different men, neither of whom she was ever married to. It happens, even if you don’t want to admit it.
Perhaps it really is a big conspiracy,
C’mon, we are discussing cultural norms, not Konspiracies. A few years ago I was in a conservative church (culturally conservative, no women in leadership roles, a lot of Republicans, etc.) where the resident babymomma got a baby shower when her third bastard was born – to a third different man. Because “God loves everyone”, because “it’s not the children’s fault”, because “she has such need”, etc. and so forth. Hey, as a guest I am not going to point out the obvious, that rewarding bad behavior brings more bad behavior.
but we should base assertions like this on a bit more than just the assertion and a few wacko preachers.
Somehow, I do suspect that no amount of evidence would convince you. From what I see, though, the normalization of never-married-women with one or more children is an ongoing thing in churches, because the churches tend to follow social trends with a time lag (years to decades).
All of this leaving aside the idea of “singles groups”, as if spinsters / widowers / widows / bachelors are somehow so incredibly different from other people that they can’t possibly read the Bible with married folks.
AR,
At the firm I worked at 17 years ago, two women got pregnant in the office in the same week, one in marriage the other in sin. The two of them roamed around the office telling everyone their great news, and I ran right up to the married one and hugged her and said congratulations. When we got done chatting the other one was standing there smiling at me and she told me she was pregnant. I just smiled and said, “I know I heard, you are going to be a mother.” And that was it. That was as I nice as I could be to her. I did not congratulate her, hug her, shake her hand, tell her how wonderful that was, any of that. But I didn’t shun her. I wasn’t cold. I just…. treated married mom to be special and treated not-married-mom-to-be like a mere coworker. And it had nothing to do with shaming her child. I think baby momma got the message. If I had things entirely my way, that would be the way to handle this. You do NOT celebrate it nor do you shame her. You just acknowledge that it happened and… well… that’s it.
I think its just numbers. The bastardy rate just keeps going up and up and the subsequent number of illegitimate children and baby mommas sitting in the pews will also just go up. Math is just… math. These are the numbers and churches can either accept the math and embrace it, or not.
As I said up thread, I’ve been fortunate in that where I go on Sunday morning, no baby mommas (at least none that I am aware of.) But I’m guessing that it is only a matter of time before that changes. And I”m not looking forward to that.
“No one” means “not one person”. Are you sure about that?
No one has stood up and said it (nor even implied it) publicly the way Driscoll did.
Our church doesn’t have an active men’s ministry, and the single’s ministry disbanded several years back as well. So the men aren’t being browbeaten in private either.
Elspeth, how are you doing?
I don’t think that has ever worked, really. When I was single, they never browbeated me for anything other than being a Deacon and helping which I was more than happy to do. If “they” tried to guilt me into a marry a baby-momma, I would have just said I wasn’t available or whatever. And I don’t even know who “they” is? “They” does not include any pastor that I ever knew.
AR,
It wasn’t my experience as a single, but that was many years ago with much smaller single’s groups.
I am proud to state I am hard to convince. I need more than several anecdotal stories. That said, I am willing to admit I am wrong, I just need more evidence than claims of something happening.
Conspiracy may not be the exact word, but it does seem to fit with the idea of a hidden, quiet campaign to get men to marry single women with children.
I can only think of one preacher personally who was directly fine with marrying a woman with children, Chip Ingram, since his wife had kids when he was married. I have heard plenty talk about the mutual submission lie and other such things. I would expect to hear a lot more of this in preaching/teaching if it was such a strong underlying message.
“Perhaps it really is a big conspiracy, but we should base assertions like this on a bit more than just the assertion and a few wacko preachers.”
Your experience will of course vary. In California, it’s rare for clergy to make any mention of sexual morality whatsoever, from dead bedrooms to child molestation.
Speaking of cuckholding traditional Western men, watch the trailer for the new Magnificent 7.
“No one” means “not one person”. Are you sure about that?
Elspeth
No one has stood up and said it (nor even implied it) publicly the way Driscoll did.
So Driscoll indeed said it, and you agree he said it, but you insist not one person has said it? I don’t often see self-contradiction in a sentence like this.
Our church doesn’t have an active men’s ministry, and the single’s ministry disbanded several years back as well. So the men aren’t being browbeaten in private either.
Men aren’t being browbeaten in your church. Good. Do you understand that other churches exist in the country besides yours?
You are coming across as extremely solipsistic – “Well, I don’t see it, so it can’t be a problem”. Maybe I’m reading too much into your text, maybe you mean “That’s not happening around here, so there are places it doesn’t happen”. If that’s your point, well, good for y’all. A lot of the rest of us live somewhere else.
Open hypergamy, perhaps?
@AR —
And penned by an Oxbridge-educated baby-mama, no less. How unsurprising.
BIllyS
It wasn’t my experience as a single, but that was many years ago with much smaller single’s groups.
You’re new around here. So there may be some things you don’t know about.
You may have noticed that many things in the popular culture have changed. Did you know that homosexuals can now marry, and demand that people bake cakes for them, for example? DId you know that Target has decided if a man puts a dress on, he can use the women’s restroom? Did you know that your wife can divorce you any time she wishes for no reason other than she wants to?
I am proud to state I am hard to convince. I need more than several anecdotal stories. That said, I am willing to admit I am wrong, I just need more evidence than claims of something happening.
Most likely you won’t be convinced until it happens to you or someone you personally know.
Conspiracy may not be the exact word, but it does seem to fit with the idea of a hidden, quiet campaign to get men to marry single women with children.
Nice strawman. Nobody wrote of a “hidden, quiet campaign”. It arguably has more to do with women’s in-group preferences, the reluctance to call out women’s bad behavior (sin, in Bible terms), and the AMOG tendencies of far too many preachers. Frankly I doubt that you understood the previous sentence.
I can only think of one preacher personally who was directly fine with marrying a woman with children, Chip Ingram, since his wife had kids when he was married. I have heard plenty talk about the mutual submission lie and other such things. I would expect to hear a lot more of this in preaching/teaching if it was such a strong underlying message.
Another strawman. You aren’t actually reading what is being written.
GunnerQ
Your experience will of course vary. In California, it’s rare for clergy to make any mention of sexual morality whatsoever, from dead bedrooms to child molestation.
How about, hmm, adultery? Seems like that would be something of a landmine in a lot of places now.
Novaseeker
And penned by an Oxbridge-educated baby-mama, no less. How unsurprising.
Yeah.
How much would you care to bet that it’s written at about the same reading level as “Harry Potter”?
It is the same for Ms Aniston as for Mrs Clinton. Ms Aniston is the best looking woman in the world because they cannot choose the man who is in fact the most attractive woman in the world, Brad Pitt. Likewise you can’t vote for Bill – so you have to choose Hillary.
American movies are, when not being overly sentimental, extremely violent, and so far as I can see form the Trailer for the new Magnificent Seven very Blue Pill.
Some of you may have heard of Angry Harry – dubbed by Paul Elam the Godfather of the MRA – but might not have heard that he died in February. Strange name for someone who always sounded calm and reasonable – like Scott he was by-day a Psychologist. I recommend his essay (his web-site was still up at least it was yesterday) – Why you can never achieve Equality, Brilliant and Funny in equal measure, or if you want something heavier try James FitzJames Stephen’s 1873 book Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, where he trashes or attempts to do so John Stuart Mill.
When I heard about the “Priceless” movie, it was talked about as if only the women in the movie were priceless.
Meanwhile, in the Halls of Evangelicals:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/04/21/my-wife-and-i-are-white-evangelicals-heres-why-we-chose-to-give-birth-to-black-triplets/
Sooooooooo cuuuuuuuuuuuuute !
@enrique —
Vox Day described that well: “Peak Cuck”.
Yep. Guy has to be gay, really.
Why do people think Sweden is particularly ‘feminist’?
1) A child always has joint custody, so the man is not financially ruined on a ‘no-fault’ basis. That is hardly like the US.
2) Sweden does not allow abortions after 12 weeks without special permission from the government :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm
3) I don’t think Sweden has a campus kangaroo courts for accusations of rape…
France and Germany also do not allow abortions after 12 weeks.
So the notion that Sweden is more ‘feminist’ than the US is wrong. The US is at the extreme in all the key areas of ‘feminism’.
On the singles ministry/”man up and marry a slut” stuff, it’s going to depend by denomination and region. Minus some of the Driscoll stuff, pretty much no one is actually actively thinking about it. It’s in the culture. In the “water”, and then people just respond. It’s very much a carry-over of time-past, just trying to shoehorn it into the modern culture.
Remember that Christians take the foolishness of the modern world and make it “Christian Kosher”. (Rollo is so dang on point with that term) So what we’re seeing isn’t a conspiracy of thought. It’s just the effects of the unquestioned assumptions of culture; mixed within the church.
Though this has been a problem for a long time. I’ve mentioned before that my mother is a Widow, so I got to see pretty first hand how things operate when an actual widow (even in the 1980s) is responded to by the church. Let’s just say, the married Women will, by instinct, seek to remove any risks as quickly as possible.
I think, for most Men, it’s important to remember that, while Women can and are extremely devious, much of it happens by instinct rather than overt thought. The instincts set the assumptions, and what logic is applied will never question those assumptions. Women “hew to the System”. Always remember that.
Except that Sweden, for example: (1) teaches boys to pee sitting down, and there is a campaign to get rid of urinals, (2) has sex quotas for corporate boards, (3) criminalizes only the purchase, but not the sale, of sex, etc. There are many other examples.
On custody, the key is that Sweden’s child support rules, like many other European countries, are not based on income, but follow a flat “needs”-based schedule. The US, and Anglosphere in general, are some of the only places that base child support on income, making it like ersatz-alimony. That’s a Victorian-era, woman-worshiping Anglo problem, indeed, but it isn’t like Sweden isn’t out there. They are. It’s just that in family disintegration they are much further down the pike than the US, and the law has adjusted to that in a way that the US has not (Swedes marry much less frequently, for example, than even Americans still do).
innocentbystanderboston
Everyone is dying today. Chyna (WWE and Playboy) dead. Prince (the artist) dead. Who’s next? They come in threes.
The other one was a few days ago – Doris Roberts.
“Peak Cuck” That’s good.
Follow the story, in about 5-10 years, expect the mother and/or father of these black babies to come back and sue to get their kids back, and for cash/restitution, type claim. Bank on it. And the children’s race will be THE issue.
If it sounds crazy, just figure the 1/64th “Native” girl that was just “repatriated” to family members of her native parents, who by the way (these family members) are NOT NATIVE…all based on her 1/64th blood amount ,which would not typically qualify her for most tribes.
That’s like 10 times more Indian heritage than Elizabeth Warren even. Although still less than Willie Nelson probably. 🙂
From the article:
“But, we knew, especially in the South, that a white couple with non-white children would draw a myriad of different reactions. There will always be the older white woman in Walmart who stared at us with sheer disgust, or the African-American mother who looked at us and just shook her head. However, there was also the young black girl who wept when we told her this little boy with her skin color was our son, and the older white doctor who lovingly prayed over him and held him so tenderly.”
Ever notice how Liberals, progressives and SJCucks always have these cliche experiences? Feminists used to own this narrative, and it was used often within black racist forums (bell hooks, etc), but now everyone is on board with this stereotypical, humblebraggadocio narratives–they live in a world in which Bond villains surround them, spouting sexist and racist cliches, and the now somewhat tired, “dog whistle” comments (a favorite of black feminists, and almost always more recently projected onto ANY comment about the Barry)…if I read another story with the, “and I will never forget as a child her touching my hair…my beautiful Nubian hair and chiding me…’why can’t I have such curly hair with my blond hair?” and how distant and horrible my white friend made me feel…the “otherness” that I had come to know living in a land, not mine. I just had to…breathe”
What used to be the standard, fake, “he called me the N-word” has now been turned into humblebragging claims, that give the appearance of offense while at the same time attention whoring. Which is what this white Evangelical is doing.
Listen as he also sneaks this in:
“Six weeks after the transfer we made a very nervous trip to the local hospital in Honduras, where we were serving as full-time missionaries. We began to describe everything to our doctor in Spanish (broken Spanish, that is). ”
Did you catch that? Queue the pic of the chick doing the beach cartwheel…”LOOK AT ME! We are missionaries and “nervous and all that stuff”, but we also, SURPRISE, speak Spanish (oh, but not really well, in case anyone happens to probe our story).
Do people fall for this shit? I might as well have woken up and decided to write a story about “Struggling in a world of small penises with a giant penis, and so much money I’m bored”
smdh
@ RPL: The article about the crazy broad and her sea lion makes me wonder when The Onion will just fire their writers and just start reporting the news.
@ Vektor says:
“5. Restore the culture…”
6. Turn off the damn TV
“ We began to describe everything to our doctor in Spanish (broken Spanish, that is). ”
Wow – they’ve progressed as far as “broken” Spanish. Impressive. Most gringo “iglesianos” can’t stomach the thought of putting even that much effort into communicating in the local idioma. Usually the first thing they do is set up English schools to teach the benighted locals the language of their betters so that that they can be churchianized faster and more effectively (“if English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for HaySOOS too”).
Do people fall for this shit?
Yes, in droves. You can safely bet a month’s salary that they’ve received a ton of fan mail so far, probably with some of their fans even offering them money for the honor and privilege of being allowed to babysit their little swarthy bundles of SJW joy.
Yes, their comment about Spanish was to , again, give their SJW creds…while trying to sound humble. Btw, as a semi-fluent Spanish speaker myself, I’d like to hear how two gringos ‘describe everything’ in broken Spanish to a doctor. You just KNOW they were dinner table talk later (complete with laughs, claps and kneeslaps).
Phony. The only part that isn’t, is that they actually brought babies into the world, albeit via a social justice womb. I hope they see it all the way through, for the children’s sake. Those kids deserve parents, not carnival barkers.
And I bet they LOVE “getting looks” and fall all over themselves to “have to explain to the ignorant, unwashed masses” of retarded Southerners, old traditional black grandma-mas, uppity white women, disapproving white men in Don Draperesque business suits, and confused and illiterate Ethiopian cab drivers–exactly what they have on their precious evangelical hands (baby black pets) and how exactly they arrived at this odd situation. They eat it up. Maybe they’ll start blogging.
6. Turn off the damn TV
This is arguably the most important step and should be one of the first ones taken.
Vishal Mangalwadi in his book “The Book that Made Your World” says that in the Roman classical culture “Religious and aritocratic promotion of extramarital sex had collosal consequences. Easy availablity of sex without committment took away men’s motivation to be married. Dislike for marriage had become evident as early as 131 BC, when the Roman censor Quintus Metellus Macedonicus proposed that marrige must be made mandatory”(p. 285). Hmm wonder if it will come to that in the USA?
[D: Welcome. I didn’t allow your previous comment due to extensive quoting of copyrighted work.]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3550973/How-book-sold-women-myth-having-dreamt-man-50-years-savagely-ironic-revelation-Cosmo-editor-s-book-sparked-sexual-social-revolution.html
Yes the virtue signaling has reached a level of ridiculous never before seen. And, is unnecessary.
In high school, my girlfriend was Mexican. Parents? No problem. Friends? No problem. Looks? Comments? Nope.
Then, in my between marriage dating years, I had back to back black girlfriends. In the south. Same thing. Walking right down the street holding hands!! Nothing.
I figure most people, if they notice at all think “well there’s something you don’t see every day” and then go about their day without a thought.
No lynchings planned.
Reading the discussion between Nova and Anon, and as a brief visitor to both Sweden and at somewhat greater length The United States I would characterise Sweden as being less individualistic and more pacific – does anyone ever get killed in an Ingmar Bergman movie? No, they just sit around moaning – god knows what about – waiting for Death to turn up though when he does show he merely wants to play chess. The women are however uniformly blond, pretty, and never overweight. Swedish apartments are centrally heated from September to May as are the bus stops whereas in America the homeless (frequently mentally ill) freeze and die on the streets yards from The White House. The greatest or perhaps more telling difference however is in the respective attitudes to the body. In Sweden ‘gender-equal’ nudity is taken for granted and thus they treat sex as anaemic and utilitarian. American women however wear one piece bathing costumes and the ‘loo’ is euphemistically referred to as the bathroom (I never saw a bath). Americans can always see a frontier which in its crossing they will do so boldly and convinced that the natives on the other side will be welcoming.
Some further remarks on Nova @ 6.20 on the 21st April: In England which is part of the anglo-sphere, maintenance for children is on a needs basis as is alimony for the abandoned wife. Pre-nups have no force (as you cannot exclude the authority of the court) and Palimony did not exist. Maybe it does now, I don’t know, but a woman who was childless, had only been briefly married and still in the prime of life would not have expected to be awarded any financial settlement from her ex-husband. Perhaps again things have changed.
In England, sex quotas for the boards of publicly quoted companies are coming and of course most companies, virtue-signalling, include any number of women on their boards (who shareholders are of course freely at liberty to vote against when the said woman is up for re-election).
It is not a crime in England to charge money for sex; what is illegal is for the man to solicit (from his motor car) and for the women to walk the streets, and so you do not see either – how civilised! Brothels (that is to say more than one woman therein engaged in prostitution are also illegal) and so the girls merely rent one room which in the eighteenth century buildings of London’s red-light district so well suited to renting by the room, is what happens. Thus everyone is happy: men obtain sex, working girls get paid and the readers of the Daily Mail – the moral majority – are reassured that prostitution does not exist, at least anywhere they are likely to see it. A very British solution to an old problem, I ‘d say. For some reason the girls all claim to be Models.
A wife who marries for money may be said to have prostituted herself but she is not a common prostitute as she has been selective as to whom she sleeps with. It is a crime to be a common prostitute, which surely should strike one a double-standard sexism.
The British Government are now advising British travellers of the dangers of visiting Mississippi and North Carolina and that they should leave their L’s G’s B’;s and T’s at home. Homosexuality is, you see, now the preferred sexual orientation. Maybe we should invade to bring freedom, liberty and uni-sex bathrooms to North Carolina and Mississippi.
The other one was a few days ago – Doris Roberts.
Damn……she had a helluva band back in the day.
In England which is part of the anglo-sphere, maintenance for children is on a needs basis as is alimony for the abandoned wife.
Interesting. So basically it’s North America, then (Canada also has income based child support).
The thing is, as individualistic as America is, if you try even once to suggest that child support should not be based on income but instead on need, you will be tarred, feathered, and ostracized as if you were a member of the KKK. It’s ingrained here — men must pay a percent of their income to Baby-Mama, period. Percentage of income is key. Make him pay his share, etc. It’s ingrained here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/lebanese-judge-says-australian-mother-tv-crew-free-to-leave/2016/04/20/57f2ac7c-06fd-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_story.html?tid=hybrid_content_1_na
“Faulkner [the mother], who was released to the custody of the Australian Embassy, is expected to meet Ali and their two children at the courthouse Thursday, before leaving the country the day after.
“British-Australian Adam Whittington, who heads the Britain-based agency Child Abduction Recovery International, and is alleged to have masterminded the botched attempt to snatch the children in Beirut, remains in jail, along with another Briton, Greg Michael.”
so the mother goes free, along with some others…but a couple of the white knights are still in jail. LOVE IT.
Serves’em right.
White women will be served. Not jailed.
AR,
A does not prove B without proof. Yeah, culture is crappy. None of that requires that churches push men to marry single mothers.
It would still be anecdotal, though something I would be personally more touched by.
Deti’s post assumed that. It was not spoken from the pulpit, just guided actions in the single’s group. Deti can correct me if he feels I have mistaken his assertion.
I noted that in talking of the mutual submission heresy. That still doesn’t prove or require men being strongly pushed to marry single mothers.
You have yet to identify something I missed other than asserted that similar facts proved single men were being pushed to marry OOW mothers. I still have not seen strong evidence of that beyond a couple of anecdotal stories that may be that or may just be people being helpful by putting single men and single women together. (“I saved a seat for you that happens to be next to a single lady.”)
I need more evidence of a massive effort on behalf of most churches to tell men to “man up and marry those sluts” before I can agree that it is prevalent in most churches. That is the core assertion I am questioning. Why are you arguing with it if you claim it was never made? (I didn’t use the conspiracy word here on purpose, though that concept would remain if it is being pushed outside public visibility except from those who Dalrock points out regularly.
Even proving men are encouraged to marry is not enough, as that is a firm Scriptural message, except for those called to Christian ministry as a permanent single. Some of the flaw is likely that so few appropriate women remain in the pool, not the marry message. Discouraging early marriage, directly or in practice, leads to the situation much more simply, for a wide range of reasons.
A bit rambly here, but I grasp far more than you acknowledge.
Looking Glass,
I can definitely buy this. I did consider when writing the last reply that it is more likely that the message “marry and build a family” is stuck recommending a man marry who is available in the church to marry. Unfortunately this is a quite limited pool, especially with the aversion to a man going more than a few years younger that most have.
How many women stay chaste past a certain age? How many who do can unlearn some of those habits once they marry?
Civilization is built on families and the only way you get families is with a mother and a father. You only get that with valid marriage. Thus marriage is encouraged. Having people wait until they are older messes this up seriously and leaves a flawed pool to choose from, but that is an effect, not a plan.
Exactly. It is built into the system, at least since the Fall.
Novaseeker,
Except that Sweden, for example: (1) teaches boys to pee sitting down, and there is a campaign to get rid of urinals, (2) has sex quotas for corporate boards, (3) criminalizes only the purchase, but not the sale, of sex, etc. There are many other examples.
This is still far less vicious and cruel than US feminism. Swedish feminism does not be in areas that seem to increase male suicide. US feminism is.
Sitting to pee (which only only has to do in public bathrooms, not at home), and women on boards does not lead to suicide the way US child support and false rape industries do.
@Nova
As if Maintenance and Alimony is a form of Tithing?
England (as many a Judge has had to observe) is not California: Let us say that you are a famous rock-star (we’ll call him Paul). Your wife (a gold-digger) divorces you. What is expected is that you will keep her (and any children – which mercifully she did not produce) in the state to which – as your wife and family – they have become accustomed. This will mean, given your super-star status and lifestyle, a multi-million dollar settlement but it will not halve your wealth, merely dent it.
Suppose, however, a man has a girlfriend with whom for a while he may be said to have lived. She is bad news and flighty and after a while he parts company with her and indeed marries a far more loyal and sensible woman. In the meanwhile he has been pursuing some financial or business enterprise which now takes-off and his wealth greatly increases. Is the ex-gf entitled to some payment – of the Pailmony sort – a concept unknown to English Law? The answer is that unless she is in some material way responsible for the success of the company – and just being the gf or making sandwiches is not material – she will not succeed in her action,.
Most people, however, are not Superstars and thus as three into two does not go easily a former husband may well find that his income is halved and further that his wife ends up with half if not more than half of the only capital asset – the children have to live somewhere. Middle-class men are thus ill-advised to Divorce. I observe that although women often appear to do well out of Divorce – Divorces which frivolously they instigate – over time, the man is likely to do better than his former wife – provided that he is still reasonably young. Women, it has to be said, as they enjoy their newly empowered life-style often and after a succession of men have tramped through their bedrooms come to financial grief and end up with a husband of a type whom they would have instantly rejected as way beneath them only a few decades earlier.
As for the working classes – all bets are off, but as all they have is family, families are what they construct and often from disparate sources. They, of course, are happier than the middle class – not being constrained by taste or respectability.
@Novaseeker
The US system is really more of a blended system. It is income based, but the courts decide how much income the man should earn. So it is the worst of all worlds, designed to maximise cash and prizes across the class/economic spectrum.
One interesting thing about Sweden is while it has a lower percentage of children born in wedlock than the US, it has a higher percentage of children living in intact families. Not unexpectedly, the lower cash bounty on the head of the father does seem to lead to fewer broken homes.
BillyS
A does not prove B without proof. Yeah, culture is crappy. None of that requires that churches push men to marry single mothers.
“Requires”, nobody here said that churches are required to push men to marry babymommas. It’s just something that men have noticed. Does it annoy you when men notice that the actions of church leaders don’t match the words?
Nobody wrote of a “hidden, quiet campaign”.
Deti’s post assumed that.
Nope. That’s something you made up in your head and assumed. This is not a new topic, and it’s not even close to the first time Deti has mentioned it somewhere or other. I’m pretty confident that he’s not positing any kind of “hidden, quiet campaign”.
It was not spoken from the pulpit, just guided actions in the single’s group.
And other places. Again, do you understand what “ingroup preference” means in the context of women in general, and churchgoing women in particular?
You have yet to identify something I missed other than asserted that similar facts proved single men were being pushed to marry OOW mothers. I still have not seen strong evidence of that beyond a couple of anecdotal stories that may be that or may just be people being helpful by putting single men and single women together. (“I saved a seat for you that happens to be next to a single lady.”)
You’re missing the whole point.
I need more evidence of a massive effort on behalf of most churches to tell men to “man up and marry those sluts” before I can agree that it is prevalent in most churches.
Nice strawman. Again you assume that any action within a group of people must be somehow directed. Although in the case of Mars Hill, it was quite conspicuously directed right from Mark Driscoll’s big mouth.
That is the core assertion I am questioning. Why are you arguing with it if you claim it was never made?
Because it wasn’t made. No one else uses the words “massive effort”, for example. Deti and other men have seen, often first hand, pressure on single men over 30 to marry babymommas, women with bastard children. You demand ever higher standards of evidence, why? Perhaps because you don’t want to believe what other men are telling you?
(I didn’t use the conspiracy word here on purpose, though that concept would remain if it is being pushed outside public visibility except from those who Dalrock points out regularly.
The word “conspiracy” is a tell regarding your own mindset.
Even proving men are encouraged to marry is not enough, as that is a firm Scriptural message, except for those called to Christian ministry as a permanent single.
Exactly, there is no evidence that will convince you. Like the feminists, you would rather deny the real-world experience of other men than admit that perhaps they know something you don’t know. Thanks for admitting it.
I’m betting that you haven’t actually been around the church-going singles scene in this century, so your opinion is based on some 20th century experience. Am I correct?
A lot of Orthodox appeals to me more now. It seems women need constant reminders in the form of icons to stay on track as most can’t think as abstractly as men.
But I can’t get over the exaggerated treated of Mary. It feels like it was thrown in because Christianity lacked a Goddess figure like paganism. She most likely had children after Jesus and isn’t mentioned very much in scripture.
Dalrock
One interesting thing about Sweden is while it has a lower percentage of children born in wedlock than the US, it has a higher percentage of children living in intact families. Not unexpectedly, the lower cash bounty on the head of the father does seem to lead to fewer broken homes.
We now have over 20 years of time-series data on the Nordic countries. Anecdotally, the pattern back in the late 80’s to early 90’s was this: man and woman pair off, move in together, eventually have child, then marry. Now it appears that marriage is something that is more likely to happen after the second child is born. Or a longer period of time after the only child is born.
So these countries are drifting, on a decade or perhaps generational basis, towards a no-marriage environment in which men and women reproduce, stay together for a time (like, hmm, until the youngest child is 4 or 5?) then sort of drift apart. This is less bad, maybe, than the US pattern of marriage – child – divorce (cash & prizes, yay!) in that the detonation of the family is not so overt. But still, given what is known about child development over the last 40 years, it’s not a recipe for a stable, industrial society. I read a report that plotted Sweden to drop down to 3rd world status in another 25 years, and frankly the ongoing collapse of the nuclear family when combined with the importation of 3rd worlders lends credence to that view.
BillyS
I did consider when writing the last reply that it is more likely that the message “marry and build a family” is stuck recommending a man marry who is available in the church to marry. Unfortunately this is a quite limited pool, especially with the aversion to a man going more than a few years younger that most have.
Still missing it. The message includes “and don’t ask about her past”, by implication. Even if part of her “past” is walking and talking…
There’s another dimension to this that Dalrock has lately hammered on, the real fear that church leaders have in calling out women’s bad behavior, in Bible terms their sin. There is a real double standard on that score, and it is part of the “man up and marry that slut!” mindset that many men report encountering. If women’s sin is never even mentioned, then the implication is what? That women’s sins are less significant than men, or even that they don’t sin. Where does that lead?
Billy S, Anon Reader:
The “Man up and marry the sluts” and its lesser known corollary, “Man up and marry the baby mamas”, aren’t really “hidden, quiet campaigns”. It is simply that churches and the men and women who staff them, are proceeding from a number of assumptions about men, women, relationships, and marriage. Those assumptions are out in the open, are openly discussed and talked about, and are known. And it’s from those assumptions that men are being quietly pushed either into relationships, or into preset, preconceived “boxes” at their places of worship, or being quietly pushed out of their churches altogether.
No, no one is shouting from the pulpits, or even outwardly verbalizing, publicly or privately, that men are required to marry women that these men don’t want to marry, or they are required to marry unsuitable women (with the possible exception of Mark Driscoll). No one is herding men into lines, forcibly pairing them up with women, and prodding them toward altars with shotguns. I fully concede that none of these things are happening.
The assumptions being bandied about are as follows. Men are evil, sick and perverted for wanting sex. Oh, we’ll pay lip service to the idea that men wanting sex is natural. But truthfully, men are all just horndogs being led around by their penises. Women are innately good, moral, well adjusted and just wanna be wives and mommies. Women are more moral, more spiritual, and more responsible than men; and women are just better human beings than men. Women naturally gravitate toward marriage and family; while men naturally try to avoid “getting tied down” and just “want to roam out there alone”. Women want to be wives and mommies and make a home. Men just want to drink, party, have no strings attached sex, and play video games. Women’s “natural” proclivities are intrinsically good, moral, and are the building blocks of society; while men’s “natural” proclivities are intrinsically bad, immoral, and will lead them to destruction.
There are basically good but misguided men trying to avoid marriage; and there are bad men tricking and duping these good women (aka sluts and baby mamas) into premarital sex. None of these women would be having sex with any of these men if they weren’t being tricked and duped into it. The world suffers from a dearth of marriage. If we can get these men married off, they’ll avoid sexual sin and “drive straighter because they’re loaded down”. And these poor, hapless women, why, all they’ve EVER wanted is to be married. To help these good but misguided men, the church needs to get them married off. They need marriage. Who better to get them married off to, than “reformed sluts” and baby mamas, right?
If we just get these good men married to these women who (it is alleged) desperately want husbands, it’s a win-win. The men get to have sex in the bonds of holy matrimony. The women get the husbands they (claim they) always wanted and are magically “redeemed” from their sins. They’ve become “honest” women. The church gets more money in its coffers and fulfills its Gospel mission.
All of these assumptions are out in the open. It’s all these churches talk about. It’s all these family oriented protestant based ministries talk about.
The clear, unmistakable drumbeat message is “Man up and marry the sluts. Man up and marry the baby mamas.”
@Anon Reader
The data I was referring to measures the percentage of adolescents living with both parents (11, 13, and 15 year olds). It would be better if it were say 18, but still this is much better than 4 or 5. Anecdotally I hear that single mothers struggle greatly with teenagers, and that makes sense. Add to this the woman’s rapidly plummeting SMV and MMV prospects and the incentive to detonate the family is well along on the path of decline; the marriage’s riskiest years are over. From a practical perspective what we call marriage doesn’t seem to matter much. If you award a certificate but then promise lavish rewards for blowing up the family, is the couple really more “married” than one with no certificate and a much lower cash incentive to detonate?
I am by no means defending the feminist state of Sweden, but simply noting that when it comes to hostility to marriage the US clearly has them beat. No doubt Sweden’s ruling feminists will see this as a challenge to do a better job at destroying families, and I have every confidence that they are up to the challenge. But along the lines of the OP, our “conservatives” have the feminists beat when it comes to destroying families. For when it comes to support for the new family model replacing marriage (child support), US conservatives are by far the most dogmatic and enthusiastic.
Scott says:
April 22, 2016 at 7:09
The interesting thing about interracial relationships where it’s WM/B-R-YW is that it’s rarely ever the white folk who raise eyebrows or have problems with it; it’s the black/brown/yellow folk who take greatest issues or make the proverbial mountain out of the molehill. Having just emerged from a 20-plus year marriage to a black woman, I’ve experienced this first hand ovr the last couple of decades on many occasions.
That SJWs like these cuckians go to such pretzel-contortionist lengths to shame/humble-brag in front of white people who don’t have any of the stereotypical hangups the SJWs are convinced as a matter of ideology that they have tells you just how thoroughly divorced from the real world they are.
To me, the real shock here is that this ‘couple’ only went as far (so to speak) as having embryos planted…you’d figure he’d go full-retard-cuck and just watch with a Zima while a Honduran (s?) banged his wife.
@Deti
See the two posts from Pastor Wilson linked in my latest post for an example of this kind of thinking.
deti,
Correct. They are not happening, and have not happened.
I’d argue that there is something else going on here, something much more primal and dark that I think reflects a deeper truth among the people in the church. I’d argue that the belief in the church among the well-meaning-people that want to pair these people up is that these “good” men are all just leftover men that none of the “good” women wanted. They are this old and still single? That is because they are the bottom of the barrel. There is NO other reason. The men “missed their window” and are all now just aging and alone. And that (of course) they want to be married (because for happily married blue-pill churchianity, EVERYONE wants to be married), but no attractive virgin girl would have had them so many years ago because they were ugly, short, fat, stupid, uneducated, smelly, just-not-cool, etc. And (well) at age 30, 35, 40, the now uglier, short, stupid, still smelly, still uneducated, and never-going-to-be-cool, hapless beta, well, perhaps he would be happy just settling marrying this baby momma with her three thug spawn? After all, sure, she screwed up by hopping up and down on the alpha d-ck because thug was NOT a “good” man (she just couldn’t help herself) but she is still a woman and (by virtue of her gender) she is still a “catch” for the now uglier, short, stupid, still smelly, still uneducated, and never-going-to-be-cool, hapless beta. And of course she’ll “settle” for him because, well, she has all that thug spawn to think about. And maybe she’ll throw the now uglier, short, stupid, still smelly, still uneducated, and never-going-to-be-cool, hapless beta a fricken bone once every other month and have sex with him? That is better than him being lonely for the rest of his life. He should just be HAPPY that the single mom is settling… for HIM!
I think that is what is going on. It sincerely believe that the church members are subtly feeling this way and thing they are doing HIM more of a service than they are doing her. Of course he’ll never have a 22 year old virgin, ever. You were born unlucky. So just settle for that 41 year old baby momma with her three thug spawn offspring over there, and shut the hell up about what you think you deserve, you are lucky you are getting…. ANY woman.
I attend a small, independent Baptist Church, and as a single man, there’s the occasional insinuation in conversation that someone has a friend they’s love me to meet. I politely tell them, “I’m not available because I divorced my wife years ago.”
Every so many months, I have to remind them again. They mean no harm in it, but I beleive it’s difficult for them to imagine someone spending the majority of their life alone. Heck, it’s difficult for me to imagine sometimes when I think of my future, but there it is.
Feeriker:
Personal question. Will you ever marry again?
Even if you won’t do legal marriage, would you enter into a long term committed relationship with another woman again?
I’m 28 today and have found a deep connection to Star Wars and my farther.
Farther…from a galaxy far, far away.
@ Scott re: Interracial dating.
Met this beautiful woman who was sister to a co-worker of mine in OKC when I was workimg there for a short time. She mentioned she was ostracized from her church because she was dating a black man.
I have a different take on that. She gave off this “I’m a damaged slut that hates her dad” vibe. I believe her skanky, everyone-owes-me attitude did more to separate her from her church than anyone she would be dating.
OT: Illinois legislature is considering denying birth certificates to some single moms if they don’t name a father.
http://www.scarymommy.com/illinois-bill-would-deny-birth-certificates-to-some-single-moms/
What do you all think of the George Burns/Gracie Allen show? George seems very alpha and Gracie is the perfect example of a solipsistic, hamsterizing woman.
But truthfully, men are all just horndogs being led around by their penises.
Liz called dicks men’s “thinking machines”. Yeah, she was teasing, but humor is usually based somewhat in the cultural perceptions of reality.
Dalrock
I am by no means defending the feminist state of Sweden, but simply noting that when it comes to hostility to marriage the US clearly has them beat
I dunno. For overt hostility, I agree, but the long term drift in the Nordics in general (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland) plus some of the other northern Euro states (FInland, Netherlands) has been away from marriage for nigh on a generation. Stan Kurtz did some work in this area a few years back that was illuminating and some of that is what I am recalling.
In both Sweden and the US the trend seems to be to regard fatherhood as a temporary condition that exists at the whim of the mother. Each government enforces this Imperative in its own way. No question that US feminists and their sock puppet allies, the “conservatives”, are quite hostile to marriage as their actions show us regardless of the words they may mouth.
Feeriker:
Personal question. Will you ever marry again?
Even if you won’t do legal marriage, would you enter into a long term committed relationship with another woman again?
It might surprise everyone familiar with “feeriker’s” online persona to know that, after being abandoned by his “unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaappy” wife (she was miserable because … well, just because), cheated on by said wife (TWICE, apparently with two different men*), having had two false DV charges filed against him (obviously spurious enough that two different DA’s refused to prosecute), and having suffered several attempts by the now-ex to drain his bank accounts while she was hiding out in another state that yes, he would indeed marry again.
In fact, feeriker is now in a serious, committed, chaste (for the immediate future) long-term relationship with a Christian (non-North American, non-English-speaking) woman who is the polar opposite in every way of the she-beast whom he married back in his bluest of blue pill days (a woman his red pill self would never have given the time of day to in the first place) and who made his life hell on earth for too many precious years of his life.
So yes, pigs do occasionally sport wings and go airborne.
(*Both of them must have been blind, deaf, desperate, and lacking olfactory senses. Hopefully neither was too terribly traumatized by their experience.)
I’ve heard that often men think with their little head instead of the big one. 🙂
Oh feeriker you Cad.
Pingback: Limbaugh nails the Us vs Them culture war… | Honor Dads
Some quotes from the video that enrique posted:
“Terrifyingly, Unwin also noted that there was no case in any of the studies he had made in which a culture managed to restrict the sexual freedom of women once they’d been loosened. A feminist society and “future” is an oxymoron; it’s unsustainable in the long run. Based just on past history, a civilisation that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in a very short time. This is why we’ve never seen a feminist civilisation aside from very short spans at the end of great empires.”
“According to his (Unwin’s) model, this process (of civilisational self-destruction) is irreversible, and the only way to do so would be to restrict sexual freedom of Western women, and move back to a more patriarchal society; and as things stand, this is probably an impossibility.”
“And maybe Unwin is right; maybe there is no peaceful way to resolve this crisis of our civilisation.”
I’m amazed that ‘the West’ has lasted as long as it has under the feminist paradigm. Given the apparent impossibility of reversal back to a more patriarchal society, which is rooted in the patriarchal family unit, the question becomes ‘how will the downfall take place?’.
Over two decades I have noticed that church DRAMAS and SKITS performed during worship services and meetings usually contain a FEMALE who is spiritual, unselfish and rational, and a MALE who is a complete buffoon that’s ignorant of God, self-absorbed and lazy. In the drama its always the FEMALE who enlightens the MALE.
The obvious irony here is that in GOD’S WORD, and in the evangelical church’s TEACHINGS, it is the MALE who is the head who leads and educates the FEMALE. But none of the “truth will set you free” crowd seems to notice this gender switcharoo in church dramas……OK, sermons, too! Nobody but us.
Visit https://www.facebook.com/groups/reportAMBEC/