Christ does not need us. He doesn’t need us to be happy. He doesn’t need us to be fulfilled…
In the same manner, when a fulfilled, self-sufficient woman marries a man, she doesn’t need her man.
–Pastor Wade Burleson
Feminism tells us women are to be strong and independent, and that it is a sin for a woman to need a man. After all:
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
But the Bible tells women to submit to and revere their husbands, and to turn to them for spiritual instruction. What is a Christian feminist to do?
The answer of course is to craft a biblical sounding argument that submitting to husbands is sin and women need to be strong and independent. Egalitarian Pastor Wade Burleson shows how this is done in The Beauty of Loving Your Husband without Needing Him:
Any religion on this earth that refuses to assist women to find their basic needs met in Jesus Christ, any religion that refrains from pointing women to the King of Kings and encourages them to revel in the riches of being “wed to Christ,” and any religion that somehow makes a woman think she needs her husband (spiritually, emotionally, or materially) is a religion that is not based on the infallible Scriptures or the truth of God’s Kingdom. On the other hand, those Christian women who have been set free from the bondage of believing that they need their husbands to meet their basic needs, and then simply love their husbands from the overflow of experientially resting in the love and provisions of Christ, will find a slice of heaven in their homes.
If a wife is contentious, we are told this is not a sign that she is overcome by a rebellious spirit, but that she is submitting too much to, and therefore expecting too much from, her husband:
Angry quarrels, scornful fights, and other efforts to control and manipulate your spouse arise from a desire to have your basic needs met by your mate rather than by your God. God never designed your husband to take His place in your life. Christ alone is your Source of real and lasting love, personal and abiding significance, and unqualified daily security.
A wife who leans on her husband is not being faithful to God:
A woman is to get her significance, security, and love from her union with Jesus Christ, and never a union with any man.
Each of these statements can technically be true. Wives are not to use their husbands as a substitute for God. However, in our feminist age the highest virtue is to not submit, and moreover the spirit of this common feminist argument is not a spirit of submitting to husbands as an act of obedience to God. It is a snare designed to make feminist rebellion seem holy, and biblical submission seem sinful. The insinuation is that sinful wives make their husband or their marriage an idol, and therefore submit to their husbands; godly wives don’t submit, and instead draw boundaries:
To say that a husband’s infidelity does not hurt a wife would be false. To say the wife does not need her husband to be faithful would be true. To say that a husband’s emotional and physical abuse does not hurt a wife would be false. To say that a wife does not need her husband to be kind, loving and gracious would be true. A married woman does not need to be married. She wants to remain married, but she doesn’t need to remain married.
Therefore, if your husband is unfaithful or abusive, confront your husband in love and draw a boundary. Tell your husband that you cannot control his actions, nor is it your desire to control him. Let him know that if he desires another woman, or if he feels the need to abuse you, then you will let him go. You can and will end the marriage because you do not need him.
In many marriages, wives will unintentionally enable their husbands to continue in their addictions or sin because they unintentionally substitute their husbands for Christ. When a wife cannot picture a future without her husband, she has made the picture (marriage) her idol, and lost perspective on the reality that her marriage is intended to represent (her union with Christ).
Pastor Burleson is overt in his egalitarianism, and is very open about his hostility to headship. However, you will see all of the same arguments used with more guile by those who wish to conceal their feminism. Back in January the Baptist Press interviewed Naghmeh Abedini, where she explained that she had to learn not to revere Saeed:
“For most of my marriage, I’d idolized Saeed, and through my fast I was made aware of that and the importance of putting God first, which seems to be Christianity 101 in action,” she said. “This last fast really had me focused on the Lord. It took his imprisonment for me to break that idol and focus on the Lord fully and to see issues that are so hidden.”
The Lord has taught her to forgive and love her husband, she said, while still establishing boundaries in the relationship.
“It was difficult because Saeed was the first person I ever dated, the love of my life, and he still is,” she told BP. “But [I’ve learned] that can’t override my relationship with God and my obedience to God. Obedience to my husband is very important, but when it’s biblical and when it’s healthy…. I’m sure many, many Christians know that, but for me, it was a new lesson to learn.”
Note that like Pastor Burleson she ties this in with the Christian feminist virtue of a wife setting boundaries for her husband, something Naghmeh followed through on with the help of the family court. Naghmeh claims this is about trusting God, suggesting that her choice was to be obedient to and love God or to revere her husband. This is a false dilemma, as the Bible instructs wives to fear/revere their husband as an act of obedience and love to God.
If you look closely at the stories women write about supposedly making their husband an idol, it turns out what they really had done is make themselves an idol. They had elevated their own emotions over both God and their husbands. To the extent that they overcome this it is of course a very good thing, but if in the process they tell themselves or (even worse) other women that the key to happiness is to no longer revere their husbands, they are replacing one sin with another. The solution for an out of control wife is to stop pedestaling herself and her own desires, not to stop revering her husband.
Why do you call Wade a “Pastor” implying he is a man of God when he clearly is in rebellion?
And to think I just told a woman the other day that her primary problem was that she was signaling to her husband that she doesn’t need him. Guess I was wrong…
Again, it is because these “MEN” i mean males think their mothers, sisters and/or daughters are special little snowflakes fallen from Heaven. These males are in love with their mothers, sisters, and/or daughters and don’t love them. If they loved them, they would tell them the objective TRUTH about the nature of ALL women, but it is too much to bear for these males that objectively speaking their mother, sisters and/or daughters are horrible by nature. Any pre-Vatican 2 priest or Bishop will never talk like these idiots. The first TRAIT of a good person is the acceptance and love for the objective truth.
Well.. okay. This is interesting. What about this: Is anyone familiar with Laura Doyle/ The Surrendered Wife? She’s not a Christian but she gives pretty great advice on being a submissive wife.
Her whole thing is that basically… needing your husband isn’t submissive, it’s controlling. Like, if I need you to emotionally fulfill me, or give me something, that’s going to result in me clinging to you and controlling you as I try to “get” my needs met by you.
So she advises that wives learn not to “need” their husband, and be able to find contentment in their own pursuits and fulfill themselves basically so they’ll be kind of relaxed and happy already on their own and maybe detached if their husband isn’t “filling” them the way they want to be filled.
Pretty similar stuff with Peaceful Wife. I’m sure some people here read her. She’s always advised finding contentment in God and not NEEDING your husband because that could compromise your submission.. if you NEED something from him, you might try to TAKE it, I guess.
So I just feel like I’ve always gotten the message that needing = unsubmissive/disrespectful
Bicycle.
Burleson is disgusting. Who is he talking to? What’s his audience? No one is going to buy his books (or whatever). As always, reverse the genders and it sounds a billion times worse.
Submitting is not putting the burdens of yourself on your husband. The need is leadership, headship. The need is the spiritual guidance to overcome the natural solipsism. A wife is a helper for her husband. She is not a burden to be satisfied or pleased.
That pastor pisses me off with his stupid derivations.
Why do you call Wade a “Pastor” implying he is a man of God when he clearly is in rebellion?
You took the words right off of my fingertips. Who ordained this “pastor?” Certainly it was not any Christian body.
I agree that it’s past time we stopped dignifying these heretics with seminary degrees with the title “pastor.” It’s reaching the point where such a title is becoming one of scorn and contempt and it’s clowns like Burleson and the other rogues so frequently mentioned in this blog (Driscoll, Chandler, Wilson, et al.) who are responsible.
And round the toilet bowl these Churchians go! Wonderful!
If we’re going to teach that a wife does not need her husband, then let’s be complete and teach a husband do not need his wife. I don’t think that would go over very well.
Naghmeh claims this is about trusting God, suggesting that her choice was to be obedient to and love God or to revere her husband. This is a false dilemma, as the Bible instructs wives to fear/revere their husband as an act of obedience and love to God.
I cite this as yet another example that bolsters my assertion that women don’t care about what Scripture says unless it can be twisted to comport with the FI (the same applies to their heretic mangina enablers among the clergy).
This is why God demands that wives submit to their husbands and that women are not to have leadership roles of any kind that are not ultimately subordinated to men. He knows His creation too well.
In a way, we men need to be grateful to ‘Pastor’ Burleson and all his ilk — they show us what weak-willed ‘pussy beggars’ and “messengers of Mammon” that they are, as well as revealing the Churchian women who adopt his heretical beliefs, for the Delilahs and Jezebels that they are.
God is not to be mocked. May they be damned.
Marriage is to be like Christ and the Church. It is like saying “The Beauty of the Church loving Christ without needing him.” It misses the whole point. The church was created to need him. It is true that in eternity men and women will not be married to each other, but then we will have the true marriage with Christ, whom we need. Marriage is like a play that is designed to preach the Gospel with men in the Christ role and women in the Church role.
They can say they don’t need men, let’s believe them. If they want divorce at the drop of a hat, give it to them. They must do one thing though, to prove they mean it… All women must give up all alimony and child support. There done, if they don’t need the men they promised themselves to, they certainly don’t need their money either.
Put up or shut up time.
Yet another Pastorbator…….
These cuckservatives are really becoming more and more cartoonish..
I think Burleson should be scolding the Apostles Paul and Peter. First for their direct commands:
I Tim 2: 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;b she must be quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Eph 5: 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
And how those are supported by real Scriptural exegesis
Phil 2:12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
14Do everything without grumbling or arguing, 15so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.”
As for Burleson himself
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
The whole chapter deals w/ him and his ilk.
“They can say they don’t need men, let’s believe them.”
Better still, let them put their money where their mouths are and urge one of them to stroll through one of those Syrian “refugee camps” in Sweden at 3 a.m. and see how long it takes for them to cry out to one of us evil cisgendered members of The Patriarchy to rescue them.
@ Chris Nystrom
You make an excellent point. In Paul’s typology of marriage and redemption, it is absurd to think that in the anti-type the church should divorce Christ or not need Him. What is being posited by this family wrecking ball Wade is that in the type (marriage) the wife does not need her husband and does not need to submit to him because she is married to Christ and not her husband. IN other words it appears that the wife from the type is married to the husband from the anti-type and the husband from the type is an obsolete relic from a time long past.
@Dalrock
Jesus says” if you love me keep my commandments”. John writes “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.” Since what is commanded is that wives fear, obey and submit to their own husbands, that they remain silent in the assembly, that they deal with their husbands sin without a word … the syllogism necessitates that the teaching of pastor Wade is on opposition to knowing and loving Christ. We must therefore conclude that he is to included in the category described in 2 Timothy 3:5-6
@ LeeLee:
I haven’t read Laura Doyle, but honestly, from what I have read and heard of her (and I’ll throw Helen Andelin in here for good measure), a lot of that stuff sounds just like manipulation and Stepford style “submission” to get what you…need. Feminism by any other name, and all that.
Chris Nystrom’s comment is exactly the ideal of what marriage is about. In the marriage relationship, the wife stands in the place of the church, not the place of Christ. That is where the husband stands.The church needs Christ. The wife is supposed to understand that she needs her husband and that it doesn’t equal idolatry.
Incidentally LeeLee, I am currently reading a book as well, written by a man, who has spoken with many men, and a common complaint from the men is, “She acts like she doesn’t need me.” My husband has heard it: “Why should I stay? She doesn’t need me?”
There is a place where a healthy, relationship building level of need exists. The super spiritual proclamation that “Jesus meets all my needs!” is a self- preservation mechanism not a real thing which is why men see through it no matter how “submissive” you are while playing the card. Need does not equal control. My children’s needs don’t control me. My needs don’t control my husband. Real submission is not about denying the needs, but trusting that those holding the God-given authority over us often know what we need even when we don’t.
Off my soapbox. Blessings to you, young wife.
Not to mention that if you are going to claim the infallible word of God is behind your position, I, for one, would love to see some proof texts. Plus if he can find anybody who is actually saying what he’s arguing against I’d love to see that as well.
I know part of the idea behind not teaching on submission is that some idiot will misuse the teaching to be an idiot. If that’s the bar though, then no one should tell the truth ever.
Sort of orthogonal to the topic but I suspect most pastors don’t know anything about women because (someone correct me if I’m wrong) they are in a weird SMP and MMP bubble that they don’t even see. The minute he starts training a number of women who feel “called” to be pastors’ wives (nothing to do with status mind you, it’s a desire to serve) throw themselves at him. These, well, nerdy goofballs (and most of them really are, though not all by any means) believe that, in spite of the fact that women never showed interest before, believe that God is now rewarding their faithfulness (which He may be, although perhaps not in the way they think).
This creates a whole new layer of weird thinking. At least that’s my theory.
The Pastor is misleading women. Turning ‘need’ into ‘want’. She might not want to be submissive, but she needs to be. Women need their husbands especially to do the right thing. He is asking them to turn away from their husbands. To not need your spouse when you need them in a marriage is destroying the basis of marriage. It’s carving out the heart of marriage. The Biblical scripture already expects a wife to not divorce her husband. If she finds an idol situation by needing him too much, she cannot separate herself from him. Also Ephesians 5:23, husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.
One is astounded as the sheer idiocy of these women, and their enabling pseudo-men. We are seeing before our very eyes why all of history has refused equal rights to women.
“8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 9. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” 1Cor. 11:8-9
Woman was made as a complement to man, to be a helpmeet, not an equal or a competitor. She simply does not have the mental/emotional/physical wherewithal to do so. This is why theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas talked of women being half-men.
This illustrates the sheer idiocy of these women, and the pseudo-men who enable them. We are seeing before our very eyes why through all of history women were not given equal rights.
“8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 9. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” 1Cor 11:8-9
This is why theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas called women half-men.
Dalrock, thanks for your well thought out posts. Been following you for a couple months and it’s been eye opening to say the least.
[D: Thank you for the kind words.]
Any religion on this earth that refuses to assist women to find their basic needs met in Jesus Christ, any religion that refrains from pointing women to the King of Kings and encourages them to revel in the riches of being “wed to Christ,” and any religion that somehow makes a woman think she needs her husband (spiritually, emotionally, or materially) is a religion that is not based on the infallible Scriptures or the truth of God’s Kingdom.
And that’s heresy. First it contradicts the scriptures. Second, it’s not hard to see that marriage is a tool that God uses often as part of our sanctification. It is most certainly “needed” because God has decided it so.
The US Church has gotten so deep in the personal salvation mindset that it doesn’t even realize when it’s skewing the truth. Burleson does a masterful job of that.
Certainly we are judged as individuals, but God’s creation included fellowship from Eden forward, and that is emphasized as a crucial element of His church. This whole “individuals” are each the bride of Christ is not what is taught in scripture, and neither are nearly every element of Burleson’s spiel.
Not to mention that if you are going to claim the infallible word of God is behind your position, I, for one, would love to see some proof texts. Plus if he can find anybody who is actually saying what he’s arguing against I’d love to see that as well.
If he’s in the James Dobson/Dennis Rainey mould, when someone calls him on his BS by demanding citation of authoritative sources he’ll simply say (or more likely have some staff flack say on his behalf) that he’s “too busy” to bother with such. This is then followed by a hilarious appeal to authority in which his [x number of] years of experience is supposed to put a seal of infallability on whatever statements he’s made. The standard practice, however, is for charlatans like these guys to just avoid people who ask hard questions, attempting to demonize them if at all possible. If there’s one thing that churchian “pastors” hate more than sin and Satan it is biblically literate Christians who think critically.
At this point it’s hard to tell who does more damage behind a pulpit, women or cucky betas?
I quit going to church on a weekly basis almost 2 years ago. I had had enough of the feminine imperative being sandwiched into everything. The newer ‘pastors’ & staff just kept getting more and more twinkish (skinny jeans, too much gel in the hair, syrupy me-centered praise muscic, etc). And it seems these types have infiltrated every other church in my area as well.
Very sad, masculine fellowship for male believers that have had enough of the churchianity cult is hard to come by.
I bet this is yet another Pastorbator who never misses a chance to describe a woman in his congregation who is a 5 or 6 as very ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’. These cartoonish cucks are becoming more over-the-top about that sort of thing.
The relationship of a wife to her husband has much in common to with the the church to Christ. So much so that it seems that “idolization of a husband” is really the practice of wifely piety not the lack of piety. Why Sarah is even commended for calling her husband “lord”, a term of honor normally reserved for God.
At this point it’s hard to tell who does more damage behind a pulpit, women or cucky betas?
The latter (especially the “pastors”) are sock puppets of the former.
Very sad, masculine fellowship for male believers that have had enough of the churchianity cult is hard to come by.
It sickens me to think that of the four churches I’ve attended in the last five years, only one, a tiny Baptist church, held regular weekly men’s Bible study/fellowship meetings. I tried to work with other men get them started in each of the other three and was met by various degrees of either apathy or hostility.
Are Christian men so apathetic about their biblically mandated role as leaders of the church, or are they so beaten down/pussy-whipped that they just don’t have the strength to go on anymore?
An update on the Abedini situation:
At the time of his release in January, he briefly addressed the allegations:
“Much of what I have read in Naghmeh’s posts and subsequent media reports is not true. But I believe we should work on our relationship in private and not on social media or other media.”
In March, Naghmeh continues her “private life” on Facebook, saying her husband will not admit abuse and participate in marriage counseling.
“For the sake of the children” The standard throwaway line by feminists to rally other women.
They interviewed Pastor Abedini in April
A couple notes from the interview. First, he wasn’t aware the courts found him guilty of a misdemeanor domestic assault charge. She called 911, had him arrested, recanted, but they found him guilty anyway. He claims his English was poor and all he knew was “everything was okay.” He only spent the first night in jail. No other jail time or fine, apparently.
Next, it’s remarkable that he has no malice towards his wife, despite her false accusations. Whether the physical abuse allegation is true or not may never be known, but he continues to credit her and his children as bearing a heavier burden. He claims the abuse allegations and all that follows are the work of the enemy.
In May, Nagmeh told her Facebook Flock on Mother’s Day:
Through all this, according to one account, Naghmeh does have one regret:
She regrets putting it in God’s hands and not going to the world earlier, but he was getting released in January and she apparently put too much trust in God and the mullahs.
Last source for the blockquote (didn’t come through)
http://christiandaily.com/article/naghmeh-abedini-doubts-if-marriage-woes-with-pastor-saeed-will-be-resolved/52187.htm
It is my experience that when a pastor ventures off the feminist plantation, and expounds the scriptures on female roles and female rebellion, he is vilified and forsaken by the very men that he is trying to lead to be Godly husbands and the women he is exhorting to be godly wives.
Even in the most theologically conservative churches, the FI is a strongly defended citadel and any who would dare to storm the gates will face a volley of accusations including: chauvinist, misogynist, abuser, of having a low view of women and a dismal view of marriage, and being an angry patriarch. All the while the Jezebels and white-knights will be stirring women’s discontent with words like:door-mat, Stepford wife, June Cleaver and affirming rebellion with Strong-independent woman, girl-power etc.
I can attest that when a pastor preaches against female rebellion it will cost him dearly. I would posit that to fail to preach against female rebellion will, in the end, cost even more.
I quit going to church on a weekly basis almost 2 years ago. I had had enough of the feminine imperative being sandwiched into everything.
I went to church on Sunday. Pastor was on the precipice of actually telling women some deep stuff on being a good wife, but he pulled back just in time. And to make up for his error, he then ridiculed husbands. It was a narrow escape.
@Anon
I don’t think Pastor Burleson would call himself a conservative. He is very open in his feminism, although I think he would prefer the term egalitarian. He openly supports ordaining women, for example. It is an understandable mistake though, because Trad Cons and feminists can be very difficult to tell apart.
I was a little concerned about the direction you were going with idolatry, Dalrock, but I think you ended up in the right place. A woman’s sin is always to place herself above everything. Based on the discussion yesterday, I think @Jonadab has the right quote. A woman’s husband is her church, her pastor, and she takes instruction from him. There’s not a question of need here, this is simply what’s required to worship God. This is the responsibility of headship, and where a husband can fail in his duty to God. This is also where a faithful wife can lead her husband to the Lord, as she exercises her feminine power over him. This is the power feminists disdain, because it requires them to place another above their own interests. Such submission is required to worship God.
This then is their idolatry, as Dalrock said, placing the idol of themselves over God.
This is most likely the case. Along with full bluepill indoctrination and fear of loss of pedestalation . red Pill will remove their purpose as they see it and princess won’t like it. (never forget the Sword of Damocles for those married types)
Does he even notice he has his sexes inverted. Jesus doesn’t need me (but He died for me) but I need Him. I always thought that the man represented Jesus in thearriage relationship. Maybe this means that women get to start loving sacrificially and being “servant leaders”?
Pingback: She doesn’t need a man. | Reaction Times
@GIL
He not only has the sexes reversed theologically, but when it comes to attraction triggers as well:
And if her aloof Game doesn’t work on her husband, it is a sign that he is not close to Christ (like she is):
In fact, if this aloof Game doesn’t get his motor running, it is a sure sign he is “controlling, manipulative and patriarchal”. In that case, Jesus will either help your husband follow your lead, or set you free:
This will be the next Pastor in a couple years from now bemoaning the lack of men willing to get married to the ‘special and beautiful’ flock of so called ‘angels’ is his Church.
Guess they don’t need that marriage after all. They better hope their marriage to Jesus works out.
The FI is concerned with preserving women as the object of worship and not so much with the idolatry of husband worship except as a rival to their own divinity.
Christ does not need us…. In the same manner, when a fulfilled, self-sufficient woman marries a man, she doesn’t need her man.
I.e., the wife is analogous to Christ and the husband to the church. This is a true-color showing moment if ever there was one, not to mention a bait-and-switch to appeal to those with itching ears.
Anchorman says:
May 17, 2016 at 11:43 am
In the interest of honesty I think the headline title in the link should more appropriately read “Nagmeh Abedini hopes her marriage woes with Pastor Saeed will not be resolved.”
Jonadab says:
It is my experience that when a pastor ventures off the feminist plantation, and expounds the scriptures on female roles and female rebellion, he is vilified and forsaken by the very men that he is trying to lead to be Godly husbands and the women he is exhorting to be godly wives.
Brother, I don’t doubt that for a second.
One thing I’ve noticed in my current church is how the men ALWAYS walk on eggshells whenever they talk about their wives – even when their wives aren’t present*. The very idea of these guys standing up and taking a masculine leadership role in the church, which requires the ability to confront sin on a recurring basis, is ludicrous on its face when they can’t even confront it in their own households. With that little real trust in the Lord, it’s no wonder they’re failing so spectacularly.
Once again: American churchian men fear WOMEN more than they fear God.
(* This is a church in the border region of tbe Southwest, the congregation of which is almost entirely Mexican/Mexican-American. I’m one of only two “gringoes” in the congregation [the other is the pastor’s SiL]. I no longer buy the whole “machismo” BS projected by Mexican men, and I think theones in the church now know it. If they’re afraid of their own women, then they’re afraid of everything else too. And yes, the pastor’s SiL is also a pussy-whipped castrato, even though he tries to put on a pathetic machismo front too.)
This is also where a faithful wife can lead her husband to the Lord, as she exercises her feminine power over him. This is the power feminists disdain, because it requires them to place another above their own interests. Such submission is required to worship God.
Would that the work of Saint Rita (to use what might be the most prominent example in history of a wife leading her husband to the Lord by loving submission) could be repeated by modern western women. While I don’t doubt for a second that it has happened, the majority today, even if they buck the trend of spiritual laziness prevalent in both sexes and sincerely desire their husbands’ salvation, are prey for the churchian hucksters we feature here who tell immerse these women in the message that their husbands are unworthy of them and that they should do everything they can to encourage the unbeliever to desert them so that they can “start over.”
@Dalrock, I think what you describe is rapidly moving into Romans 1 territory (where it describes forgoing the natural use). It not just the homosexual but an inversion and perversion of the natural roles. They are twisting the image of God when they twist marriage and being cursed for it.
I expect much worse unless the Lord brings judgement soon. The are still the early steps.
Thanks for keeping up the drumbeat and this forum.
Dalrock,
I don’t think Pastor Burleson would call himself a conservative. He is very open in his feminism, although I think he would prefer the term egalitarian.
OK. However, he probably still rates 5s and 6s in his flock as 10s, all the same. That tendency is probably universal among female-centric pastors, whether they think they are conservative or not.
“In the same manner, when a fulfilled, self-sufficient woman [the Church] marries a man [Jesus], she [the Church] doesn’t need her man [Jesus].”
Sola Christus.
1 Corinthians 16:22. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.”
Anchorman:
Further update on the Saeed/Naghmeh saga:
https://www.idcourts.us/repository/caseHistory.do?schema=ADA&county=Ada&roaDetail=yes&partySequence=2657867&displayName=Abedini%2C+Saeed
Saeed and Naghmeh are fighting each other pretty hard over the kids and over their marriage. It’s hard to tell exactly what is going on behind the scenes. What little I can tell is that Saeed is not taking it lying down. The last orders were temporary orders on custody, visitation and communication, and orders to appoint a psychological evaluator and child custody evaluator. That means they are fighting over who is going to get custody of the kids. The psych evaluator is probably being retained to give opinions on the childrens’ best interests custodywise, and to determine if “abuse” has happened.
ALso, the last word from Naghmeh is that she is demanding Saeed go to joint counseling to “address the abuse”. Saeed apparently isn’t going. Naghmeh takes to the public, giving interviews about her marriage. Saeed says he prays for reconciliation, he loves her, but he will not talk about the private details in public and won’t admit to something he didn’t do.
His tactic on divorce is quite different from what most men do, even when they are the ones pressing the divorce. Most men want to get it over with as quickly as possible, and in the process make concessions they otherwise might not need to make. Saeed isn’t doing that. He is fighting Naghmeh over the kids, and he isn’t backing down.
What you’re seeing here is a frame battle. Naghmeh has to appeal to the public for her frame. Saeed holds his own frame, and repeatedly requires Naghmeh to step back into it as long as the courts are adjudicating the dispute.
Saeed and Naghmeh are fighting each other pretty hard over the kids and over their marriage. It’s hard to tell exactly what is going on behind the scenes.
It would be very interesting to know what kind of feedback Nagmeh is getting from her church.
“He not only has the sexes reversed theologically, but when it comes to attraction triggers as well”
Burleson’s idol is himself , so he seeks to (re-)create women in his image. He’s not alone in that – it’s what drives a lot of the “you go, grrl” culture that is created by immature males – but it’s particularly damaging coming from a putative pastor.
Any man who has faced similar and dealt with the church, his/her church, can write the narrative that the church will subscribe to. Be sure the church is rounding off all sharp edges in her life by organizing car pools, handling domestic things for her like cleaning and cooking and taking care of the lawn, helping her manage money and decisions about money, “reaching out” to Saeed to try and get him to return to (their) the fold. Ultimately it will be the church that tells her that God releases women from such bondage and that she should leave by telling her
Go’head and sin some more
Why is it always Celtic/Germanic Protestant Pastors that promote these anti male, anti husband beliefs? Is there something about that ethnic and religious combination? Other ethnic groups that are protestants don’t seem to be constantly promoting this anti male, anti husband ideology? Anyone have any idea?
@Elpseth Interesting! I really like your interpretation.
What’s the name of the book you mentioned? Sounds interesting
“At this point it’s hard to tell who does more damage behind a pulpit, women or cucky betas?
I quit going to church on a weekly basis almost 2 years ago. I had had enough of the feminine imperative being sandwiched into everything. The newer ‘pastors’ & staff just kept getting more and more twinkish (skinny jeans, too much gel in the hair, syrupy me-centered praise muscic, etc). And it seems these types have infiltrated every other church in my area as well.
Very sad, masculine fellowship for male believers that have had enough of the churchianity cult is hard to come by.”
@TLM
True brother but we ought to still go to church. I don’t know if you can but if you can get a few man friends over to a house, park or someplace you can have a men’s bible study fellowship.
I used to not bother going to church because of the many “church problems” as you’ve said but it’s NOT an excuse for us to personally continue NOT TO ATTEND CHURCH just because we don’t like how things are going on.
We are still supposed to GO TO CHURCH NO MATTER WHAT. It’s a COMMANDMENT if you are a Christ-believer and Christ-follower. Amen.
KJV Hebrews 10:24-25,
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works;
25 Not forsaking the assembling our ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
______________________
I used to think at a time I was being an “obedient Christian” reading and STUDYING God’s Word (King James Version Holy Bible [KJV]) I was being “self-righteous” in attitude to think I was “too good at obeying God” to fellowship with all those “churchian people” but now looking back in retrospect I realize that’s NOT the kind of attitude that is Christ-like or EDIFYING to the CHURCH BODY because they are MY BRETHREN.
As a Christian, it’s ALL FOR ONE and ONE FOR ALL; there’s no “I’m doing good on my own; yet my home team is suffering defeat on the battlefield.” There’s no self-interest; it’s about HELPING EACH OTHER OUT and keeping a PRESENCE in the church so that though, the current church leadership might not by leading the church the Way Christ intends to be done; we still are to go to church knowing that FIRST and FOREMOST we’re not going there to be in “subjection” to a man at the pulpit but to be in SUBMISSION to the HEADSHIP of CHRIST with the pastor being the Lord’s servant in leadership position to guide the Flock of God. But GOD’S COMMAND is why we go to church; that’s what I keep in memory.
Although you don’t have to go to the other “church events” some churches might have going on like “Bible Study” on Monday and/or Wednesday nights (although I do); going to church on a Sunday morning one day of the week is a SMALL PERSONAL SACRIFICE we are to make if you are a dutiful believer in Christ.
Hey, Christ suffered on the Cross; the very LEAST we could do as to Honour His Sacrifice is to go to His House a mere “day” of the week and pay Him Homage.
I’m not saying the “church culture” doesn’t suck; it does. I’m talking about LETTING IT BE and LOOKING TO GOD and not the “problems of man”.
I’ve noticed in personal experience as a Christian street-preacher and disciple of Lord Jesus Christ doing my best to live in the Spirit of His Word… my brethren in Christ are noticing my example when I ALSO ATTEND CHURCH in obedience to God’s Law and by His Grace I’m making an impression on people’s hearts and minds to inspire them to “do better” in their Faith and NOT settle for lukewarm, superficial “Churchianity”.
I’ve had people say (because they don’t go into “conversation” with me as everyone’s on their way home after service) “Thanks for what you’re doing” as some people have noticed the street-preaching evangelism and soulwinning efforts I’ve gone through doing throughout the community led of the Spirit.
Perhaps, we can witness, guide and influence people in the church; even in leadership positions to go by “God’s Way” by the testimony of our personal lives. I’ve seen God open up openings to speak to people and “plant seeds” of repentance to turn to OBEYING and LIVING by the Instruction of God’s Word.
It’s NOT easy, but the Church of God on this earth is NOT given an “easy task” to reach ALL the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ (KJV 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and the Word of God (King James Version Holy Bible [KJV])
Now brother @TLM, if God is telling you not to attend a certain church then you are wise to obey Him. God will still send you to a different church to attend. I’m sure you can find some kind of church you can at least “suffer through” going. It’s a “small personal sacrifice” in the end; but it’s all DONE FOR GOD. Remember that: FOR GOD!
I’m sure when all is said and done, God’s gonna reflect back on which ones His obedient children best served Him by going to church and living their lives in His Honour…
Not many Christians are gonna “stack up” for their are “great” and “least” in the Kingdom of Heaven; although it’s not at all a “defining factor” that matters in the end.
What matters is WHO MADE IT TO HEAVEN BY FAITH ON LORD JESUS CHRIST and WHO DID NOT… Amen.
~ Sincerely,
Bro. Jed
Why is it always Celtic/Germanic Protestant Pastors that promote these anti male, anti husband beliefs? Is there something about that ethnic and religious combination? Other ethnic groups that are protestants don’t seem to be constantly promoting this anti male, anti husband ideology? Anyone have any idea?
Two words: white guilt.
It ain’t just for secular liberals anymore.
Burleson’s idol is himself , so he seeks to (re-)create women in his image.
Good insight. Like Driscoll and many other Churchian AMOG’s who can worship their real God in any handy mirror. Elevating women to his station “saves” them from mere mortal men.
Why is it always Celtic/Germanic Protestant Pastors that promote these anti male, anti husband beliefs?
Eh, it’s also the Swedish / Norwegian Lutherans, the English derived Methodists and Episcopalians, and IMO the non-denominational mega Bible churches as well. It’s that we are all neck deep in the sewer of feminism, really.
Why is it always Celtic/Germanic Protestant Pastors that promote these anti male, anti husband beliefs?
I think every “christian” ethnicity and background is swimming in the sea of feminism, none are exempt as far as I can tell.
What you’re seeing here is a frame battle. Naghmeh has to appeal to the public for her frame. Saeed holds his own frame, and repeatedly requires Naghmeh to step back into it as long as the courts are adjudicating the dispute.
Yep, he is clearly fighting. He’s not going to counseling because it could be used as an admission against him by her lawyers. So he’s keeping frame, but we will have to see what the courts do. The prior on DV doesn’t help, I’d think.
In fact, if this aloof Game doesn’t get his motor running, it is a sure sign he is “controlling, manipulative and patriarchal”. In that case, Jesus will either help your husband follow your lead, or set you free
Which is, of course, yet another heretical innovation: that God not only permits, but blesses, women divorcing men who are “patriarchal”. Basically if you are in a biblical headship marriage and your husband refuses to make it egalitarian, Christ blesses you divorcing your husband. Rank heresy.
@Nova
Gotta love the revolt!
Saeed has one advantage, as nasty as US anti-Family court can be, it’s nothing compared to what he’s already gone through in Iran. Either he’s figured out the game on his own, perhaps due in part to his little vacation in Persia, or he’s getting some good advice. But at the core, he clearly has no fear of US courts, and that’s the model every man should cultivate.
This family drama has revealed a lot about the Evangelical world, both good and very bad. Rather like the Trump candidacy, actually. Plenty of Emperor-wannabes are actually buck nekkid.
[Saeed’s]prior on DV doesn’t help, I’d think.
They key here is prior what?
Conviction? No?
Jail time. For how long? Overnight? ROR’d? No further charges or legal action pursued?
Saeed might have been arrested for DV, but spent no more than one night in the slammer before being released and the DA apparently refused to pursue prosecution of the DV charges. Given how eager DAs are to nail to a cross on DV charges any available man, no matter how spurious said charges, the fact that one DID NOT pursue Saeed tells us how flimsy Nag-me’s charges were.
Bottom line: one arrest on DV charges that never resulted in prosecution is effectively the same thing as never having been charged at all.
Another great essay and many great comments. Everything I wanted to say has already been said.
@ LeeLee
This is the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Conversation-Women-Loving-Trusting-Relationships/dp/1592405789
I’m going to review it Friday on my blog. It’s centered around the so-called “unique” issues Black men and women face since the mistrust between them has reached a fever pitch. Some of it is nonsense, but the best parts hands down are the interviews he does with the men. And they address the need issue repeatedly.
Even April (PW), whose intentions and integrity of heart I think are very pure, is off base on the issue of not needing your husband.
He interviews women too, but meh.
By the way LeeLee,
I don’t know if I made it clear, but I haven’t read Surrendered Wife, only excerpts. It might be a good book, but the excerpts I’ve read made me uncomfortable. Perhaps I’ll read it later this year and review it as well.
@ Brother Jed.
Amen. That’s a tough thing, though, to sit amongst those that profess belief and yet cannot church (verb) properly. I’m in the same boat as having foregone church for a bit after leaving one with FI and stewardship issues. However, the conscience strikes on a Sunday morning and the HS compels one to find a reasinable set of believers.
I would concur with you completely and add one point: we’re compelled to attend as per Hebrews 10 but we’re not compelled to membership. Attend but, as you said, nobody said Wednesday or Monday extra-curricula are not mandatory.
Elspeth
I’m going to review it Friday on my blog.
I’m pretty sure that Dalrock will welcome a link to that posting. Please consider it.
Per,
“This is the power feminists disdain, because it requires them to place another above their own interests. Such submission is required to worship God.”
Not only that. It also makes them accountable for producing fruit, something ALL women loathe. They are, for the most part, lazy in what is required of them and hate to be accountable. If they can worm their way out of doing something that is commanded, they will. Not if they dislike doing it, but just because they have been told to do it, and will be held accounted. They know that they will possibly be judged and they cannot handle truth.
They might like doing something, cooking for example, but once you tell them to cook something specific they will hate you for it. Especially if you tell them when you want it done. You are mean and vile. If they miss the deadline and you hold them accountable, you are worthy of divorce and called abusive.
These are…………………Persian rug burns.
No, wait…………………….I meant to say that Persian rugs burn
Objection, Is this about home decor or is there a family law issue
Hebrews 12 was talking about those who were leaving Christianity to return to Judaism, due to pressure. I do not believe taking it as a command to attend Sunday services is appropriate as I have dug into it.
I do thing fellowship with Biblically-minded believers is very important, but warming a pew is not meeting that requirement.
“It’s that we are all neck deep in the sewer of feminism, really.”
Common is the last stop on the road to passé. Better get ready, gentlemen.
“I do thing fellowship with Biblically-minded believers is very important, but warming a pew is not meeting that requirement.”
I do my best to attend church as often as Jesus did.
TLM @ 11:07 am:
“At this point it’s hard to tell who does more damage behind a pulpit, women or cucky betas?”
Women. Cucky may be doing a bad job but at least he, as a man, has God’s permission to hold authority. By contrast, even a female pastor who does an excellent job is still a walking act of blasphemy.
I will vote for a Marxist before I vote for a woman because God’s explicit will is that women shall not hold authority over men. Churchians don’t understand, it’s not about competence. It’s about Christ.
…
Steve-waa @ 2:06 pm:
“Why is it always Celtic/Germanic Protestant Pastors that promote these anti male, anti husband beliefs?”
It isn’t. The Latino & Asian ethnic churches in California preach the same false Gospel. They just don’t garner as much attention because they increasingly don’t bother to learn English or otherwise participate in American society. But whites are the only ethnic group that is actively suicidal… don’t know what’s up with that, except to say that our leaders are virtue-signaling to Cthulhu.
Besides, if I had a dollar for every Prot pastor in America that actually was a devout Prot then I still wouldn’t be able to afford parking. The Commies took over the seminaries during the Cold War and offered Gamma twits a shortcut to status. Baby Boomers didn’t notice their new pastors were certified twits because they were certified.
BillyS,
I think you meant Hebrews 10:25, but you are mostly right in that even though they were truly born again, they were returning to Judaic traditions in order to “fit” in.
This assertion that women don’t need men falls apart when rule of law breaks down. Heck, even rule of law is enforced by men, but logic was never wom…
Oh wait, this was written by a dude…
“.. like a fish needs a bicycle.” .. till the (welfare/state aid via frivorce) water dries up.
@C0l0nelp0pc0rn
Zippy Catholic has said: “[I]f all white men disappeared civilization would end at the next oil change.”
So will this wolf also warn the women not to idolize him or his church above Yahweh also? Or, is he basically instructing these married, so-called Christian women to leave their husbands against the commands of the Father and marry themselves to him instead? Seduction is afoot. He is not a pastor he is there to eat.
Same snake, same lie to the same gender. Has Yahweh really said?
The Abendini’s are in our prayers. I would think he is much like Gandalf in the Two Towers at this point. He hasn’t come through what he has to back down now. Praying Yahweh has an ass kicking lawyer for him.
till the (welfare/state aid via frivorce) water dries up.
It is amazing really.
We have spent in excess of taxes to a degree of $19T, and over half of that in the last decade alone. All of the deficit that added to the debt could have been removed just by a 25% rollback in ‘feminism’.
But now, so many women have made life choices built on the assumption that the government spending on their behalf can last forever. The government is just unable to cut them off, as too many women are too old and too unsuitable for marriage to get a man now. Imagine what would happen to all the age 35+ women, whether on welfare or cash and prizes, if the spigot were turned off.
So they *can’t’ turn it off. The state will consider state-mandated wives and CS garnishment based merely on phone numbers exchanged, before that happens.
While reading this entry I was struck by how much Burleson and Naghmeh’s hamsterization was similar to the Corban oath (Mark 7:10-12).
“What you may have received from me is dedicated to God….” so she need not honor her husband.
Same rationalisation as the Pharisees, and it will incur the same judgement.
You are right Jeff.
My point was that this verse was telling them to not stop “assembling together” with other believers to appease other Jews. It was not an admonition for everyone to go to church services. The whole book is about how Jesus is superior to the Old Covenant and why they should not walk back on it to give into temporary persecution.
Wade is a fine pastor and spokesman for the Church of Jezebel. Thanks for making that evident. Doubtless Dee and Deb over at ‘The Wartburg Watch’ found his supportive rebellion against God very useful in their own busy works.
Deb’s Faithful Blogging Buddy is a toy poodle named Coconut! While partner Dee Parsons grew up in Salem MA. Dee boasts an MBA, and “became a Christian at age 17 during an episode of Star Trek”. She grew up in Salem MA. Oh wait mentioned that already.
You getting all this down, Lord? Because I can go slower if you can’t keep up with all this cleverness from Dee and Deb. D and D, see that? That right there is your church in America, the same America that you blessed beyond all nations across place and time. Here’s how they say ‘thanks’.
The faces of Dee ‘n Deb convince me that neither understands even vaguely what eternal hell is, or means to their near futures. Their husbands have failed to shield them from that eventuality, and so Dalrock must fulfil the basic duty aborted by weak American men.
Wade and Dee and Deb and their kind have nothing to do with the temple you are building for our Holy and Glorious Lord. Toss them and their self-reverential rebellion out with the dogs, with due process but in good cheer. Out there in the pigmuck with precious little Coconut.
Never call these persons ‘pastor’ or ‘minister’ or such — doing so may confuse those with less discernment, or young Christians. Calling these fakes (and worse) by church titles validates their apostasy.
Wade, Deb, Dee etc. — you should be grateful these servants of God took time and effort to correct your false witnessing and severe rebellion. It is a gentle warning and you will get no other, not from me anyway.
Excellent work in the OP also, tying in the Nag-me Element. Definitely the same loose congregation.
“I do my best to attend church as often as Jesus did.”
Me too. Only because I feel a bit like Young Goodman Brown too often.
@thedeti
Saeed may not be taking it lying down, but the following is not in the least reassuring:
‘orders to appoint a psychological evaluator and child custody evaluator’
This could go very, very badly for him, no matter how seemingly erratic Nagmeh is behaving. Or possibly perhaps because of it. She may be acting crazy like a fox, at the prompting of her attorney.
I wish there was a way to tell the guy to watch out. The noose is almost over his head. I hope he reads here and understands the fix he may about to be in, professions of love and forgiveness notwithstanding. It’s probably already too late.
And whoever was downplaying the arrest has little clue what he’s talking about. A lawyer and aspiring judge I know got jammed up this way (extremely minor, one night in jail, etc.), and first thing he told me after the event was that he just kissed his judicial career goodbye–while defending himself from her attacking of his groin.
This system is so damned rigged.
So, do I have this right? If, as Ephesians 5:32,33 says, that marriage is a picture of Christ and The Church, Pastor Burleson is teaching that The Church should not need Christ, and that The Church should be independent and self sufficient from Christ. Looks more like a picture of the un-believing world, to me.
So, do I have this right? If, as Ephesians 5:32,33 says, that marriage is a picture of Christ and The Church, Pastor Burleson is teaching that The Church should not need Christ, and that The Church should be independent and self sufficient from Christ. Looks more like a picture of the un-believing world, to me.
You are correct. Whether he intends it or not, that is exactly Burleson’s message. No doubt he would attempt to separate the analogy of the church being the bride of Jesus from his prescription for female rebellion, claiming that they are two different things, but this is of course impossible. Paul himself makes the analogy very clear, as well as the fact that it is integral to the faith.
Burleson is a heretic who has effectively renounced any legitimate claim to being a Christian. He has proven himself to be the high priest of a gynocentric cult that rejects Scriptural authority on the role of men and women in the Christian church.
@unwobblingpivot, I think its just standard in high profile divorces, she will be pushing for sole custody I would guess, with him having a visitation schedule that she approves of.
He is coming from the position of having lost 100% of everything, it’s how much or how little he manages to get back at this point from her.
Possibly with the threatpoint of supervised visitation only. Which will just tear a man to pieces, he may relinquish control of the kids to her just to get unsupervised access.
I’ve spoken to (even female divorce ) lawyers and judges (relations) who are shocked at how the law punishes good men and rewards dreadful\lying\cheating women )pick as appropriate).
Maybe God will use this to show how corrupt and feminist the whole system has become. Seeing how the church has treated him, makes me to never want to go near one again.
i was fed that junk when i got out of the military. I said “dont need me? ok.” then proceeded outside the country where i am needed and cherrished (and i feel the same way for her). The only single people in the body of Christ should be active missionaries, or otherwise dedicated, full-time servants of GOD that have been gifted without “the burn”. The rest of us that burn with passion should be getting married no later than 20 IMO — because we NEED to. I highly doubt all these self-proclaimed “i only need GOD” turds are keeping themselves pure and “contained” before the Lord.
Anchorman — thanks for that update on Pastor Abedini.
‘“I hope that Saeed can address the abuse as soon as possible so that our family can move towards reconciliation and healing. With birthdays and holidays coming up and for the sake of our children, no one longs for reconciliation for our family more than me,” she continued.’
Translation:
“With the help of the American courts, government, and other elements, I’m looking forward to using the children to torment you over the ‘holidays’ and during their birthdays. You’ll be framed as The Bad Guy, have no fear! This is standard daily business in the U.S. and very much underwritten by the churches and state. You don’t really understand this because you are young, largely inexperienced, and culturally naïve. You will repent publically of your abuse of disobeying me, and you will bow down spiritually and psychologically to the supremacy of my power, over you and over MY children.”
Pastor Abedini is taking the right approach in not engaging publically with Nag-me and her Team, as that’s a guaranteed loser in America. He is liberated from an Iranian prison only to be imprisoned in America for the modern crime of being a man, and worse, a Christian father. On nothing but the word of a monster. However, Saeed must learn from this experience, concerning women and this nation, and his experiences are also a caution to all Western males today.
May the Lord rebuke his accusers and persecutors.
Seeing how the church has treated [Saeed], makes me to never want to go near one again.
I ask in a seriousness: how has the church treated him?
We know that the “Christian” media have behaved disgracefully toward him, proving themselves to be every bit the lying, sleazy, sensationlist whores that their secular counterparts are. But how has the the church been treating him? Have there been any public denunciations from the pulpit, any shaming rants from some Driscoll, Chandler, or Lingerfelt clones about Saeed’s “abuse” and how he needs to repent before he’s ever welcomed back into the fold?
I wouldn’t doubt for a second that all of that has happened, I just haven’t yet seen anything that evidences it. If somebody can point me to some links, I’d love to check out for myself.
If indeed the church has turned on Saeed without any evidence of his guilt, and if he can not only maintain the strength of his faith, but forgive his tormentors (to include his traitorous “wife”), then he is a candidate for Protestant sainthood.
@feeriker, good point.
It is rather the public face of the “Christianity” as you say press\blogs and also the mongrel hordes that descended on his FB account (Christian male+female) just to tear him a new one, some calling for his forced return to Iran etc.
Aside from Dalrock’s site, I don’t believe I’ve seen one blog or article written in his defense – yet. As D points out, after her accusations, then her silence, he was effectively condemned across the board without another word being spoken.
Some alleged “christian” sites really went for him. It was truly horrifying, how these people can live with themselves.
Dalrock, you need to do that book with Rollo.
“The Commies took over the seminaries during the Cold War and offered Gamma twits a shortcut to status. Baby Boomers didn’t notice their new pastors were certified twits because they were certified.”
Gunny hits the red.
If you don’t need your spouse spiritually, emotionally or materially then why would you want a spouse at all?
So apparently Pastor Burleson thinks he’s the only man his female congregants need?
If you don’t need your spouse spiritually, emotionally or materially then why would you want a spouse at all?
I think we are missing one important point. The pastor did not merely say the woman does not need her spouse. He went further to equate her with Christ, and the husband to the church. In other words, she being “the savior of the body”, does not need the man, though it is implied that the man needs her. Here is “pastor” Burleson:
Christ does not need us. He doesn’t need us to be happy. He doesn’t need us to be fulfilled…
In the same manner, when a fulfilled, self-sufficient woman marries a man, she doesn’t need her man.
–Pastor Wade Burleson
In the analogy of Christ and the Church representing the husband and his wife, the wife is Christ, and the husband is the church. Has anyone seen any more convoluted preaching than that?
I quite going to church 4 years ago. Actually, they kicked us out for following the Bible too closely. The thing is, while I agree that we are supposed to meet with our brethren, we also have a responsibility to look after the spiritual well being of our family and American churches are spiritually dangerous.
I mean, do you really want their anti-man, pro-divorce, feminist propaganda influencing your wife? Its hard enough to avoid divorce today without adding that on top of it.
Lets be frank, if a group of people are worshiping at the feet of women, they’re not really followers of God; regardless what the sign out front says.
All true I’m afraid. I’m on this forum because, with six weeks to go, I cancelled my wedding to a so-called Christian woman. Before the engagement, I thought she was my ideal woman and I thought my stars had lined up but that quickly changed. Fairly soon after, the same old tiresome beast was unleashed and her real personality traits became all the textbook stuff described so often on this site: Arrogant, vain, treacherous, disloyal and self-serving in the extreme. And that ran true for her sisters too. The amount of worship modern women expect (while they give abuse in return) is completely shocking and these spineless simps seem to keep giving it. Maybe, in futue, I won’t have the trappings of success that the other brothers-in-law (“Stepford Husbands”?) seemed to enjoy but I least I’ll lay my head down at night with my self-respect and my dignity in tact. Falling in love with a modern woman is a trip into a deep, dark valley indeed and, as Prince (RIP) said: “If you plan on taking a bus you better have plenty fare.”
P.S. Has anybody read this stunning article: If you have, does it make you think of anyone much? For me, it could be the story of my one and only (non) marriage.
https://afternarcissisticabuse.wordpress.com/darkness/what-does-the-bible-say-about-narcissistic-behavior/
“Granted, your husband may not understand selfless love either, mainly because His needs are not being met by Christ. For this reason, he may become unfaithful by searching for his fulfillment in other women. A Christian woman must set boundaries in her marriage, but the enforcement of those boundaries should always be done with dignity, respect and love for the unfaithful spouse–and for his good. Only healthy Christians, those who see their basic needs are always met by Christ, can draw boundaries and enforce them with the love of Christ.”
So since her husband can’t have his “basic” needs met by Christ, his sexual needs, he is not healthy. So this forked tongue “pastor” councils women to refuse to love, need or provide a sexual outlet for their own husbands and then says this will most likely lead the man to cheat….because him needing sex means he was an unhealthy Christian ….. because Jesus should be his everything or he is sick and not worth being married too.
OT laws on stoning false prophets and witches never made sense before.
This is open and common throughout the well known national family ministries like Family Life and FoTF. Remember, Bill Bright described how his wife -enforced boundaries with the love of Christ”. There are options. Breaking the dishes of course, or charging abuse publicly and attempting to extort a man into compliance with the threat point of family law courts. Barbara Rainy says wives must watch husbands and act in a corrective manner.
My newest one is Jen Wilkin. Here she tells dads to watch it buster, if he isn’t training up the children (always left unsaid……to the wife’s standards) its the wife’s duty by golly to do it. See the clever (too, by half) analogy to the crossing guard.
Women decide when men are worthy. Women act in a remedial fashion to get men up where they are all spiritually and stuff. remember those hand made sandals and Bible figure cut out dolls. Saeed could use a kit. Rotting in a prison persecuted for faith after all doesn’t teach kids anything, because their mom got no applicable empathy boost from it. Much empathy was yielded but it was not associated with the kids.
“The Commies took over the seminaries during the Cold War and offered Gamma twits a shortcut to status. Baby Boomers didn’t notice their new pastors were certified twits because they were certified.”
A lot of the current ecclesial troubles trace back to the military draft deferments granted to seminarians during the Vietnam war. Pursuit of a clerical career was a socially-unquestioned method of keeping out of harm’s way for an extended period of years. (It was a proven technique, having been used for years by sodomites.) It helped that, during the same decade, the modernists ran the table on both Protestantism and Catholicism. Learn how to effortlessly generate a stream of relativized mush that claims nothing concrete about God, but dutifully hews to the current political and social doctrines of the New York Times, and you’re set for life.
Morrel said regarding some dumb bitch he nearly married:
“the same old tiresome beast was unleashed and her real personality traits became all the textbook stuff described so often on this site: Arrogant, vain, treacherous, disloyal and self-serving in the extreme.”
You sir should count yourself very blessed for avoiding entrapment in what would have been a living hell of a marriage, the kind most men, Christian or otherwise, end up in. She was ultimately born with her rebellion but her mother made it worse and so did the church and culture. Most of these women are unsuitable for friends, neighbors or any association with, let alone wives.
I can easily date attractive, Christian women and have dated many, now I believe I’m done. I’m single, never married, no kids and well off financially. Why ruin my life? Sex? Can’t be that because most wives end up either sexless shrews, obese or both. Companionship? The company of these women is garbage.
Work hard, save your money, give some to worthy ministry and then enjoy a comfortable, peaceful, pleasant life without a two legged pig taking your will to live. After 30 its starts to get easier, especially if you want it to. The older you get the happier you’ll be you don’t have a burdensome manipulator slowly killing your reasons to live.
I’m currently looking for a couple hundred acres in the mountains, maybe by a river or a private lake. Think I’m going to build an earth home and stock up. I’m getting ready for this society to crumble. You know why I can easily afford to do this? Because I didn’t let some genuinely horrible ‘wife’ destroy my life.
Just stay single, I highly recommend it.
@Morrel, Almost forgot! Watch out for advice from some married men, especially if they see you becoming successful. Some are honest and will tell you the truth, a few are actually happily married. However, MANY married men who are currently enduring hell on earth will insist you “need to get married”. I shouldn’t need to tell you why..
@embracingreality
The problem with that plan is who is there to help you out through tough spots? What about when you get to the age you can’t do it all yourself, but have quite a while to live.
The forever single lifestyle has merit while you are young and active, but is less appealing when you are older and need others.
That is why God designed families and it is so horrid that things are so messed up now.
The Churchian Plan for Women:
Step 1) Demand independence/fempowerment (“I don’t need you!”)
Step 2) Reward (with money, sex, whatever) those who preach fempowerment (“You don’t need him!”)
Step 3) When called on to be logically consistent with fempowerment (drafting women, removing anti-male divorce and custody laws), pretend to be conservative. (“Husbands, Be a Servant Leader! I refuse to send my daughter to battle!”)
Step 4) Reap benefits until expected en masse by society.
Step 5) Repeat as necessary for cash, prizes, and sex.
Voila! Reward without risk, effort, consequence, or guilt. Seriously, why are they allowed to vote again?
The problem with that plan is who is there to help you out through tough spots? What about when you get to the age you can’t do it all yourself, but have quite a while to live.
Do you seriously believe that a typical wife in this day and age is going to “help you through the tough spots?” Or that she’ll be around when you’re old and frail?
Women today have made it very clear that they ain’t in the helpmeet business, nor do they “do” adversity, most certainly not with any man. To paraphrase an old maxim “when the going gets tough, she gets going.” Of what use is any such woman to any man?
I take it that you’ve either never been married, or that you don’t live in the English-speaking west.
BillS is so clueless. The typical woman will divorce her man when her cash and prizes are the most, leaving him destitute in old age.
The suicide rate among middle aged men is skyrocketing. BillS truly has no direct experience with women.
That is completely irrelevant to my point. The point is that you will not always be able to manage that land without someone else’s help.
I did not argue anyone should get married only because of that, I just noted that it is a utopian ideal as much as any other that gets discussed here.
I have been married almost 30 years and some of that experience is what opened my eyes to reality. I do not claim marriage today is perfect, but you cannot have a long term, live safe in the wild, without support of others.
Though I suppose the Smith & Wesson retirement option is available to anyone, to remove the long term concerns.
I would love to live out a ways, but I am realizing it is not a good goal since I have no children I can rely on at this point. A wife ends up not helping in the long run there as she too would get old and frail even if she sticks through every problem.
No easy answers.
>“He not only has the sexes reversed theologically, but when it comes to attraction triggers as well”
This is the most infuriating thing about all of this! These are basic, basic concepts and these “men” refuse to see the truth. Pro tip: Women with a man who has options juice up like a ripe watermelon. Men with a woman who flaunts her options shrivels up like a raisin.
>[I]f all white men disappeared civilization would end at the next oil change.”
I believe that if all men suddenly disappeared the power would go out in about 15 minutes and it would never go back on again. I am not sure if leaving the black men around would be of much help to the women left behind judging by the youtube ‘black’ MGTOW videos I have seen like Mr. Madness Tommy Sotomayor https://www.youtube.com/user/TommySotomayorLive/videos
@BillyS
It prob 1 in 4 that I know have a “good” marriage.
Almost 1 in 2 where the male gets ruined.
Your chances of being ruined by marriage is almost double your chances of having a good one. Ask Saeed for some feedback on just what its like to face a combative wife.
@Morel: Congrats on dodging a bullet and welcome to the rest of your life.
@Carlotta: “Stoning of false prophets”
You are almost there. Do you kind of sort of see why the stoning of adulteresses was also required?
You can hear the idolatry in the speech of woman-worshippers in the current Xsexual restroom drama. Girls are spoken of as, I’m not kidding, innocent and pure by default because they’re girls.
@empathologism — I see that was published last fall, but I remember reading a different, harsher version of that same post a few years ago. It was very jarring.
I remember thinking, something doesn’t seem right here.. there was no sympathy for the husbands who weren’t leading, no encouragement to look at how to actually HELP them as submissive wives, just how to take over for them and look down on them along with Wilkin.
no encouragement to look at how to actually HELP them as submissive wives, just how to take over for them and look down on them along with Wilkin.
It’s being encouraged by white knight type Christian men, as well, like this one: http://www. desiringgod. org/articles/real-men-love-strong-women (yes I have spaces in there to avoid a ping-back, you can close them and type it into your browsers). Upshot: men should not only accept role reversal relationships, but they should find the women who fit those scenarios “captivatingly attractive”. Obviously, he’s trying to find dates for women who can’t find men, as seems to be the obsession of many of these guys, but the idea appears to be, as Dalrock has said many times himself, “weak men are screwing up feminism”. We need super-hero marriages of super-strong, pushy, opinionated women and steel-hard, iron-cored leading men — superman and wonder woman, and nothing else works. No wonder these ladies are having trouble.
@Empath
I’m not sure complementary is the right word, but you have to admit that they deserve each other like criminals and jail.
@A Regular Guy
That is an excellent observation. And no such protection for boys against homosexual men even though there are a lot more homos predating while in men’s clothes.
@desiderian: I do my best to attend church as often as Jesus did.
The church didn’t exist during Jesus’ earthly ministry. But he did attend synagogue on a regular (if not weekly) basis. Do you mean you follow Jesus’ example, substituting synagogue worship for Sunday worship?
@unwobblingpivot,
You are exactly right.
My ex hit me with false abuse charges and got a watered down PFA (the judge smelled something funny and significantly reduced the length and conditions, but gave her the damn paper to wave around).
I thought things would go my way, because the judge seemed balanced.
The custody evaluation is where everything went cockeyed.
Be very, VERY careful who you agree to. Mine was a dyed in the wool liberal and made a point to note he was not Christian. He kicked me in the shorts during the evaluation. Despite not giving solid facts, his recommendation sank my first round in custody. My second round, my lawyer had a chance to get him on the stand and things fell apart for him, and I gained more custody.
I’ll go back and finish the job – fighting for equal time.
Beware the evaluation. It’s completely subjective and they are old school liberal psychologists who favor women overwhelmingly.
It makes you wonder what world these grown children are living in. Innocent and pure? Lol. These idiots have ZERO experience with or knowledge of females. Oh, man. I’m just sitting here laughing as I type this. Talk about incredibly pathetic and naive.
As Dalrock said many of these statements are true. I don’t need my wife, she does not need me. We both need Christ. But then these concepts get processed through the craziness of their feminist world views and it end up all madness.
Christ is our foundation, not our spouse. But for those of us who are married Christ has given us direction we ignore at our peril.
BillyS warns single men in isolation:
“The problem with that plan is who is there to help you out through tough spots? What about when you get to the age you can’t do it all yourself, but have quite a while to live.”
Totally concur that men were generally better off in the past when wives, marriage, family were reliable ways of obtaining more security in life including safer passage through one’s dotage. Thats done, over with. You realize as well that this is no longer the case. I would further point out that In the US there are currently 18,000 nursing homes filled to capacity with elderly people *most of whom married and had children…*
Setting aside for a moment that I doubt this nation or world will survive long enough for me to get old, if civilization still exist and I’m still alive in my 80’s what will take care of me then is the same thing that takes care of me now. God first and then my money. I can afford a comfortable assisted living arrangement if I need that. I feel american single men who can’t be bothered to “launch” because they don’t have wives to drive them are foolish. I’m privileged to have owned many cars that most men would consider “dream cars”. I’ve had a building full of classic cars. Bought and sold numerous homes, currently have considerable commercial/industrial property.
Most of the young women I dated in my 20’s wanted college/career not marriage. Thank God! I was blue pill naive then. I wanted to marry when I was young but when I was postponed I pursued business instead. I wouldn’t of had half of what I have now if I married and probably would have lost that in a divorce like most of my ex-married friends did. Those guys are slaves now and I got a pocket full of cash and red pills. Just don’t see the upside to marriage with any 1 of the 99.9% of women available and I’m done picking through haystacks.
I don’t dispute the fact that marriage sucks today for men, but I have yet to hear anyone note how they are going to make a plan to buy remote property and go it alone work.
I am drawn to that myself, but I could not make it work even with a wife who is better than average since both of us would be aged at the same time.
The challenge remains: How do you build something for the long run, whatever your approach? Proclaiming how bad a risk marriage is doesn’t answer that challenge.
@AR
Book review is up. No link back but it’s easy enough to find.
BillyS,
Not sure you fully read my response, I’ll repeat a relevant bit here:
“I would further point out that In the US there are currently 18,000 nursing homes filled to capacity with elderly people *most of whom married and had children…*”
Currently… Elderly people are usually tossed into nursing homes by their families! So, marriage, family isn’t much of a solution for your care and provision in your dotage anyway. Get that? In my future as a hermit I’ll always have the option to segway into professional care if civilization persists (which I seriously doubt) and I’ll die an institutional death if I do. Alternatively my skeleton might be discovered by future generations in what will be a fairly well hidden concrete earth sheltered home. Honestly the second option seems by far the best to me. I’ve spent lots of time in nursing homes as a kid with my mother, an RN. I’d rather be killed and eaten by a bear.
As for Christian community there are growing options of off-grid Christians forming rural havens for like minded people, Search Shofar Mountain Ozarks or youtube “Viking preparedness”. Lots of luck with that however as the failure rate of such “communities” is very high. Control freaks, lazy users, manipulators etc usually erode the structure. Success there is about as likely as finding a decent wife and having reliable children.
Either way growing old is not to be looked forward to. I’ve seen it many times and never saw an enviable or even remotely pleasant situation for an exit of this life. Brace yourself, with or without family it’s not going to be a Hallmark Hall of Fame Special.
Bills,
So you admit that the plan you propose will not work but we should do it anyway since no one else has proposed an alternative? The alternative most men here have stated is stay single, make money, and save it for the day you are old and need help. You simply ignore this suggest and keep demanding that someone name an alternative. None are so blind as those that will not see.
Look who’s on twitter! Join me in questioning this dork’s desperate revisionism…
Boxer
I’ve been taking him on here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19615457&postID=3344416062106625738&bpli=1
Feeriker said, “Do you seriously believe that a typical wife in this day and age is going to “help you through the tough spots?” Or that she’ll be around when you’re old and frail?”
Unfortunately, this is what I observed first hand from my ex and from almost every married man. When she saw I was having difficulties in my life, it’s like I chummed the water for sharks to come and feed on me. This is the norm for women, not the exception. They make the tough spots in life harder without cause.
@JARG
Ive noted that women can seem to feel sympathy for a spouse under burden, stress, maybe depressed, and simultaneously fill up any space he manages to create for peace. Its as if she notices he is beginning to overcome, and she wants to throw more weight on his back so she can go back to seeing him as weak and unable to break away from his bondage. This is my way of saying as you did, they make the tough spots harder.
@Dota
As to Wade, I’ve been sucked into his maelstrom of nonsense again by reading this entry at his blog
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/06/one-walking-in-grace-out-of-marital.html
If you read the woman’s story, and you have some red pill frame of reference, you will be suspicious about her full claims. The patterns are there, the manner of communicating her story, the randomness of the alleged facts as they are sprinkled into the other words that are filled in between….and Wade’s craving to efface himself and men based on what is, even if 100% true, a fantastic and rare story. I told him that using her tale as such is like saying your grandfather who smoked 4 packs a day for 80 years and lived to 100 is testimony to health benefits of smoking.
empathologism
That fellow is utterly hopeless. Where do these wimps come from? Are they really so hopelessly dependent on women’s validation? It’s madness, where does it end?
I noticed this comment:
“I’ve noted that women can seem to feel sympathy for a spouse under burden, stress, maybe depressed, and simultaneously fill up any space he manages to create for peace.”
May I say that as women we naturally go towards the depressed person — when we’re depressed, we want someone nearby. We want that support. We tend to give that which we also want ourselves. I learned after a long time that my husband wanted space, distance. I personally do not when I’m depressed and lonely; I want a human being. However, I also finally accepted that I would have to learn to accept what he was able to give — he wants distance and space, so he gives distance and space. I have to accept this. It does not meet my needs at all, but this is what I am going to get. I struggled with this for a while. I don’t anymore; I have plenty to do, and frankly the things I have to do are too interesting for me to whine about things I don’t or can’t have. I have zero tolerance for a “whine and cheese” session.
This part of the comment — “Its as if she notices he is beginning to overcome, and she wants to throw more weight on his back so she can go back to seeing him as weak and unable to break away from his bondage. This is my way of saying as you did, they make the tough spots harder.” — is just wrong. This is not true, and most wives and mothers would be pretty irritated that you would say that, because that is NOT our goal. Just as the men do in the previous paragraph, we are giving that which we ourselves would want — someone who is there. The men don’t want someone, they want their space. Acknowledged. It took me many years to accept this and learn to leave my husband alone.
The natural tendency in this scenario, however, is to drift apart from one another. You become less dependent on one another and it becomes more difficult to have a conversation. I don’t think it’s uncommon to be sitting down with your spouse and realizing that you really don’t know what to talk about, and you don’t really enjoy one another’s company anymore, because you don’t know how to relate anymore. However, if your husband wants his privacy and his silent time to read, destress, whatever, over time it becomes easier to accept this and move on with life, as in just doing your job day to day — homeschooling is a great antidote to being lonely. I know a lot of women who feel lonely. It’s just life. That’s the beauty of having a lot of kids; keeps you very busy.
Besides, we are always being admonished to let God meet our needs. This is confusing, too, as women are always told that their needs are to be met by God; we are not to depend on our husbands to do that. Then, for some reason, when they finally get to that point and accept that, you aren’t happy? Or am I missing something?
Incidentally, if you think we are all going to abandon our husbands when they’re old and frail, you’ve got another think coming, Mister. My husband was the main caregiver for his mother when she was dying of cancer. My mother cared for my grandfather until the day he died. We are currently caring for my Mom and so far we have been able to manage for her to stay in her own home — hopefully we can continue to do so.
Thanks for allowing me to comment.
@STMA,
you fail to grasp what we are talking about.
I’ve known many men who were disabled\permanently sick who still went to work everyday while their lazy assed wives stayed at home and “housekept” (whatever that is), this is within my family\friends circles so I know its true.
I’ve never heard the reverse – I will spell this out for you – a sick or disabled woman going to work to keep her healthy husband at home who wants to “housekeep” – have tea with the other menz or have his family around.
At the moment I have known several men who have had cancer, none of which got a reprieve from their wive for being ill. The one currently alive (undergoing chemo) complains how much his “wife” badgers him to increase his work hours from part time.
In short, even though women “think” they actually care for men, this in practice isn’t worth a damm. Women are extremely heartless to sick spouses in my experience.
Minesweeper,
In short, even though women “think” they actually care for men, this in practice isn’t worth a damm. Women are extremely heartless to sick spouses in my experience.
Is this really widespread, or only among bad women?
Because if this is true, the other primary reason men get married (to have someone when they are old, in case of illness) is not valid.
But I want to get more info before we conclude that this is widespread female behavior, rather just magnified from our manosphere bias….
@Anon,
It is really widespread ? Even in churches ive seen this, its almost like no-one really recognizes it for what it is. Its in the same vein as poster freekier saying his brother who works 12 hrs at the coal face to come home and clean house while his good for nothing “spouse” moans about her lot in life.
Its the same play at work, when you know what to look for, you generally seem women do almost damm all in life and even more so with men that are struggling, the women do actually seem to make things far worse than they need too.
Its depressing I know. Once the bubble has been popped, you see it everywhere. Its as Rollo and others have commented, men are just a utility to women, if they break then work it harder till it stops then throw it out.
Im not kidding. Its really how it seems to be. I can’t think of any man who would measure his wife in such a morbid fashion.
@Anon, they have exchanged authority for utility in human form. Even my last gf was similar, what can you do to impress me now, she was fond of asking.
The same way women view governments, they are solely there to be a utility of provision for them, in whatever forms that may be. You will never see a women declaring any form of loyalty to government, nor any duty to pay back student loans or the cost of their education or health care. If payment is demanded from them, its really taking liberties.
Very few women die for their country, or their children and none for their husband.
Minesweeper,
The same way women view governments, they are solely there to be a utility of provision for them, in whatever forms that may be. You will never see a women declaring any form of loyalty to government,
You are right. One of the reasons Islam is winning is that they provide a resource that is very valuable to women (gina tingles), which does not have any input costs associated with it. Hence, Islam has a structural advantage that leads to women switching sides, as Islam can produce an unlimited supply of something that is scarce elsewhere…
But is it really that widespread that marriages 25+ years in, while seemingly intact, still have a women with zero-sympathy for her cancer-stricken husband? Is that truly such a widespread thing? It may be, I just want to be as close to reality as possible, for even in the manosphere, we sometimes drift into bias…..
Very few women die for their country,
This is very true. That is why of all the Cuckservative fem-worship, the most bizarre is the claim that women are stepping up to defend their country because men are cowering away.
That is incredibly ignorant by the cuckservatives. If men really were avoiding these roles, the natural reaction of women would be to switch sides, as has happened in every war where one side was decisively victorious over the other.
Cuckservatives are beyond parody..
@Anon, I can only comment from my observations, as you know, this stuff isn’t taught in school.
Is-lam isn’t winning anywhere, think of many peaceful countries where that is the main or growing religion? The various tribes do tend to slaughter each other without mercy, only in the Atheist\(Pretend)Christian West can they multiply without fear of being bombed at their next prayer time.
This life is one thing, the next is another. I wouldnt switch to that to gain advantage in this life, only to lose it in the next.
Okay, well, if that’s so true, perhaps you should send the memo to the woman who recently buried her husband at our church, after 56 years of marriage and caring for him devotedly for the past three when he was ill with lung cancer.
I guess she didn’t know she was supposed to abandon him in order to fit your description.
Eight children together, lots of grandchildren, I think now five great-grandchildren — she brought him to church in the wheelchair (with the help of one of their sons) every Sunday, when he could no longer walk. And she misses him terribly.
On how women don’t die for their country — well, it seems Obama is trying to level the playing field there, so you just may get your wish, since it appears you think the female portion of the country consists of slackers who don’t do anything. Here’s some food for thought if these are your sentiments: http://stthomasmoreacademy.blogspot.com/2016/02/belated-valentines-day-thoughts.html — I like to call a spade a spade and no, I’m not afraid of you giving me the heat on my opinions. Most of you are probably young enough to have been in my kindergarten class when I was still teaching, so I’ll address you accordingly.
Your scenarios are not reality. If anything, it’s a classic case of whining on your part. But, if you prefer to complain about the dregs of human society rather than find the real honest to goodness decent folks out there, who am I to criticise your taste. Have at it. I suppose when men are doing the complaining, it is called a reflection of reality, and when women are doing it, it is whining. If my sons do what you are doing, I tell them they are obviously bored and I always have plenty for them to do. Last week we got the whole garden dug with the labor of the resident complainers.
Again, thanks for allowing me to comment.
Have a great day!
@STMA,
So your a committed Catholic with 5 kids from 4 – 13 according to your blog.
“Most of you are probably young enough to have been in my kindergarten class when I was still teaching”
I doubt very much we were all in kindergarten while you were teaching.
Thanks for our comments comments !
Have a great day!
@STMA, sorry 6 kids !!! humble apologies. possibly now 5 – 14 ?
Okay, well, if that’s so true, perhaps you should send the memo to the woman who recently buried her husband at our church, after 56 years of marriage and caring for him devotedly for the past three when he was ill with lung cancer.
I guess she didn’t know she was supposed to abandon him in order to fit your description.
Eight children together, lots of grandchildren, I think now five great-grandchildren — she brought him to church in the wheelchair (with the help of one of their sons) every Sunday, when he could no longer walk. And she misses him terribly.
What you describe here is an extreme outlier by any standard:
1. Married for 56 years (i.e., from the last generation that came of age before 2WF irreversibly infected its successors).
2. Eight children, plus lots of grandchildren. NOT typical of any married couple in the western world anymore, other than maybe devout Catholics and Mormons.
Using this woman as an example to prove your point is like pointing to a $1,000,000,000-dollar winning Powerball ticket and saying that accumulation of wealth is both easy and obvious.
@STMA,
“perhaps you should send the memo to the woman who recently buried her husband at our church, after 56 years of marriage and caring for him devotedly for the past three when he was ill with lung cancer.”
Was he retired perhaps or did he give up work and then she kept working or started working to provide for him at all ?
@freekier, good points, but the main thing is that he was finished with his working life, his retirement income wouldn’t have been in jeopardy, which would have defaulted to his widow in the event of his death.
His widow was always taken care of. And as you say, this is the 1 in million outliner. Its is absolutely the opposite experience Ive seen with men who havn’t retired and secured an income for both parties for life.
@STMA,
“Most of you are probably young enough to have been in my kindergarten class when I was still teaching, so I’ll address you accordingly.”
Since you have laid down the gauntlet, in teaching us young whipper snappers which side our bread is buttered on, maybe you should give us a rough ball park as to your age.
I for one have a child as old as your eldest.
Strangely enough, this reminds seems to remind me of the time that older guy appeared and challenged some of the commentators to a actual dual in a field, if I remember correctly.
**this reminds me of the time
Since you have laid down the gauntlet, in teaching us young whipper snappers which side our bread is buttered on, maybe you should give us a rough ball park as to your age.
If she’s in the same age bracket as the woman she cited as an example, then she’s at least 75. If that’s true, it’s no wonder she doesn’t understand. My own 82-year-old mother is permanently stuck in 1957 and can’t even fathom the sick dysfunction that is the norm in today’s “marriage.” I long ago gave up trying to expose her to reality. It would be easier to teach an alligator to tap dance.
@feeriker, well she has a 5yo at the moment according to her blog, but yes she writes like she is 75 at least.
Note as well with the example she sited, the widow would have lost alot of income if she divorced during her husbands illness. The income would have been halved and his share would have been lost in the event of his death had they separated.
So really in hindsight, her example proves perfectly what I’ve been saying about women being financially ruthless when men are sick. So in essence, for women to be faithful in sickness, you would have to reconstruct a system that financially rewards them for doing so. Which essentially is the basis for the marriage vows until recently, the women stayed because of financial benefit for staying, if you flip it the other way and reward them for leaving, you get our current situation.
I have some aged wise religious aunts, and they can see the way the younger women are behaving are they are horrified by it.
I’m in my forties. And I started teaching when i was eighteen, so the students I taught in my first year are finished with college. The woman I mentioned always worked; they were not well off at all, and all her daughters and daughters-in-law have always worked.
And you certainly all write as though you are in your late teens/early twenties…..I certainly hope I’ve done a decent enough job as a mother to raise decent kids who don’t use some of the vocabulary you transfer through a keyboard to a screen. My kids get a swipe of soap in their mouths for less than that. God have mercy on us all.
So you were a kindergarten teacher. That the women did or didn’t work isnt the issue, what is the issue is that did it benefit the women financially to discharge their husband if he fell sick or not. if its a benefit then from what Ive seen they would have, if it to their benefit then he would have stayed.
You write like you live in an isolated community where the old rules still applied. Don’t let your kids leave.
You gotta love the dripping condescension from this self-pretentious cunt eh? Talk about snobby Jr high-school girl tactics. And so much projection on top of that. But then, it isn’t something we haven’t heard so many times before from other hypocrites. Heh.
And you certainly all write as though you are in your late teens/early twenties…..I certainly hope I’ve done a decent enough job as a mother to raise decent kids who don’t use some of the vocabulary you transfer through a keyboard to a screen. My kids get a swipe of soap in their mouths for less than that. God have mercy on us all.
Your arrogant shaming language will get you nowhere fast here, unless your goal is to further prove all of the repulsive modern female stereotypes presented here as examples on a regular basis.
Since you’ve chosen to reveal your age, you’ve further revealed that you’re nothing but another clueless, arrogant Gen-Xer infected with the same lack of self-awareness as the other women of your generation.
Many of the men here have had more nap time under their belts than you’ve had years in your life, so mind your manners, toots.
Gaining popularity is not my goal at all. Telling the truth is, regardless of whether anybody likes it or not.
@Minesweeper:
On the topic of “Women leave a sick Man”, I think it was a few years ago when we went around on the subject the last time. I remember Sunshine Mary being rather aghast at the idea, so there was some interesting pulls of a few sociological studies.
If I’m remembering the details correctly, Women don’t actually end the relationship until *after* the Man is better. (Or, I believe the study specifically was Men were slightly more likely to leave a relationship with severe illness/injury.) But that’s in the dichotomy of “Stay or Go”. What experience has shown is that most Women will “check out” of the relationship long before they leave. So, to Men, they’re only staying around until they know it won’t cost them. (The social stigma on a middle-status or higher Woman leaving a sick Husband isn’t something she’s going to absorb easily. Plus, “caring for” a sick Husband brings social benefit/attention.)
So, only the most callous Woman will leave you by the road-side, but the natural instinct for Women is to leave their Man after the Cost-Benefit Analysis has shifted within her Hamster. “For Vanity” is always the first consideration one should take when dealing with Women. Finances come later.
As to Women caring for sick Husbands, I do know of a few legitimate examples, personally. But as the writer of Hebrews commended the faith of Sarah (Hebrews 11), a Woman is fully capable of great love, kindness & compassion. Most will not choose to. That is to their eternal damnation.
@LG, its not so much women leaving sick men, this does happen, and vice versa.
Its more sick\disabled men continuing to work to provide for healthy women, which would be completely bizarre the other way round. Ive never seen a sick\disabled women working full time to provide for her husband who stays home and keeps house.
Its just a very very strange phenomenon to witness, I’ve seen multiple examples of this. Either the men insist on pushing themselves to the limit or want to overcome whats happened, or the women really just dont give a damm on that level, “he is the provider for me” – no matter what happens to him.
Now I’m “triggered” to look for this, I have so many examples running through my head, I think I need a stiff drink.
Are women really this clueless\heartless ? Are the men ? or is it just the fear of divorce that drives them.
Over 50% of western women are on legal drugs due to rejecting the oak-vine male-female relationship (leading to anxiety, bad decisions, etc.).
Large amounts of women add illegal drugs to that.
Then there is rampant alcoholism, and the supposed non-alcoholic who cannot get to sleep without a glass of wine.
Without men, women have collapsed utterly, wrecked their lives, broken their emotional makeup, and made life-changing bad decisions.
Women need men like fish need water to swim in.
@tc, hard to say if you are right or not.
but its the science\medical system thats created an army of depressed and mentally ill women. way too much early intervention with dangerous substances – our culture worships science+medicine – its the new golden cow, and it will ruin them. and ruin all our governments.