As I’ve demonstrated (here and here), an underpinning belief of complementarianism is that the source of feminist resentment is sinful men, men who are not sufficiently nice and accommodating. As Pastor Chandler explains, if men are good enough women can’t even be tempted to rebel:
…where men exercise biblical headship, where they are sacrificially loving, they are creating environments that honor and uplift the name of Jesus Christ, they’re establishing a place where the Word of God is seen and honored, and we understand God as he has revealed himself, and where they provide for, where that happens, and where women come underneath that, the idea of male headship might be attacked as a philosophy, but if they came into our homes, our wives would not want to be freed from anything.
In Cherishing Your Marriage: Part 1, the CBMW asks:
In practical ways in your marriage relationship, how do you balance gender equality with male headship?
Mary Kassian provides the answer. Kassian explains that she doesn’t feel the feminist urge because her husband “guards her equality” (emphasis mine).
Brent and I have been married for almost thirteen years. In that time, he has always honored, blessed and encouraged me. He has never, ever said or done anything that would give me the impression that I am lesser than he. He trusts me completely, and gives up much on my account. When he fails, he is quick to seek forgiveness. I am left with the impression that he regards my desires and interests as more important than his own, and I feel cherished.
Therefore, the question of male-female equality has not been an issue in my mind. I am secure and confident in who God has made me as a woman. Brent upholds and guards my “equality” so I do not feel the need to do so.
I thought the major idea of the reformation was to go to the OT and NT directly and see what it means for the individual person. From where come pastors? Especially pastors that seem to have an agenda? To “guard equality,” does not seem like anything I remember seeing anywhere in the OT or the NT.
Pingback: Guarding her equality. – Manosphere.org
Another useless platitude from Ms Kassian. A Christian husband’s role is to provide and protect his family and bring them to Christ. His role is one of a leading and doing. Not a fweelings machine or a ‘equality protector’ whatever that means. He is not there to serve Ms feminist or her status. She is there to serve and facility his role, not the other way around.
Marriage is a burden to men, always has been. The purpose of a wife who submits and serves him is to ease that burden and make him more able to focus on the important things in life. This half-wit is whispering words of deceit every chance she gets. Her words are venom, both corrosive and destruction.
KISS, keep it simple, stupid.. Men are to lead and women are to follow. Submit or use the door.
Pingback: Guarding her equality. | Aus-Alt-Right
…facilitate his role…
As Pastor Chandler explains, if men are good enough women can’t even be tempted to rebel:
I suppose that Chandler and his ilk are actually serving two very useful functions here:
1. As the nonsense that he spews from the pulpit results in more and more confusion or outright destruction, more and more people, especially MEN, will be induced to start reading the Scriptures for themselves in order to get to the truth, and
2. The more truth that is uncovered as a result of reactions to patent nonsense, the sooner clowns like Chandler will follow in the footsteps of their role model Mark Driscoll and be ejected from their pulpits.
Kassian explains that she doesn’t feel the feminist urge because her husband “guards her equality” (emphasis mine).
What follows is Kassian essentially saying “I despise men to a sufficient degree that I would never dream of marrying a real one. Hence the doormat beta-minus cuck loser I chose and whom I can’t wait to kick to the curb once his usefulness a a feminist teaching tool runs its course.” (You KNOW that’s coming in a few years down the road, folks).
feeriker says: “As the nonsense that he spews from the pulpit results in more and more confusion or outright destruction, more and more people, especially MEN, will be induced to start reading the Scriptures for themselves in order to get to the truth”
Unlikely. That’s what would have happened fifty years ago when culture still had a residual understanding of traditional Christianity. What today’s lost generations will do is presume that since these pastors spew nonsense and have seminary degrees attesting to their knowledge of the Scriptures, the Scriptures are also nonsense and have nothing of value in them.
“As Pastor Chandler explains, if men are good enough women can’t even be tempted to rebel”
Since women also rebel against God, is this a call for men to be more good than God?
And then we have “Christian marriage” divorce rates which are only a few paltry percentage points lower than the secular world……..men like Chandler will blame “men” for not leading, not being ‘holy’ enough, not bold n’ biblical enough, not going to bed exhausted every night….and a pile of other excuses for why she “had no choice” but to end the marriage.
We have a whole cottage industry of ‘christian counseling’ and self-help books, usually written for and by women. We have conferences, TV channels, broadcast networks, podcasts, radio stations, outreach, plenty of churches in this country……..the Internet. A ton of resources. Books……every pastor great and small today is “working on” or has written a book.
How on earth did the early church survive under the penalty of death? Persecution. Seclusion, and outright shunning? How did it grow? How did it survive?
We are told over and over by pastors that “God has an amazing plan for your life!” and then to sell men in the world this ‘churchian’ ploy that you are somehow not as holy, balanced, ready, equipped, or mature to handle this amazing plan….ah, but your wife to be is! The unspoken consolation prize is “but…..hey, you get to have sex….and that’s the only thing men need or think about and want!”
That seems to be given begrudgingly today (in my men’s group…..goodness, so many of the married guys complain that their wives never want sex)
How did the early church turn the world upside down? All God did was send a few men, and they made it happen. We have so many tools today…..and we’re “helpless” and we tend to think a “building program” will help everything and if we let the men fix things on the property they will feel “useful”
We are so in trouble today. The reason why a revival (that everyone seems to want, and claims they are ready for) has not happened is because: The bride (church) is filithy.
On your knees men! Pray. read the Word, and get your Holiness correct!
When I read things like “if men were only better men, women would stay,” I’m reminded of a conversation with an old buddy. He knew a woman who gave her husband a blow job every morning. She figured it took five minutes of her time and it made him feel like the luckiest man on the planet.
So … why doesn’t the pastor use that kind of reasoning? If women would be happy if men were more giving and kind and whatnot, why doesn’t the same apply in the other direction?
I think this is one reason for the emphasis on long engagements and taking time to find one’s “soulmate,” especially in more conservative circles. The girl has to carefully vet men to find the one she agrees with on virtually everything. Christian or secular marriage counselors will give the prospective couple long questionnaires, to make sure they’re sympatico on everything from how to educate the kids to how much TV they like to watch.
This seems to make sense, to find someone you click with, but what happened to “Opposites attract”? Does agreeing on everything in advance really make couples happier or more likely to last?
What it does for the traditionally-minded girl is to allow her to choose a husband who she’s confident will make the same decisions she would make, so she can relax under his headship. She may even teach other women about how her husband is the head of the family and makes all the decisions. That’s a good thing, as far as it goes.
The problem comes when something happens that wasn’t on the questionnaire, or life changes in a way neither of them expected. The husband develops a gambling problem, blows their savings, and tells her she has to get a job — something he disapproved of on the questionnaire. She gains weight and starts chasing diets, getting into weird stuff with crystals and expensive supplements that he thinks are a waste.
All of a sudden, for the first time in years of marriage, they have a real conflict they didn’t pre-agree on, and they have no practice. She’s never really had to submit, and he’s never really had to lead. That’s when you find out whether they believe what they preach, but careful selection of the spouse can put off that test for a long time.
I refuse the term gender equality. This is slight of hand chicanery. The Evangelical leftist is taking about equal in every way, not equal in value in the eyes of God. This is why they get so animated when gender roles are acknowledged.
Assertion of gender equality results in a request for citation on my part. There are scarcely two people who are equal in one trait.
The Evangelical leftist doesn’t have the least concern about God’s perspective, of that we can be sure.
@Cail
Exactly. I see so many Christians today using the “meyers-briggs” personality assessment as if it is Gospel…….it’s becoming like the how the secular world says ‘What’s your sign?’ and many Christians are now asking outright “What is your personality type?” When you meet them on a dating profile or try to chat with them.
You question the validity and metrics used on these tests, and how the personality types are formulated……you get christians telling you “that’s why you’re single” and “Well, they didn’t have iphones back in the day, but Jesus would have owned one! It’s all about using the stuff that’s available to make it work better!”
Also, emphasis on equality in the marriage is emphasis on two individuals and how they compare to each other. What happened to “one flesh”? Under the social justice bus.
craig @ 8:55 am:
“What today’s lost generations will do is presume that since these pastors spew nonsense and have seminary degrees attesting to their knowledge of the Scriptures, the Scriptures are also nonsense and have nothing of value in them.”
Quoted for truth. Too many people attend church in order to outsource their salvation and then abandon God because they disapprove (often with good reason) of His representatives. The behavior dates all the way back to Moses.
The blind leading the lazy.
If you need a man to take care of equality for you, you were never equal to begin with. Women are made to submit.
What is it with many Christian women’s almost obsessive drive to be seen as equal?
And what does “guards my equality” mean? The inference is she must stay ever prepared to start her own guarding if he ever drops the ball.
I hate to repeat the obvious, but Eve was a sinless woman, living in a sinless paradise, married to a sinless man. And yet she was still deceived. Now we can see what is possible with millions of fallen women, living in a fallen world, surrounded by fallen men, Delusion indeed.
Anytime you hear the language being tortured in order to get you to buy in, run.
Truth does not require linguistic gymnastics and verbal slight of hand. Only lies do.
Math dosnt add up the same for human relationships.
A manosphere truism that needs its own granite monument.
Also, emphasis on equality in the marriage is emphasis on two individuals and how they compare to each other. What happened to “one flesh”? Under the social justice bus.
The fact that the “one flesh” component of Godly marriage is so seldom discussed in Christian circles anymore, other than being occasionally trotted out as as a rhetorical foil, shows just how thoroughly the mainstream cultural definition of “marriage” (i.e., legally sanctioned girlfriend-boyfriend relationship) has been embraced and absorbed by the church.
Speaking of guarding a woman’s equality …
There’s an effort in Los Angeles to increase the number of female construction workers on Metro train projects. An excerpt from a news story that appeared in the Santa Monica Daily Press (July 25, 2016):
Twenty-one women today graduated from the first Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) all-female construction boot camp as part of the Women Build Metro Los Angeles program. Six weeks of training were held at Los Angeles Trade Technical College (LATTC) facilities in downtown Los Angeles. The boot camp trained participants on heavy lifting, shoveling and wheelbarrow use among other activities.
“This is an excellent and unique opportunity for women to enter the predominantly male world of construction with support, training and encouragement from Metro,” said Metro Board Member Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker. “Metro meets its goal of hiring women for our construction projects. And women gain a secure,well-paid job that is career oriented.”
1. WHY is there this great need for women construction workers? Is there a shortage of qualified male construction workers?
2. HOW do you train women for “heavy lifting, shoveling and wheelbarrow use”? Can a six-week boot camp provide women with the upper body strength equal to that of men?
3. HOW LONG before the first woman files a disability claim for injuring herself on the job? (Just like that NYC female fire fighter.) HOW LONG before the last woman files a disability claim?
4. HOW MANY of these women will never file a disability claim because they were quickly promoted to a cushy desk job ahead of better-qualified men?
Full story on page 4: http://backissues.smdp.com/072516.pdf
@illuvitus:
No, it’s deeper than that. Chandler put so many caveats that I completely missed something. Chandler just said that Eden wasn’t good enough to prevent Eve from rebelling.
“they are creating environments that honor and uplift the name of Jesus Christ…but if they came into our homes, our wives would not want to be freed from anything.”
Read it that way. Then replace “homes” with “Eden”. Eve was in paradise, in perfection on Earth, and yet still rebelled. Aside from the soul-destroying Apostasy, Chandler actually got to the logical position that the Feminist rebellion in the Church was headed: Wives would “submit” if their Husband was better than God.
So, never.
A pox on Chandler and all of his ilk.
This woman is a master manipulator and a grand master at reframing. He protects my equality so I don’t have to. W-T-F!
She is almost certainly the HD person in this story and her husband probably thinks he is lucky to have such an accomplished wife. His problem is that God set up a natural order and he is deliberately violating it by letting his wife teach open rebellion. Part of that natural order has been identified by the manosphere as “The Tingles.” We know that supplicating, mousy, “protecting equality behavior” like this is the precise opposite of tingle inducing. We therefore KNOW that Kassian’s vagina is drying up and probably withering with each passing day. At some point she will cut him off and lose sexual interest in this man. It is inevitable. She will become more and more cross and more and more desperate for a good hard dicking that her husband is incapable of administering. We know all this because it is God’s law.
Your desire shall be for your husband (for his position and to control, dominate, torment and play like a puppet) and he shall rule over you (so you will only experience sexual desire for your husband if he does not let you rule over him). The chode needs to take the Red Pill.
‘Blessed are the seekers after Equality
For they shall destroy male headship’. Matthew 5 – not
Honestly, if Kassian is a Christian I would not (were I otherwise minded) do other than avoid anything and everything to do with Christians and Christian worship. May I remind her through this blog that Equality is 18th century Atheistic French-philosophe wishful-thinking that should long-ago have been consigned to the dustbin of really bad ideas and is about as vague as to its meaning and impossible of achievement as one could get.
When Kassian says equality she means Female Supremacy without contradiction, responsibility or accountability. The West may at this time be in need of Christendom but it does not need this and is it not curious that as with the beach-body ready ban on London Tube-ads both Islamist and Feminist ideologies are in strict alignment.
Marriage is about men, not women; just like marriage is about Christ, not the church.
The man was created in the image of God. The woman was not.
Adam did not knowingly eat of the apple.
God got upset with Adam and gets upset with men when they ‘hearken to the voice’ of women
.
All sin, all bad things, originate in from woman. Yes, even Hitler and Stalin; lying, cheating, sealing, adultery; everything. [There is an ace in the hole on this one]
The word of God is written only to men …to disseminate to women and children.
“Have dominion” and “be fruitful and multiply” are commands to men only.
Women do not glorify God directly. Women glorify God by glorifying men, that is, respecting men, submitting to men. Men then glorify God.
Prophecy
Women are angry.
Women have a perpetual hatred.
Women are envious.
Women are filthy.
Women have idols.
Women boast that they now govern both women and men.
Women are blasphemous with boasts against men – ‘they are given us to consume.’
Women boast against God.
Women keep expanding their boast against God.
Women kill their own children, the seed of men, at the time of their calamity.
All these are so obvious to the world that the world rejoices that God’s people have become desolate from this.
God is furious at this, in His jealousy, because this is as shameful as the heathen.
Women have devoured men.
Women have bereaved His people of men.
Women have caused men to bear the shame of the heathen.
Women have defiled God’s people by doing things their way.
Women have profaned His holy name.
Women have slain men.
But God is for His people.
He will till us and plant new seed.
He will rebuild the waste.
He will make all better than our beginnings.
He will do this by multiplying men.
He will cause men to walk on women.
He will cause men to possess women.
He will cause men to possess all of His people.
Then men will stop being ashamed of women acting as the heathen.
God is not doing this for His people; He is doing this renewal for His sake, for His
holy name.
He will sprinkle clean water on women.
He will take away the heart of stone in women.
He will give women a heart of flesh.
He will give women a new spirit.
He will cause women to walk in His statutes.
He will cause women to keep His judgments.
He will cause women to recall their evil ways.
He will cause women to loathe themselves.
He will cause women to be ashamed and confounded for their ways.
God will till the desolate land; He will increase the harvest; He will restore all like the Garden of Eden.
He will restore the waste cities by increasing them with men.
He will bring flocks of men for His restoration.
And there is yet a great valley filled with dry bones; many dry bones.
These bones are those of the devoured men.
But God will breath upon these bones that have been slain, with His Word, that they may live.
And there will be a noise and a shaking, and the bones will come together, even
together with the bone of God.
These bones will stand to their feet as an exceedingly great army.
And these bones are the whole of the house of God.
God will then open the graves of all His people.
Then He will take His people out from the heathen and make them one nation with one King, in their own land.
And they all will know that He has spoken this and that He has performed this.
And He will make with them a covenant of peace.
And He will be their God and they will be His people.
*** Women are angry at God for giving the birthright to men. Women ARE all of the following, to attempt to steal that birthright from men:
*** Deceive: it’s what women do.
Rebel: it’s what women do.
Control: it’s what women do.
Manipulate: it’s what women do.
Witchcraft: it’s what women do.
Divert the point: it’s what women do.
Emotional pitch: it’s what women do.
Reject knowledge: it’s what women do.
Willingly ignorant: it’s what women do.
***The healing of the church starts with women. If you are so inclined to follow God’s commands for you then, ladies, I suggest starting with not saying a word; for a day, for a week. Then see if the spirit of the Lord has spoken to you via any means, as you have given up your control for that week or more. Then wait on the Lord further by waiting on your man.
This is not funny folks. Stop being nice and, rather, be good. This is Life or Death. Choose Life.
Pingback: Guarding her equality. | Reaction Times
Maybe the question should be asked of “Pastor” Chandler et al.: If we proclaim Christ as our headship, Christ, who was without sin, having fed the hungry, healed the sick, raised the dead, then why do we who proclaim to be His church, His bride, then rebel against Him and take up idols? How then can any man, who is not perfect as Christ was, live and present such an example that his wife would not rebel? The answer is that it is in our nature to rebel against God. And each of us are responsible for our own sins.
Wives would “submit” if their Husband was better than God.
As I and others have brought up before, women have a very difficult time with conceptualizing God as all-powerful Lord of the Universe. He is not palpable, nor does his power manifest itself in immediately obvious ways. Ergo, women, who are not long-term thinkers and who cannot generally grasp either the abstract or the “Big Picture” without immense difficulty (if ever at all), don’t really see God as ominipotent. Thus wives can easily lead themselves to believe that husbands should be able to match or even out-do God in all things as a matter of course. Any husband who doesn’t live up to this expectation is … well, a loser. SHE then has to do all the heavy lifting, in which case not only is her husband useless, but so is God for making her do all the “leading” in the marriage.
*** Women are angry at God for giving the birthright to men
Recalling Johnny Carson and his famous The Great Karnak character …
“What is the title and theme of a sermon that will NEVER be heard in any church?”.
if men are good enough women can’t even be tempted to rebel:
And who decides if men are good enough? Women. And if they aren’t good enough women rebel. The result is women controlling men by rebelling or threatening to rebel in order to get men to submit.
Brent and I have been married for almost thirteen years. In that time, he has always honored, blessed and encouraged me. He has never, ever said or done anything that would give me the impression that I am lesser than he. He trusts me completely, and gives up much on my account. When he fails, he is quick to seek forgiveness. I am left with the impression that he regards my desires and interests as more important than his own, and I feel cherished.
Therefore, the question of male-female equality has not been an issue in my mind. I am secure and confident in who God has made me as a woman. Brent upholds and guards my “equality” so I do not feel the need to do so.
Did anyone notice the one-sided nature of this arrangement? Brent always gives, and Kassian always receives. Looking even more closely, Kassian does not need equality, because she is already placed above her husband, who obviously pedestalizes her though this lopsided arrangement. Equality will be a demotion for her. Gynocentricism thinly veiled as “marital love”.
if men are good enough women can’t even be tempted to rebel…
In other words, If Christ were good enough, the Church would not be tempted to rebel…
Or If God were good enough, Israel (His wife) would not be tempted to rebel…
So, since both the Church and Israel rebelled……..[fill in the blank!]
“When Kassian says equality she means Female Supremacy without contradiction, responsibility or accountability.”
This theme keeps coming through. I’m reading Dalrock’s various analyses and following the links. Every time I come upon a (married) christian feminist holding forth on leadership, submission, or why she is not really a feminist; it always ends at the same place – she is the man and he is the woman. And the guy seems good with that.
Even in my most hapless wanderings through the blue fog there was a point beyond which I could not be pushed. The men in these stories are the ones pissing me off. As FH once said, women are what they are, no point always being angry at them about it. But these men are a severe problem. Not for the failings ascribed to them by Mary K and her ilk, but for failure at Basic Man 101.
Please! What complete BS. I guess God wasn’t good enough for Eve in the Garden of Eden either right?
Guys, we live in a gynocracy. They have no incentive to behave. Daddy government has their back no matter what you do. They don’t love you even if they claim they do. MGTOW’s the only option these days. Sorry but it’s just the world we live in these days. So do yourselves a favor and don’t put yourself in the position of slave to a cunt and her daddy the state.
Unlike what women claim they’re as dependent as ever. The difference is that now it’s the state not you. You can’t compete with modern daddy as he has more resources, power and force than any one man on the planet. Good luck competing with that.
What today’s lost generations will do is presume that since these pastors spew nonsense and have seminary degrees attesting to their knowledge of the Scriptures, the Scriptures are also nonsense and have nothing of value in them.
And that’s a tragedy. The “evangelical” church has become idolatrous, the irony being it will fail even at it’s top priority.
an underpinning belief of complementarianism is that the source of feminist resentment is sinful men, men who are not sufficiently nice and accommodating.
When you think about it, that an institution that the man trusts is giving him the worst possible advice, is quite tragic, really. I mean, one PUA can destroy an entire church singlehandedly, if he wanted to..
So IOW her little slave boy. F-off!
Ironic isn’t it? This secular fornicator is more truthful than the modern “churches”. What does that say about these bitch worshiping pastors these days? They’re a total joke.
Ironic isn’t it? This secular fornicator is more truthful than the modern “churches”. What does that say about these bitch worshiping pastors these days? They’re a total joke.
Of course. The PUA is increasing female happiness, and if he is teaching the skills for free, he is increasing male happiness too.
But if the worst possible advice to a man is the ‘accepted wisdom’ in contemporary churches, then the underpinnings of the church itself is a fragile house of cards. Even one tingle-generating man (PUA or otherwise) can demolish the entire church in short order, if he wanted…
When I brought this up a woman tried to tell me that just because Adam and Eve and the garden were perfect that we “just don’t know” what was going on that could have driven Eve to want to partake of the forbidden fruit. I think what she was getting at was that maybe Adam was being an ass and not “loving Eve as he should have been” and, thus, drove her to want to be deceived, once again attempting to take away any possible fault from the female of the species altogether.
Ironic isn’t it? This secular fornicator is more truthful than the modern “churches”. What does that say about these bitch worshiping pastors these days? They’re a total joke.
Then there are the churches where the “bitch-worshiping pastor” is also the PUA. Nice “work” if you can get it.
This is it right here. Eve was walking around in the garden of Eden best thing for a rebellious women is to be left in the cold on her own. Make sure she knows you don’t care if a rebellious woman dies a suffering death. problem fixed.
Don’t worry fellas the DNC is going to work with media and government to use any fraud they wish to get our girl Hillary in. That should be nothing to lose civil war time. Be a good time to just shoot the rebellious bitch or have her killed as a civil war tragedy. Nothing will restore pleasant femininity like the smell of a pile of rotting bodies.
Women are not going to change into something nice they can’t The best to be expected is nice behavior with the same selfish motivation of any woman on her way to an abortion clinic with money from 3 different men.
Yup. There’s more than a few of those too.
Teaching husbands to supplicate that God not be blasphemed.
“When he fails, he is quick to seek forgiveness.”
I would be curious how often and how quickly she seeks forgiveness for failing vs her husband. My guess is that even if she were to sin against him eventually in their marriage, that’s strictly his department to ask forgiveness as the “leader.”
I don’t know. “Equality” is not the right word to for the relationship between men and women (in a Christian context) use because it implies that you have the same status and role, which isn’t true.
But there is definitely an element where across the New Testament, Paul is deeply concerned with subordinated people not being humiliated in the christian community, and wives are at least supposed to be subordinated people. I feel like that’s what she could be expressing in an inartful way — that her husband protects her from feeling humiliated or *inferior* in her subordination to him.
If that’s what she means, I can appreciate that and the importance of it. Our culture is so disconnected from hierarchical sexual relationships that it’s hard for a lot of women (and men) to wrap their minds around a type of submission-headship that isn’t based in superiority and inferiority.
I would be curious how often and how quickly she seeks forgiveness for failing vs her husband.
How often and how quickly do domestic cats seek water to bathe in?
For a woman to “ask forgiveness” implies that she admits that she has committed some sort of sin or wrongdoing and that she is fully culpable. The next woman to do that will be the first.
Well put! But feeriker, what about muh equalitah?
Our culture is so disconnected from hierarchical sexual relationships that it’s hard for a lot of women (and men) to wrap their minds around a type of submission-headship that isn’t based in superiority and inferiority.
That’s an excellent observation, although I would remove the word “sexual;” hierarchical human relationships of any kind are generally looked upon with suspicion (at best) or revulsion (at worst) in our progressive egalitarian society. Between the extremes of libertine (“ain’t NOBODY the boss of me!”) and abusive-authoritarian (“I can destroy you with impunity!”), “society” has lost the ability to grasp that hierarchies have historically been far more often beneficial for all parties concerned. The structure provides stability, balance of accountability, protection, and direction, among other assets. With all the progressive push toward egalitarianism, the value of anything hierarchal is discounted.
WG Dupree, I have often pondered the same question. Once you make the connection, the expected conclusion is obviously illogical.
Here is reality: Insanity is believing that imperfect husbands will get better results than perfect God and Christ have gotten.
Take a look at this
Chandler is wrong because he is blind to the sinful nature of women. Mary Kassian is wrong because she inverts God’s stated order.
Matt Chandler says that if a man is a good enough Christian, then no wife would rebel against such a man. If that were so, then evangelicals would not have a divorce rate that approximates the secular world. Simple numbers are against his assertion.
Whenever I meet a woman who is divorced I ask her what happened. I always get the answer that her husband was abusive. I then ask her if she had pressed charges against him. No, she says, she wouldn’t do that. I therefore immediately know she is a “Duluth Divorcee”.
Mary Kassian says that Brent “always…always…always…”.
What does Brent get out of the arrangement? Is he a “supportive husband”? Dare we say, her “help meet”? If so, were the genders reversed, the statement would appear incredibly domineering and sexist.
This is an inversion of the order God established in Eden after the Fall. “Husband” means “manager”. SHE is HIS help meet, not HE, HERS.
Mary Kassian is neck deep in rebellion and can’t see it. She has no business teaching the Flock of Christ.
Are all men just “pigs”?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1019116
Publicly sharing spouse’s issues
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1019160
Seems like a false dichotomy between the petty-tyrant husband and Keep Momma Happy beta.
I think petty tyrants are less likely to be in the commitment-seeking market now because their dark-triad ways make them good players, though a lot of Baby Boomer and older wives are still stuck with them from when social conventions were different.
@spike
No woman is qualified to teach the flock of christ nor to have any authority over men. In scriptural matters only qualified men of God is allowed to teach. Letter to Ephesians make it clear.
@feeriker
We can trace this revolt against hierarchy itself to the enlightenment. Culminating in the 1st egalitarian revolt of the french revolution. Liberte,egalite,fraternity. Sound familiar?
Ultimately, I think that female lust for the power is central. Even though men are forbidden by God to treat unjustly (as defined by God), men still have the power as head and the goal of feminism is to produce powerless men.
The great irony is that Christian feminists promote powerless men then turn around and exalt the power of the man Jesus Christ. For that phenomenon, I can only surmise that they praise Jesus in the way a woman might praise a male character from romance novel.
M.W. Peak
You seem to grasp female nature. Too many speak of women Christ and faith as if woman give a damn. They don’t. The most irresponsible thing any man can do is project any kind of virtue on to a female. The scripture is for men. Women don’t give a hoot because they don’t have to. This conversation on Mary Kassian means because she has full legal,cultural and now churchian authority over her husband. Everybody knows it too. And in true female fashion gives zero fucks about scripture, the church, or in christian faith in general.
When I brought this up a woman tried to tell me that just because Adam and Eve and the garden were perfect that we “just don’t know” what was going on that could have driven Eve to want to partake of the forbidden fruit.
Well, of course.
Not to beat a dead horse, but this will always be the tack taken (if women are doing this, it’s because they were reacting to mistreatment from men). It’s the natural pass the buck tack. But it is supported neither by Genesis (God notes that Adam’s sin was listening to Eve (and not God), and doesn’t say anything about being responsible for Eve’s sin) not by Paul, who also notes Eve’s rebellion when discussing why women should not be speaking in church. Of course, this is very uncomfortable for women to hear, and therefore the Christian establishment either (1) relativizes the texts out of any continuing meaning (what the liberal/left/progressive “Christians” do) or (2) reinterprets it in a way that is relatively un-threatening to contemporary women by inserting the concept that women are essentially less to blame for their behaviors than men are — essentially reinterpreting both Genesis and Paul as implying a lack of female moral agency, and its replacement with sole moral agency for her acts of the men around her. This is done because, as Dalrock has often noted, it feels good to hold men to account and bad to hold women to account in this culture, and if one does the latter all one receives is wrath from everyone (women and white knight men).
…hierarchical human relationships of any kind are generally looked upon with suspicion (at best) or revulsion (at worst) in our progressive egalitarian society.
The only types of human relationships possible are hierarchical in nature. Look around you. There is not a single human relationship you could point to that is not hierarchical. Even in the US Senate, where every Senator has an equal vote, there is still a “Senate Majority Leader”, and ordinary Senators.
Even here on Dalrock’s site, we know who the leader is, though most of us are anonymous.
Fact is, wherever we find two or more humans relating, there is often a leader and a follower. The major reason why Western marriages tend to end in divorce, I fear, is their rejection of the natural order.
greyghost says:
July 27, 2016 at 8:08 am
EXACTLY.
Really, folks, this is about as succintly comprehensive an explanation as anyone needs. The whole “women teaching Scripture” phenomenon is not only a violation of Scripture itself, but, even where the target auience is other women, a complete waste of time, as well as a travesty of Scriptural perversion.
@Spike “Whenever I meet a woman who is divorced I ask her what happened.”
I like that. It gets the nitty gritty conversation going. No nice lies anymore. I’ll have to try that. The reverse is that when I talk to a divorced man fairly close to me I have begun to say “I bet she forced you away.” It get him thinking.
We need to force this dialogue.
>>>@LeeLee: “Paul is deeply concerned with subordinated people not being humiliated in the christian community, and wives are at least supposed to be subordinated people. I feel like that’s what she could be expressing in an inartful way — that her husband protects her from feeling humiliated or *inferior* in her subordination to him.”
This is not wrong but there is a deeper problem. The Bible was written to a patriarchal culture. Men were in charge. Women were married off at 13 and started having babies. Adultery was a death penalty offense.
In such a culture, the message of “be good to one another” and “men should respect the weaker vessel” was very much needed. Slaves are to obey their masters but masters are to consider the needs of their slaves. Men are to honor women and not treat them badly.
In today’s culture, the message of “be forgiving and kind” has become inverted because the power has been taken from men and given to women. Thus the Biblical message has little relevance today and much of it can be interpreted as “Blue Pill Indoctrination” given the power of women today.
Supplicating “servant leadership” and washing the feet of your wife every night is not bad advice when you can whip a wife for mouthing off to you. It is not bad advice when the patriarch holds the power. It is not bad advice when the women is “trapped” at home with a gaggle of kids at age 15. However, when women can make a phone call and have their husband arrested for looking at them cross-eyed, and when they have an easier time getting jobs than men, and when the patriarch is reduced to a sniveling, groveling mouse, then piling on and telling him that Scripture requires he love his wife like Christ loves the Church and anything that goes wrong is his fault approaches the level of Evil! You are continuing the Biblical model of responsibility resting with the man BUT taking all the power from the man.
In short, the Biblical model applied to modern times is saddling the man with ALL the responsibility and NONE of the power. No thanks! That is NOT what Jesus and Paul and Peter meant.
MarcusD says:
July 27, 2016 at 12:41 am
Are all men just “pigs”?
I saw that link. That letter on that site says a lot about women in Western societies today.
“I am left with the impression that he regards my desires and interests as more important than his own…”
Oh dear. Marriage in trouble. Deep in her limbic system a woman hates hates hates to be put on a pedestal.
@Spike,
“This is an inversion of the order God established in Eden after the Fall. “Husband” means “manager”. SHE is HIS help meet, not HE, HERS.”
This is an important point. In addition to inverting headship, complementarians and egalitarians also invert helpmeetness. The husband is supposed to work to ensure that the wife has time to finish college, advance in her career, and/or pursue a ministry. Husbands are supposed to help their wives become the next Joyce Meyer or Beth Moore or Mary Kassian. Having more than 1 to 3 children is a waste of time for most of these women.
Now that you can have pastors who are gay and women of color, there is no need for Biblical purity before marriage:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/07/27/as-a-young-evangelical-i-believed-a-bestselling-book-that-warned-me-to-stay-pure-until-marriage-i-still-have-a-stain-on-my-heart/
I don’t mean to change the topic of the post, but I see so much feminist Christianity being spewed everywhere that here is the only place where I know it can be addressed.
I do appreciate Dalrock’s effort to call out what APPEARS to be a response to Christian feminism. I just wonder how much influence the Complementarian Movement has among believers. I never encounter it in mainstream publications. I see articles more along this type:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/07/20/why-some-young-evangelical-women-are-drawn-to-feminism-and-to-hillary-clinton/?tid=a_inl
From the above article, “God created man and woman in his image, and gender inequality emerged post-Fall. So the movements of gender equality are works of God.”
Well said.
They may as well just call themselves pagans.
@Blue Pill Professor
Like the command to women to submit to their husbands, the command to husbands to love their wives and honor them as the weaker vessel is timeless. They were not “rooted in their times”, as modernists claim.
Please forgive my bluntness, but this is just dumb. Feminists (admitted or otherwise) want to pretend that Christian men are brutes who want to abuse their wives. It isn’t true (for the vast majority), which is why men, especially Christian men, are so eager to vote for protections for wives. This kind of comment invites the very claim feminists want to make. This is Women’s Studies Department thinking.
“In that time, he has always honored, blessed and encouraged me. He has never, ever said or done anything that would give me the impression that I am lesser than he. He trusts me completely, and gives up much on my account. When he fails, he is [always] quick to seek forgiveness. I am left with the impression that he regards my desires and interests as more important than his own, and I feel cherished.”
Her husband has to be perfect all the time, but she only needs to have one bad feeling to blow up their marriage.
Kind of like how the authorities have to be right all of the time, but the terrorists only need to be successful once.
@BluePillProfessor — I understand what you mean. There isn’t much about being a submissive wife in our culture that is humiliating, given that the law grants us quite a bit of power in our relationships. Outside of very abnormal marriages, it’s not going to be something that’s forced upon a woman, it’s going to be a personal choice.
Please! No it doesn’t. I got news for you but they think that way no matter what you say or do pal. Men are kissing women’s asses these days, so much so that many of them have just become effeminate. Do you think that has stopped them from screaming abuse? Uh, no. They simply expand the definition of abuse even further. The “less violent” you are the more they will keep expanding the definition of it so that you WILL fit into the category they want to place you in no matter what you do or say. Hell, in some places it’s now “abusive” to refuse to let your wife or girlfriend spend every penny you’ve got. You see that’s “controlling”.
@Jim
I know that. In fact, this is what I want to write about. My objection is to those who want to change the subject, as BPP did, and as you seem to also want to do, in exactly the way that feminists want to change the subject.
I’ll put it another way. If the desire is to stop talking about the absurdity of Duluth and the complementarian reversal of headship and submission, then changing the subject to husbands whipping their wives isn’t dumb. In that situation, it is quite brilliant. But I don’t want to change the subject, and moreover aside from a very small fringe minority, husbands don’t want to whip their wives. Christian husbands whipping their wives lives almost exclusively in the fantasies of feminists. But if you don’t want to talk about Duluth or inverting headship, then changing the subject in this way is a master stroke of squid ink.
When I read the nonsensical screed produced by evangelicals to cover up the anti-biblical anti-Christ rebellion the women in their organizations are engaged in, what comes to mind is: https://youtu.be/eZgal7B_FM0
I’m sorry, being ‘nice’ to women has not worked and never will. The truth is all you have. Use it.
The Bible is timeless, sure.. but laws are not. The laws are written to stop Biblical marriage and to screw over those who try. The laws are written to destroy the Patriarch, to destroy the attempt of men to even try and lead. By leading, the man is abusing, that is the paradigm under which Christian men find themselves. That is what the Duluth model means, it is a trap. You either agree with it and become a servant to your wife, or disagree with it and be labeled an abuser in waiting. There is no debate, no negotiation, any man who disagrees is a brute.
I’ve never actually ever heard Christian Church leader state that husbands should beat their wives, never. Not for any reason at all. All I’ve ever heard is for men to love their wives and treat them as a weaker vessel and be her rock. I’ve never heard the Church state that wives need to respect their husbands and love them and support them, to make them the best man they can be. All I’ve ever heard is that the man is immediately ten times better off for being married, just that simple, the woman has zero obligation to fulfill her wifely role.
At this point in time the idea of Biblical marriage is great but it does not exist for the vast majority of Christian men. Women are a product of this culture and don’t seem to even notice the destruction being wrought on men or manhood by the laws, education system, single parent homes and divorce courts. That or they simply don’t care. Marriage is a stepping stone for them, a try out, a 30 day guarantee where she gets to both keep the product and future revenue.
The Duluth model and the Christians who run with this shit haven’t just flipped the headship script, they’ve out right destroyed real marriage and replaced it with a temporary servant card for the man that can be revoked with punishment at the whims of the women. It’s insanity, but it is believed and promoted and paid for by the same women who men are meant to commit to.
It is madness.
I didn’t change the subject, I just responded to your post in response to what BPP posted. And if you ask me, discussing authority has everything to do with the Duluth model since it not only shifts the authority from the husband to the wife but criminalizes men to the point where we’re just basically so hogtied that looking at her wrong is “abuse”. Like I said before, what the Duluth model is doing is opening the door to simply inventing reasons to further criminalize fathers, husbands, and masculinity in general.
And btw who the hell WANTS to whip their wives? Damn, it can sometimes even be hard just to tell a wife or girlfriend no sometimes (but guys at the very least need to grow some balls and at least say “no” for once), especially when she’s a sweet girl (a rarity these days).
As for the Duluth model itself? We all know it’s just a misandric piece of shit. The worst thing that can people can do is to destroy the men of their society. Why? Because men built it. Hell, 97% of all inventions came from the mind of a man. Why is this important to discussing the Duluth model? It’s kind of obvious. When you shift the authority to the woman civilization will collapse at some point in the future. If people don’t want to see women raped, abused, or whatever (since this seems to be the only thing most people care about) then destroying the men of your society is not just stupid but insane.
It also sticks in my craw that our predecessors worked their asses off to build what we have now. And like a bunch of spoiled brat children we’re throwing it away. Physically, we’ve got it SO EASY compared to those that laid the foundations for what we have now. Ever see those pictures of young boys (illegal these days) working in coal mines (which of course the girls didn’t have to do) and at a time when it was even more dangerous than it is now? People are literally SPITTING on them by instituting misandric laws like VAWA and promoting crap like the Duluth model. You’d think more people could stop for two seconds to not only thank God but thank our predecessors who busted their asses so didn’t have to. I tell you what, I think about it ever day and posthumously thank them for it to boot! Why? Because I’m damned grateful for what they did.
To sum up, things like the Duluth Model, VAWA, the misandric government schools, media are destroying young boys and thereby destroying the entire civilization as a result. even worse, the so-called “Christian” churches are actually helping these nutcases with their dirty work. To me the Duluth model is just part of a larger package.
Anyway, enough for now.
Also, I think what BPP actually meant wasn’t that husbands should hit their wives at all. He was making a comparison. In one scenario, the man has the power to hit his wife without fear and thus teaching him to love her and treat her kindly goes a long way in stopping a man from using this power. Whereas, in the scenario we currently find ourselves in, where the wife has the power, telling a man to do all the above merely allows the wife more power.
In the end, it’s about control. Women have it all and men have none but their physical ability, which is constrained by laws, rules, shame and blue pill thinking.
It is a neat little way of removing the power of husbands and replacing it within a governmental structure where women are protected and provided for and believed over men. The word of a woman is believed over the innocence of a man. The truth, the hard truth, is that women want this, they want a powerless husband who pretends to lead but does what she wants and when he fails, she wants the power to evict him, turn him into a scapegoat and deprive him of any love, community or help, she wants to destroy him and will give all power to the state in order to do so.
I’ve just read another faceplant post by a woman stating that Canadian women are done with this shit, mentioning the Ghomeshi trial where some leftist dickhead had sex with multitudes of women who wanted it but then discovered they didn’t like being used and conspired against him and lied in court. They were proven to be liars but this wasn’t enough for the special snowflake, him ‘getting off’ is proof that men, all men, get away with constant abuse.
You can’t negotiate with that, you can’t marry that, it’s a disease that has infected the core and there is no cure. No rational play here gents. It’s FUBAR.
Feminist Hater
That is truth and reality. 99% of christian talk is just a work around for reality. By law there is no headship and by law there is no wife period. The only way for any man to have a wife is to lie to himself as every man here does every second of every day. That is the way it is. The Christian church is churchian to delude themselves they are christian in faith.
https://www.thebeaverton.com/national/item/2555-nation-s-women-fucking-done-with-this-shit
The post in question.
Yup. You know it’s interesting. It wasn’t possible to destroy Christianity by persecuting them as a whole. But it seems just removing the authority from the husband/father has achieved it beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. What sane man wants to get married when Mr. Duluth, Mzzzz VAWA, his cunt wife and their nanny-state minions can just haul you away, throw you in a cage like an animal where you can become a rape slave, take your kids, your car, house, and everything you ever worked for and become a pariah (but somehow having your entire life totally annihilated in every way possible is not nearly as bad as a little spanking. lol, ok) on top of that?
No thanks.
Thanks to the Duluth model, VAWA and so on a man can even be stabbed multiple times by his wife and STILL be the one taken away in handcuffs. After being stabbed! And this even though she won’t have a mark on her (yes, this has actually happened).
This. Period. It isn’t rocket science.
Lol, okay, they got me there. That’s a satire site, well, truth is stranger than fiction..
@Jim
Yes, but what I objected to wasn’t a discussion of authority and the Duluth model. What I objected to is a strange sort of combox Tourettes syndrome, where (in this case BPP) suddenly blurts out something about a husband whipping his wife for mouthing off.
Right. I don’t know anyone who does. Our problem is that men are afraid to even acknowledge bad behavior by women, let alone say no. And if someone reading does want this (because the internet is a very big place), they can go discuss/advocate it somewhere other than my blog. But blurting it out is a brilliant troll, either intentional or not.
bluepillprofessor @ 10:30 am:
“The Bible was written to a patriarchal culture. … Thus the Biblical message has little relevance today and much of it can be interpreted as “Blue Pill Indoctrination” given the power of women today.”
People today don’t obey the Bible, therefore we should get rid of the Bible? Haven’t heard that logic since people decided that because the Elites don’t obey the Constitution, we should get rid of the Constitution. It’s a thinly disguised wish to be free of morality just like the bad boys.
Yes, moral behavior creates weakness and exploitability. No, the immoral will not escape justice.
Keep in mind that bluepillprofessor often goes in strange directions.
Like here, where he said that men will be fired for refusing to give blowjobs to trannies on the subway (i.e. in public view) in 4-5 years :
Quote from him :
He will whip it out on the subway and if you don’t drop to your knees and service it immediately ALL the women in earshot will howl and scold you for “Transphobia” and “hate speech.” ALL the women will scowl at the offending man. Some of the women will contact your boss at work complaining about your hate speech. Men WILL be fired for refusing to service a tranny on the subway within 4 years. Watch for it.
That was unpleasant to read. Anyone who thinks that this will be a reality (not for lack of SJW wish for it, but inability to enforce it), is……..strange, to say the least.
Keep in mind that bluepillprofessor often goes in strange directions.
Oh come now, we’re all prone to using excessive hyperbole here at times. It’s almost unavoidable given the subject matter we discuss. Very clearly BPP wasn’t literally declaring that all hetero men will be coerced into becoming bitches-on-demand for deviants within a few short years. His point –a well-taken one, I might add– is that objections by heterosexual Christian men to the public evangelization (and that’s exactly what it is) by the deviant classes of their perverse lifestyles will be censored or even criminalized. THAT no reasonable person could dismiss out of hand as impossible, given current trends in law and public policy that are already moving in that direction.
Just as obvious is that BPP was NOT advocating or even implying that men beat their wives. He was using an extreme hypothetical example to illustrate –very effectively, I might add– why, when the balance of power between the sexes has been almost fully inverted, the instructions given in Ephesians 5 make less sense to us today than they would have to the church at Ephesus 1,950 years ago – which does NOT mean “get rid of them.” It merely means that until the current infection that is modern secular egalitarian “marriage,” something bearing not even a smattering of resemblance to what God ordained, is cured and purged from the church, said instructions are effectively impossible to follow.
Leif Erikson remarried.
Having a blast with my new bride on our honeymoon (Skellig Michael Island). #blessed #starwars7 pic.twitter.com/XkCwvSKWue
— Leif Erikson (@Tremorden) June 27, 2016
@AR:
That’s sort of fascinating. Though not surprising.
For the record, I do not support any man beating or physically disciplining his wife or even restraining her except in the most extreme circumstances for safety purposes with a hysterical woman (or as sex play of course :).
I DO support the right of a man to have this power because if he does not have this power, then he cannot have full responsibility. IF men had this right- or really any power in marriage today- I would eagerly follow the example of Jesus, and Paul, and Peter and strongly encourage men to be kind to their wives as the weaker vessel and co-heir to the gift of eternal life. Unfortunately the power dynamic today is different than the power dynamic in the 1st Century. The words are timeless but the audiences change. Jesus was talking to masters and Patriarchs. Kassian is talking to mistresses and matriarchs. If there are any Patriarchs out there who are in full control of their wives and children (using whatever means are necessary) and the children and women genuinely fear those husbands, then THEY are the “Servant Leadership” and “mutual submission” audience, not the typical husband of today.
I want to say these preachers claiming that women cannot even be tempted to rebel if men were more Godly than God are insane. It makes me breathless with anger when I am confronted with this ideology. They argue that Adam was the one who sinned because he didn’t control Eve. We don’t know precisely what kind of “control mechanism” Adam might have had over Eve, but we can safely assume that whatever authority Adam had is vastly greater than a husbands authority today. Yet still today- thousands of years later- it is STILL the man’s fault when women sin. How…how..how…..how can it be the mans fault when he has no power? I don’t get it and I don’t get how any person can believe this. Adam was given dominion over Eve by God himself, personally, and he failed so (the fems reason) when Eve sinned it was Adams fault. I always thought that was so wrong and enraging. Yet the enraging claim about the Fall is nothing compared to the carry over of that claim today. Today husbands have 0 dominion and it is STILL the man’s fault when women sin. That is not wrong and enraging. It is stupefying.
This paradigm of male power is certainly not confined to the prohibited topic. Forget smacking around your wife and kids, men in Rome had the literal power of life and death over their wives and children. A man’s home was truly his castle. Today, men have no right to even have sex with their own wife. Men have no right to be safe in their own home. The wife can make a phone call AT ANY TIME and have him removed from his castle in chains. The wife can raise her voice and even physically injure the husband with no consequences. She can lie in court and take away his children on a whim. Yet even on this otherwise open and free blog, the mere possibility of a husband proactively defending himself in kind from physical attacks from a hysterical woman are not even allowed to be discussed! Bear in mind that this [prohibited topic] was not even outlawed until the 1950’s and was employed through all of human history in every society- EVER. Perhaps (like gay marriage) there are hidden reasons for ancient social customs and practices employed by virtually every society in all the world? But let us not drag this thread further into prohibited territory. I acknowledge that our host has good reason to ban this thread derailing topic. It’s just that Kassian brings up those fee…. never mind.
>>>>@Anon: Great quote! I was wasted when I wrote it but I stand by it. Something very much like this WILL happen within 5 years. I have millennial boys and the pressure to say NOTHING bad about gays or gay marriage is already intense. They are not even allowed to show disgust at gay men kissing and feeling each other up in public or on TV shows. Girls and manginas will very aggressively call them out in public and shame them. For example, if a gay kid asks them out and they dare show disgust women and white knights will will descend like locust on the offending boy. He will be labeled a “hater” and “homophobe.” THIS is the state of affairs TODAY. How much worse will it get? First it becomes legal. Then it becomes mandatory. I am not saying this extreme, graphic, and disgusting scenario I paint will be common but I am saying- and standing by what I said- that there will be a news story in 5 years where a young straight male was coerced by social pressure because he was bullied, socially ostracized, FB posts, whatever- and as a result was “forced” to service a gay male. The case could even be a sexual assault case. The ultimate form of regret sex. More likely it will be another suicide buried in the headlines.
@Dalrock, are there ANY other bloggers covering this material about female rebellion in the churches? Is there anybody else willing to stand up to these heretical doctrines except an anonymous blogger? Do we have any allies whatsoever in God’s church?
>>>>””Brent upholds and guards my “equality” so I do not feel the need to do so.””
Need we ask who decides whether, when, and how Ms. Kassian gets to defend her equality? Nah.
Leif Erikson remarried.
Congratulations to Leif!
Hopefully his new bride is not an AW, but if she is, let’s hope he has done a thorough vetting of her to make sure she has nothing but her sex in common with his previous nightmare.
Speaking of unpleasant history, is she-who-will-not-be-named still blogging, or did her divorce and subsequent attention-whoring cost her following? I’d love to discover that her world now consists of a lonely, cat-filled apartment.
@LeeLee
As per the parable of the talents men are created unequal both in rank and ability. While that does not mean that people cannot improve their position. Nonetheless in the eyes of God this inferiority and superiority is a fact. However those who are given more more is demanded of them and for those given less less is demanded of them.
In accordance with what people have been entrusted with God will judge fairly. Hence in his eyes the faithful pauper is superior to the faithless king.
The problem is not with inequality but how people respond to it. Envy is among the 7 deadly sins for a good reason.
feeriker says:
July 27, 2016 at 11:07 pm
I was also curious about that, and she-who-is-not-to-be-named hasn’t put any new posts on her blog since March 2014. No surprises there. I can’t help but wonder if her order of priorities listed as:
“God, Family, Politics, Wine” are still the same. I suspect that wine may have moved up the order, I could be wrong…
infowarrior1 says:
July 27, 2016 at 6:29 am
@spike
“No woman is qualified to teach the flock of christ nor to have any authority over men. In scriptural matters only qualified men of God is allowed to teach. Letter to Ephesians make it clear.”
Amen to that if1.
Where I live there are a number of liberal churches. If you read the board outside it says “Rev Dorothy..” and “rev Lorraine…”, after which I stop reading. In my opinion, they are practising Satanism, not Christianity, since every time I have seen a woman minister or pastor, she is dismissive of the Pauline letters as if they weren’t Scripture. I can bet that the same will deny the Resurrection when pressed.
Mary Kassian is no different. If she cannot uphold this part of Scripture, what else will she discard when its’inconvenient?
@feeriker:
Her blog is all but dead, it seems, but she’s active on Twitter. With her “9k” followers. (Half of Twitter is simply bots these days.) Her day job now appears to be Celebrity Blogging at a website.
BPP:
“Do we have any allies whatsoever in God’s church?”
If God is for us, who can be against us?
infowarrior1:
“In scriptural matters only qualified men of God is allowed to teach…”
Who are these qualified men? Do husbands qualify? Or graduates of seminaries? Or the likes of Chandler and Driscoll?
I can’t help but wonder if her order of priorities listed as:
“God, Family, Politics, Wine” are still the same. I suspect that wine may have moved up the order, I could be wrong…
Well, we know that “God” and “Family” aren’t even on the list at all anymore.
feeriker says:
July 28, 2016 at 2:40 am
That would only leave “politics and wine”. I pity those children.
When a woman usurps the order of God by divorcing her husband she has ostensibly divorced herself from God.
Dalrock, regarding BPP and “whipping”. When I first started realizing how supplicating I was and at what level the rebellion in my wife and women in general actually existed I felt overwhelmed. Angry, frustrated, alone? Yes. That everything was lines up against me being a Godly leader in my home, and having all the tools removed from me that would help do what they say that they wanted me to do. It’s perverse.
The simplest way of dealing with that frustration, that is physically, is also immediately disqualifying. Respect and strength come from strong leadership. From the ACTUAL authority God has given us, not the false perverse authority that Churchianity tries to foist on us. Our wives NEED strong leadership. This comes by believing God’s word, ignoring the culture and having faith and confidence In the tools and authority we actually have been given.
We need to build it according to the model that God has given us. The feminists and our culture are going to oppose us every step of the way. That is their job. They are our Satan.
Satan wants us to fail by taking short cuts, by throwing our hands up and quitting, by losing hope and faith, by mocking us with the perversion of feminism oozing out of every pore of ever that we touch. God wants us to resist and in so doing become sons.
I’m not surprised when I see hopelessness, I feel it myself all the time. The troll lives in my heart as well. It’s my weakness.
On the other hand we get the opportunity to prove God is right every day, right in the teeth of perverts. Anyone want a pass on that?
From a non-religious point of view having a woman in charge whether she be a humble Pastor or Head of State feels much as if one were back in Grade School or in the presence as a child of ones Mother. That is fine when one is seven or less years of age but utterly humiliating (for a man) when one has reached the age of reason. Men can argue and disagree amongst themselves but one cannot hit a girl either physically or verbally and it always feels wrong to do so and thus you see men simply caving-in to female envy. Paul (and Genesis) were therefore entirely correct and our pandering to the female sex is going to end very badly – and I would suggest with a religion which has no truck with such sentimentality.
Graduates of seminaries do not usually have much detailed knowledge. You could fill libraries with what they do not know.
@chokingonredpills
Men who leads an orderly household, gentle, not given to drunkeness, above reproach.
The qualifications for elders (who teach)as well as deacons. Laid out in the letters of paul. Dont know of people called pastors in scripture.
Not theological phds mate.
This will not work for majority of men. Your confidence, your tools, your authority can be stripped away like a towel to reveal your naked self. You cannot win against a system, built top down to strip you have any respect, authority, love or companionship. This system wouldn’t work at all if it did not hopelessly cater to a woman’s nature. Eve was deceived and women have been deceived again, it is they, not the state or Satan who threw men under the bus for the ability to mark on X on a piece of paper.
Furthermore, only attractive men really have the ability to garner attraction for long periods of time needed to keep a marriage on track, an average man does not have the genetic tools at his disposal to keep a woman attracted to him and thus not wanting to use the force of the state on him. Telling average men to get married and try to lead Godly lives with wives is asking them to tread a path not open to them, one which has been purposefully mined and booby trapped.
You don’t need the threat of physical violence to keep women in check. What men have always required and was law till a few decades ago was the simple checks and balances in regards to divorce law. If a woman divorces or cheats or causing family destruction, she was the one to leave, both the assets and the children. And by doing so, created a stumbling block for many of the whispers heard by women today. By undoing that and by incorporating the Duluth model, innocent men have no incentive to get married, it’s a lose – lose scenario, especially so for average to below average men.
Christianity isn’t going to survive because all of us over come this and have children, no, most of us will die childless but by having done so, the population will crater and cause the complete destruction of available resources which in turn causes this whole arrangement of machinery against men to crumble. Hopefully, the Christians left will be strong, fit, good looking and best of all, free of the state.
I was also curious about that, and she-who-is-not-to-be-named hasn’t put any new posts on her blog since March 2014.
Reality must have set in. I wonder how bad she must have felt when Leif told her he was dating again…..the thought of him finding love again when she was still saddled with her kids and her blog must have been crushing.
And then Leif introduced his girlfriend to her….the sight of the girlfriend walking hand in hand with Leif must have totally destroyed her, but her grief did not end there….
….then Leif announced his engagement to his girlfriend……and eventually called to tell her about his wedding date…
“You can come, you know. As a matter of fact, we’d be delighted if you came for the wedding…our daughters will be flower girls…”
At that stage she must have seen the utter emptiness of her miserable life. Maybe she saw for the first time how utterly foolish she has been to blow up the most important thing in her life. It is like a man who blew up his head in a suicide, only to open his eyes in hell, under the feet of Lucifer himself, and countless demons shrieking in his ears.
The rebellion starts deeper; if husbands are to wives as Christ as to the Church; and husbands can command wives, then Christ could command the Church (i.e. the ministers).
They will say that there was no point keeping a bad marriage alive, and though one wishes Leif all the best, remarriage is not I think something to be indulged in; even so, 50% of divorced men remarry within five years of divorce, a figure which women do not match. Any woman whose priorities include Politics is exhibiting red-flag behaviour and much the same goes for an interest in booze. I suspect the unnamed woman’s priorities are the same as before but now in reverse order.
Marriage is a serious business to be entered into neither lightly nor frivolously but perhaps like youth it is wasted on the young.
@ bluepillprofessor says:
July 27, 2016 at 10:19 pm
“IF men had this right- or really any power in marriage today- I would eagerly follow the example of Jesus, and Paul, and Peter and strongly encourage men to be kind to their wives as the weaker vessel and co-heir to the gift of eternal life. Unfortunately the power dynamic today is different than the power dynamic in the 1st Century.”
So, God’s commandments that wives love (Titus 2:4), respect (Eph 5:33), obey (1 Peter 3:1) and submit (Eph 5:22) to their husbands are timeless, unconditional and independent of culture…
… but God’s commandments that husbands live with their wives in understanding, treat them as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7), love them as Christ loves the Church (Eph 5:25, 33), and as they love their own bodies (Eph 5:28), and cleanse their wives by the washing with water through the word (Eph 5:26) are bound by time, conditional and dependent on cultural forces.
Ohhhhhh….kay.
Feminist Hater
Glad you brought the conversation forward to some real world solutions based on actual policy.
This is how it is. No man married in the west is in headship. No one here no matter how Christian and righteous you are you do not run your home by law. All headship is delusional and the churchian church the subjects of the the last few articles from Dalrock are an indication of the work around. The complementarian, egalitarian bullshit is the lie told to work around the law. The results in the end is destruction. The black community is the senseless violence and the focus on race with BLM. Europe is now routinely under attack from terrorist gleefully invited in. With the German government making a booklet for the new arrivals on ways to get laid.
I had a conversation with a guy on the recent effective attacks on the armed police. I told him the fix for the black community was to respect married family men. All family court and police should make loud and clear any man committed to a wife and had children has a couple would never lose his children or respect as a husband and father. Baby mommas and thug daddies would be handled as we do now.
The feminists and our culture are going to oppose us every step of the way. That is their job. They are our Satan.
Satan wants us to fail by taking short cuts, by throwing our hands up and quitting, by losing hope and faith, by mocking us with the perversion of feminism oozing out of every pore of ever that we touch. God wants us to resist and in so doing become sons.
You neglected to mention the church here. The church, by caving in to the culture and undermining biblical headship by the husband at every turn, has become a de facto force within Satan’s army. No one wants to admit this, but it is unavoidably obvious.
Reality must have set in. I wonder how bad she must have felt when Leif told her he was dating again…..the thought of him finding love again when she was still saddled with her kids and her blog must have been crushing.
And then Leif introduced his girlfriend to her….the sight of the girlfriend walking hand in hand with Leif must have totally destroyed her, but her grief did not end there….
….then Leif announced his engagement to his girlfriend……and eventually called to tell her about his wedding date…
I can relate fully to Leif right now. My ex, like his ex, felt absolutely certain that without her I’d never find love again. How VERY wrong she was. Matter o’ fact, as soon as she finds out just who came along and picked up what she chose to throw away (imagine being dumped by the Loch Ness Monster and being claimed by a mermaid), she is going to go from being frustrated and depressed as she is right now to full-on bat-shit crazy with psychotic rage.
I really don’t want to marinate in Schadenfreude mode, as I do not wish my ex any ill and hold no residual bitterness toward her for what she did (if you were to meet the woman who is her replacement you’d immediately understand why). It’s just incredible, though, how women can not only refuse to exercise any agency shatsoever, but reserve the right to “reclaim” what they threw away whenever they think it suits them.
I wish I had Leif’s mailing address. I’d like to send him a T-Shirt that reads “Jenny WHO?”
shatsoever
I was about to correct this, but I think my fat finger just created a new word with some potential use.
Oscar, maybe you are missing the point. Both are to be taught.
Imagine, if you will, that society was a real Patriarchal place, where men were allowed to beat their wives, divorce them, leave them on the street and have fun and not care about family or society. Now, in that scenario, does it do well to constantly hammer on about a woman’s role to submit to her husband whilst constantly saying the husband doesn’t have to lift a finger and his wife is always deserving of her fate? Well, does it? Probably not, however, if those husbands were taught to love their wives and treat them as the weaker vessel whilst also telling wives to submit would create an environment where at least most marriages would still work without any violence.
Now, turn the tables and wonder what happens when women are the ones with power and control and the ability to abuse and destroy their husbands and family. Whilst we still should teach men to love and treat their wives well, it does nothing but give women more control and power when the opposite isn’t hammered into women. I can guarantee you that if Christian women were taught consistently that there is no excuse not to submit to their husbands and that their sin is their own and they were the one being deceived, the power of the state to usurp husbands’ authority in the home would be considerably diminished even with the current set of laws against men.
Scripture doesn’t change, the points in life when different scripture become more useful most certainly does.
@BPP & Jim
Behind your comment, providing the foundation for it, is the lie that you or I are better or wiser or more self-controlled than the men who lived before us. You have been led astray by the propaganda of “human progress” which we call education. It is false. While there has been a lot of technological progress, the human condition has not changed one whit.
The evidence from the Bible (specifically from the writings of St. Paul and St. Peter) show us that this is true. If it were true that the men of the past were abusive brutes controlling the lives of women they would not have to encourage wives and children and servants to be obedient, or to warn them against rebellion and pilfering and all the other petty things that those in submission did then and still do today.
Those letters which we (rightfully) have compiled into the Bible were instructions written to real and specific people about specific problems that they really had. So when St. Paul wrote…
…what can we glean from this?
1. Men don’t want to pray boldly
2. Men aren’t very bold in general
3. Men tend to get distracted into quarreling over unimportant things.
4. Men tend to only be bold in disagreement.
5. Women tend to dress disrespectfully, immodestly, and without self-control
6. Women want to show off wealth
7. Women want to teach and not be taught
8. Women want to be in authority over men
9. Women want to be loud.
10. Women are easily deceived.
11. What really teaches a woman about her own sinful nature and her need for repentance, forgiveness, and salvation is the work of being a mother over other selfish and ungrateful subordinates.
This is description fits us moderns perfectly. There is no human progress, and there has never been a time when men (as a group) were overlording brutes and women were put-upon innocents. That lie was manufactured to support political rebellion, women’s suffrage, Feminism, etc. Men have always wanted to give-in and listen to the voices of their wives.
The folks at CBMW and their like (Piper, Driscoll, et al) have been tripped up by the same lie you have. It’s easy to do because it is seductive to think that we are better men than those who went before us.
@FH
1. That place has never existed.
2. If it did exist, that would not be a real Patriarchal place. A patriarch is a father; not just a man. To be a father is to care about family and society. A man who put his family out on the streets would lose his patriarchal status and be dealt with by the remaining patriarchs in a variety of ways.
Hypothetical, deal with the question please, stop trying to twist the premise.
@ Feminist Hater says:
July 28, 2016 at 9:07 am
“Both are to be taught.”
Support your assertion with scripture.
What assertions, are not both requirements of men’s and women’s roles within marriage to be taught.
@FH
In no way did I twist your premise, and any question is irrelevant if the premise of that question is bogus. It’s like that old joke/cut-down: “Do your parents know you’re gay?”
More importantly: By accepting that false premise (foundation) which is the work of Feminists, egalitarians and all other anti-patriachs you have already lost the war because you are building on their false ground; ground which they (not you and not me) occupy and ground which is shifting and unsteady because it is false. You literally can’t win if you start from their premise. It matters.
Sure Cane. Whatever.
I haven’t accepted any premise, neither yours or feminists. I merely outlined a hypothetical tangent to extrapolate an example for an argument. An illustration if you will. I forget our last spat, conversing with you is like hitting ones face against a brick wall. You expect others to answer your questions, never the other way around.
@ Feminist Hater says:
July 28, 2016 at 9:31 am
“What assertions, are not both requirements of men’s and women’s roles within marriage to be taught.”
Apparently I misunderstood your assertion, which makes me wonder why you’re arguing with me in the first place. My point is that both the commandments to husbands and the commandments to wives are timeless, unconditional and independent of cultural forces, and should be taught as such.
Cane explained why.
If you agree, why are you arguing?
Never said it did, hence the ‘imagine if you will’…
Fine, if you don’t like calling it a Patriarchy, call it a hypothetical – you know, something that doesn’t exist, never has but we can still think about it – hard, tyrannical pre-Civilization run by brutes where the Church is trying to maintain a semblance of control by using a Biblical foundation. A place where brutish men’s law is King.
Feminist Hater, there are consequences for being a disciple of Christ. Take up your cross and follow Him.
What did Orwell say about speaking truth in an age of universal deceit? It makes us revolutionaries.
We have a part of the truth that allows us to see the system, laws, Church and State as a family and civilization destroying monster. What are we going to do with that truth? Will we have faith in the One who gave it to us?
That’s a question I try to ask myself daily.
@Cane: I am not saying men today are “better” than men of the past so they no longer have to listen to the words of Scripture. I am saying that men today are WORSE than the strong patriarchs of the past and that some of the message to those strong men is not the message that is appropriate or correct for the weak men of today.
Similarly, women today are SJW/Ball Busting/hepped up on feminism and yougogirrrrl and do not live under the threat and reality of complete male domination and a cultural and legal patriarchy. In fact, it is quite the opposite with us living in a cultural and legal matriarchy. An “empowered” message like Kassian preaches delivered to weak women of the past would probably be a good and righteous thing just as the message of “Servant leadership” and supplication and “love like Christ loved the church with a complete sacrificial love” delivered to weak, defeated men today is a recipe for disaster and a 50% divorce rate.
@BPP
I just want to get through one small but important point about your perception of history: There has never been a generation of strong patriarchs. Individual patriarchs may have been strong, but they have not been across a society. So that message which you think was good for “strong patriarchs” was in fact good for all men if it was good at all; which it is.
Whether you like the false idea of ye old strongmen or whether a feminist constructs ye old strongmen to scare us towards egalitarianism, the fact is that they never existed as a group. We shouldn’t read the Bible as if those people were any different than us. To do so will lead you away from the truth, and you will say things like Those words of God through Paul don’t really apply to me today.; which is what you have said.
Adam was not up to task….I guess asking the rest of us to do better with someone who walked and talked with God is a tall order.
I think being kind, loving, faithful, Christian helps induce anyone to follow Gods path but they are always their own agents and can just as easily listen to that old serpent.
Also as other have pointed out just reverse this. Aren’t any wicked men really the fault of women who just did not love them well enough. I am sure men cannot rebel against God or mistreat them if their wives were just better at loving them. Ridiculous.
@Feminist Hater at July 27, 2:53pm
>It’s insanity, but it is believed and promoted and paid for by the same women who men are meant to commit to.
That entire comment is gold.
@GreyGhost
>The only way for any man to have a wife is to lie to himself as every man here does every second of every day.
Many of us do not lie; we know Biblical marriage is illegal. But yes, even here, some still do believe the lie. The sexual and emotional desire God gave men for a woman is strong. This leads men to allow emotional considerations to override their intellect. In our culture, this is frequently self-destructive.
Those same desires, in other cultures, would be beneficial, as it is those desires that push a man to be willing to take on the costs and liabilities of a wife.
@chokingOnRedPills
>“In scriptural matters only qualified men of God is allowed to teach…”
>Who are these qualified men?
The answer is in the Bible.
Titus 1:5-9 – mandatory requirements
Titus 1:10-16 – examples of people NOT permitted
1 Tim 2:11-3:7 – similar to Titus 1, but includes the requirement that he manage his own family/house well — “If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?” So any “pastor” or elder/bishop/overseer with a wife that cuts her hair (1 Cor 11) or wears pants (Deut 22:5) or is fat, has a “career” or frequently disobeys him (Titus 2:1-5) is not qualified for his position.
What is NOT in the Bible is any kind of formal religious instruction. What is required?
2 tim 3:16-17: 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Heb 13:20-21: 20 Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, 21 equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Pet 4:10-11: 10 Each of you should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. 11 If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.
(I had to correct a few spots in the above to fix the Satanic, sex-equality, changes the new NIV version made to the Scriptures.)
So a man needs Scripture, equipping from God the father, and a willingness to use the gifts God gave. No Satanic Studies degree, oops, Seminary degree, required.
In my experience, the majority of my “Seminary” classes could have been ENTIRELY completed without once opening the Bible. I discussed this problem with the Dean of Theology. He understood my message, but did not see any problem needing to be solved/addresses. At least, not right away; perhaps he made changes after I left due to the non-Scriptural nature of the studies.
Headship is not a doctrine of female submission or constraint. The submission of women and children to the authority of husband and father was taken for granted as a given of natural law in all places and times before modern times. Headship is a doctrine of DUTY, MISSION and RESTRAINT in the exercise of the “natural” power of a man to govern his family.
Men having been deprived of that power by law and society, headship is ENTIRELY meaningless. Men can (and should) still try to lead their wives and children to God — but the modern version of headship, which is simply a religious version of Dom-sub kink, revocable by the woman at will, is not a meaningful basis to do so.
No Satanic Studies degree, oops, Seminary degree, required.
In my experience, the majority of my “Seminary” classes could have been ENTIRELY completed without once opening the Bible. I discussed this problem with the Dean of Theology. He understood my message, but did not see any problem needing to be solved/addresses. At least, not right away; perhaps he made changes after I left due to the non-Scriptural nature of the studies.
On the subject of post-secondary education in the Scriptures, one need only to ask oneself the following rhetorical question:
How many of the most effective evangelists of the Gospel in the entire 2000-year history of the faith ever had any kind of formal academic training at all, let alone “graduate” education?
Here’s a companion rhetorical question: what background experience do nearly all of the most perniciously destructive frauds and heretics, those doing as much as Satan himself to undtmine, corrupt, and destroy the message of the Gospel, have in common?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
shatsoever
Absolutely a useful concoction of a word
@kevin
“Aren’t any wicked men really the fault of women who just did not love them well enough.”
Love? Only in the sense of if you love by obeying and submitting. (1 Peter 3:1 )
This may be yet another case of female projection and equating the motivations of the sexes. Men are won over by love and submission. Women are conquered.
@cain
“There has never been a generation of strong patriarchs. Individual patriarchs may have been strong, but they have not been across a society.”
You are ignoring the difference between a patriarchal and matriarchal society. Laws are a reflection of society; a patriarchal legal system wasn’t brought about by a nation of wimps. It will never be the case that all men are strong patriarchs; there is a bell curve to most things. But the average man being a weakling like today was not how it always was. That took a multigenerational social engineering effort and the destruction of the family to pull off.
You are ignoring the difference between a patriarchal and matriarchal society. Laws are a reflection of society; a patriarchal legal system wasn’t brought about by a nation of wimps. It will never be the case that all men are strong patriarchs; there is a bell curve to most things. But the average man being a weakling like today was not how it always was. That took a multigenerational social engineering effort and the destruction of the family to pull off.
Yes. While I agree with the points Cain makes in the first paragraph of his referenced post, it’s important to remember that the society within which the Gospels were written was thoroughly patriarchal, with the effect that even if a particular man or subset of men were not what one would call “strong,” the social order within which they lived “had their backs,” so to speak. Even the weakest of patriarchs at the time was not under the matriarchal feminist Sword of Damocles that is all-pervasive and ever-threatening in our own society. Again, this is certainly NOT to say that the messages of the Epistles in these matters are irrelevant or dated; rather, the reality is that their application in the manner intended by Paul in his directions to the church is difficult to impossible in the modern era.
feeriker says:
July 28, 2016 at 2:06 pm
“… the social order within which they lived ‘had their backs’, so to speak.”
The social order within which they lived persecuted them and derided their faith as a “religion of women and slaves”. Neither Greek nor Roman culture promoted Biblical marriage, or Biblical anything for that matter. On the contrary, they opposed everything Biblical, violently at times.
Let’s not pretend that the Christians to whom Peter and Paul wrote had it easier than we do.
I wracked my brain for a suitable analogy from Scripture and I think I have it. It is not good, but it is something.
The Bible instructs us to leave portions of the wheat field for the poor and immigrants to harvest and eat. This is excellent advice and an important lesson. However, what if we grow corn? Does that mean we don’t have to leave the wheat sheaves for the poor? By no means! WE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO US AS BEST WE CAN GIVEN THE CULTURAL AND LEGAL DIFFERENCES. We leave the sheaves today by paying our taxes and making sure that every welfare rat has the opportunity to get as fat as possible eating frozen pizzas and Ding Dongs with their food stamp card.
Are the farming men today who fail to apportion a part of their field for the poor sinning by not following the dictates of Scripture? Of course not! The MEANING of the words is timeless- don’t let the poor starve.
In this context, and more to the point, the MEANING is clear: Men love your wife with the sacrificial love of Christ and women submit, and obey your husband. The MEANING is timeless- love and honor your spouse. However, today- like the sheaves of wheat- we don’t have a culture where everybody owns wheat fields. We also don’t have a culture where women submit to strong men who rule them and where it is prudent to remind the men of their duty of sacrificial love and honor for their wives, the weaker vessel. Instead we have a culture where strong WOMEN rule and sacrifice almost nothing. Constantly preaching to a society of weak men that they must “sacrifice” and “wash the feet” of their rulers and wives is diabolical and evil, and not Scriptural in any way.
Sorry, that wouldn’t work either. As long as the state can send a SWAT team, a helicopter, and an armored assault vehicle (this has literally happened before as the police have become more militarized over time but I’m also slightly exaggerating) to your house to remove you, handcuff you (as if a little spanking is anywhere near this bad), stripping away all your imaginary authority (Bible or no Bible) in a split second, take everything you have and so on women always rule over you. It will not ‘greatly diminish’ under this kind of arrangement. I guarantee it.
Men and women alike have gotten too lazy to do what is necessary to make it work. They want the state to play God and intervene in everything they do, think, and feel.
Yup. I’d say there is no way to reverse this train. Only through a complete collapse and takeover of the PTB can change this. And that’s only if the little boys called “men” these days have the balls to put women in their place and also be responsible enough to take care of a family. All of these are huge ifs. Until then, getting married is no different than allowing your wife to put your head on the chopping block, placing an axe in her hand while she “promises” not to use it. Well, we’ve seen how that works out haven’t we? Look at the Duluth model very closely and then tell me I’m wrong.
The social order within which they lived persecuted them and derided their faith as a “religion of women and slaves”. Neither Greek nor Roman culture promoted Biblical marriage, or Biblical anything for that matter. On the contrary, they opposed everything Biblical, violently at times.
Irrelevant to the point under discussion. Whether or not a man worshipped the God of Abraham, the panopoly of Greco-Roman gods, or any other dieties or none at all, ALL societies at the time were patriarchal and the existing social and political order ensured that it stayed that way. The fact that a Chistian man was persecuted for his beliefs didn’t change that fact at all and had nothing to do with Christian headship. A pagan Roman or Greek man was considered head of his own family too, even if he wasn’t being persecuted by any temporal authority.
That’s because unlike the PC world or Christians even they could see the blatantly obvious. It doesn’t take a Christian or rocket scientist to see it. But they weren’t brainwashed into crazed obsessive gynocentrism either. Now I’m surrounded by thirsty little beta cucks where ever I go who will get down on one knee and swear to worship any woman for just a tiny little taste of pussy (and get married even when they KNOW their lives can be destroyed at any moment). It’s beyond pathetic. On this point women are completely right that (most) “men” think only with their dicks.
iamadamalan @ 1:45 pm:
“But the average man being a weakling like today was not how it always was.”
Weakening ordinary men has been a high priority of every tyrant in human history. In my blue-pill days I attributed this to simply preventing competition but now, I understand how hypergamy can reward a man for cruelty towards others far beyond what he personally would ever do… even to the point of ending up king over a dead nation.
@Dal, congratulations, you’re officially “hate-filled”
http://nightwind777.blogspot.com/2016/07/red-pills-and-domestic-violence.html
[D: Heh.]
Having Trouble Keeping Thoughts Of My Ex-Wife Being Out With The Guy That She Is Dating
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1019317
@Dal, congratulations, you’re officially “hate-filled”
http://nightwind777.blogspot.com/2016/07/red-pills-and-domestic-violence.html
Funny how that ‘Night Wind’ person, who I had never even heard about before, calls Dalrock a ‘Game Cultist’. How? Approval of Game as an attraction model is a long distance from being a single PUA, which is yet again a long distance from being a ‘Game Cultist’.
At any rate, assuming that ‘Night Wind’ is a mangina rather than a female, it is telling that the most fervent opposition to red-pill thought is now from manginas… A sure sign that the end of the current misandric status quo is near.
I also note that the mangina Night Wind refers to Kassian as Miss Kassian. I can understand Ms. as the ‘feminist’ prefix, but Miss? As in unambiguously unmarried, even though she is married? ‘Mrs.’ is best. ‘Ms.’ is unfortunate but nothing new, but ‘Miss’ is just inaccurate, period.
‘Night Wind’ is none too bright, hence the flatulence-metaphoric name that it has chosen to call itself (much like how ‘Manboobz’ calls himself Manboobz).
I also note that the mangina Night Wind refers to Kassian as Miss Kassian. I can understand Ms. as the ‘feminist’ prefix, but Miss? As in unambiguously unmarried, even though she is married? ‘Mrs.’ is best. ‘Ms.’ is unfortunate but nothing new, but ‘Miss’ is just inaccurate, period.
How about no title at all? Just a last name, nothing more. It’s the most undignified way in why to address or refer to someone, directly or indirectly, and it’s difficult to imagine any mundane circumstances under which Kassian deserves to be afforded any dignity at all.
How about no title at all?
That would be good too. But the fact that the mangina thinks he is rebutting anything, while referring to the married woman as ‘Miss’, effectively confirms all stereotypes of manginas to date :
a) Seeing a woman as single even if married, hence admitting how inconsequential he himself would be to a woman if he were married.
b) Low intelligence inherent to a mangina.
c) Deep desire to whiteknight for a woman who would not only be ungrateful, but deeply disgusted by the mangina.
Some female psycho-babbler advises parents on how to “Dismantle Traditional Gender Roles for Their Kids”: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parents-gender-roles-kids_us_578ff415e4b0bdddc4d30e5e?
As a mother of a little girl, Dr. Shefali takes her own advice. “My contribution to this next wave … is to make sure that my daughter is deeply in touch with her masculine elements,” she explains.
Dr. Shefali therefore teaches her daughter to:
Be unafraid of her assertive voice
Know her boundaries
Be linear
Be authoritative
Firmly express whatever she needs to express
For her friends with sons, Dr. Shefali suggests conversely helping young boys be planted in the feminine principle. “Things like, ‘Man up,’ or, ‘Don’t be a girl,’ those things need to fall away if you want to be part of this new movement,” she says.
This means that Dr. Shefali encourages sons to:
Be in touch with their feelings
Be vulnerable
Be firmly planted in their heart-space
Psychology is one of the most poisonous “sciences” of the past century. Women “study” this dummied-down pseudo-science, then get to place a “Dr.” in front of their names.
From nightwind’s post:
“…appeals to three of the worst elements in Postmodernist culture: narcissism, the belief that ends justify the means, and the evasion of personal responsibility.”
Now replace Postmodernist with Feminist.
This is fun.
Dr. Shefali therefore teaches her daughter to:
…
For her friends with sons, Dr. Shefali suggests conversely …
Heaven help the poor children whose “parents” are stupid enough to listen to this ignorant, sick bitch! This creature needs to be charged with criminal endangerment of minor children.
@ feeriker says:
July 28, 2016 at 4:29 pm
“Irrelevant to the point under discussion.”
Only if the point of the discussion is pagan patriarchy, as opposed to Biblical marriage.
Lost Patrol Quotes From Night Wind :
and the evasion of personal responsibility.”
Yet this mangina absolutely aids and abets women in evading personal responsibility. A cuckservative never manages to see their own hypocrisy..
An interesting article from Vox Popoli. A little dated but a very good last paragraph that is on subject.
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/gamergate-and-4gw.html
@Oscar
Christian Patriarchy as conceived by God is as per its author the best of all patriarchies the pinnacle of perfection as far as social systems go.
Neither male tyranny or egalitarianism or rebellious anarchy. Altogether different. Never should we go to sinful extremes. Polar opposites that are just as much a trap as the other. All concieved by satan.
Dale and infowarrior1:
Thank you for your kind explanation.
It leads me to another question:
How much right does a pastor have in rebuking or admonishing a husband for his interpretation of Scripture (e.g., wives’ submission and the female nature) if it does not fall within what the pastor learnt in the seminary or “mainstream”, feminism-infused interpretations?
Whatever that means. Depends on how you look at it. The modern world considers us extremists, misogynists, and evil doers and so would most Christians.
Gunner Q: “Weakening ordinary men has been a high priority of every tyrant in human history. ” That is a classic.
How much right does a pastor have in rebuking or admonishing a husband for his interpretation of Scripture (e.g., wives’ submission and the female nature) if it does not fall within what the pastor learnt in the seminary or “mainstream”, feminism-infused interpretations?
I know this question isn’t directed at me, but to offer my two piastres worth: if what the “pastor” is rebuking with is obviously non-Scriptural heresy, it’s a relatively simple matter of correcting him by opening the Bible to the relevant passages and reading directly from them. Granted, his reaction is likely to be one of angry denial (silver cross in front of a vampire, and all of that), but it is important in this case to not allow him to change frame and redefine language, as most churchians are wont to do when trying to pretzelize Sctipture to comport with cultural norms.
Today I got a post from John Pipper that exactly illustrates what Dalrock has been pointing out.
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/i-want-kids-my-husband-doesn-t?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedpress.me&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ask-pastor-john
The wife wants children, the husband does not. He told her, and at marriage she agreed not to have children. The wife now wants children and asks Piper what to do? Instead of being told to submit to her husband as to the Lord, she is told to make sure her husband hears a lecture from John Piper.
“Yes, go get your husband or just email him the app or the program, because I am going to talk to him — and I know his heart can change.”
Piper than tells the husband he needs to become a father because God wants what his wife wants. The husband is not loving her like Christ by not agreeing to her DESIRE for children.
The rot is very deep in the church!
Dalrock, THANK YOU for your faithful ministry. You have helped me, and the Lord willing will continue to help others, see the evil of feminism already inside of our churches.
“Yes, go get your husband or just email him the app or the program, because I am going to talk to him — and I know his heart can change.”
Piper than tells the husband he needs to become a father because God wants what his wife wants. The husband is not loving her like Christ by not agreeing to her DESIRE for children.
One only hopes that this husband has the spiritual and intestinal fortitude to tell Piper to butt out and MHOB – and to call his own wife out on her rebellion and her attempt to usurp his husbandly authority.
This is also a perfect example of how women refuse to be held accountable for anything. This woman was well aware before she married him of the fact that her husband did not want children, and yetshe chose to marry him anyway. She knew what she was getting herself into and she knew that “NO CHILDREN!” was a condition of her marriage. But now that she’s changed her mind (something women do constantly, for the most trivial of reasons), she now demands that her husband change the terms and conditions of their marriage!
Sure bet: she’ll frivorce him in short order.
She will not divorce him in short order. She will divorce him after she craps out 2-3 F-prizes. I wonder if the pastor will help the father who is paying 80% of his income to his x wife and kids that he did not want?
Re: the woman who married a man knowing he didn’t want children; now wants them and appeals to Piper:
This is a huge problem in marriages. Man has boundary, has something he wants from his marriage or his life. This particular man didn’t want children. Woman knew this going in.
Woman marries man, 10 years in, now decides she wants kids.
Woman tries to change his boundary.
It is fundamental lack of respect. Perhaps this man has prayerfully considered this and decided for whatever reason he is not led to be a father. This woman’s pushing him and insisting that he change his boundary is her fundamental lack of trust in him and respect for him. Yet, here we are, essentially having this wife and Piper saying: “whatever woman wants is right and good, and if a man won’t give it to her, he is wrong and evil”. in Paragraph 6 of his response, Piper essentially accuses this man of not loving his wife because he resists having children with her.
If she doesn’t divorce him, he should divorce her.
If she doesn’t divorce him, he should divorce her.
Sure, why not? Very simply, he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t, no matter what decides.
… if men are good enough women can’t even be tempted to rebel
A lot of insightful commentary about this, in the OP and in the commentary up-thread.
I thank you, all, sincerely.
My 2¢, from my point of view as a not-really-very-well-catechized RC (I am posting this for my
education, through its inevitable correction by any of the numerous regular Dalrock commenters
who are, whichever the brand-name of Christianity they may espouse, so much more knowledgeable
about such matters than am I):
Isn’t the small-o orthodox Christian doctrine of the taint of Original Sin, that it is in fact
the individual’s personal succeptibility to the temptation to (any) sin?
So, IIUC, isn’t the above paraphrase (by Dalrock) of Past♀r Chandler’s … ah <cough> teaching
on this matter something that we can justifiably (i.e., honestly and without any guile or distortion)
yet further rephrase as:
… if men were only good enough, then they would remove the taint of Original Sin from women.
So, as others have pointed out already, Past♀r Chandler is saying men must be “Holier than God”.
But maybe the way I have (justifiably?) rephrased it permits a few additional inferences as to
what, exactly, Past♀r Chandler is actually “teaching”:
– women are excused of all moral culpability until men are Holier than God;
– but if men _can_ be Holier than God, Gnosticism is “True”;
– while if men cannot ever be, women are beyond salvation;
– …
I dunno, the more I pick at this, the more heresies seem to tumble out of it. Yes?
Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)
He’s got the penis so he’s punished no matter what he does. Like I said, the marriage contract is no different than slavery for the man. Period. You can’t win.
Incidentally, and totally off-topic, and meaning no disrespect at all to Mr. “Tomassi”,
who has taught me a lot of important, true lessons about Life and about
Women, I have noticed that “Rollo Tomassi” is an acronym for “I’m a so-so troll”.
Make of it what you will. (ツ)
“Rollo Tomassi” is an acronym for “I’m a so-so troll”.
Not acronym. Anagram. (The geek in me couldn’t resist.)
@ChokingOnRedPills
>How much right does a pastor have in rebuking or admonishing a husband for his interpretation of Scripture (e.g., wives’ submission and the female nature) if it does not fall within what the pastor learnt in the seminary or “mainstream”, feminism-infused interpretations?
I am guessing you already know the answer.
For my prior answer, I tried to answer from Scripture. So, here again, we’ll try to do that.
Verses that give a religious leader authority over another man’s family:
Umm, none. Heb 13:1-17 says to obey our leaders, but I personally think this is things like activities, directions, ministry opportunities the group will pursue. ANY group needs direction to be effective. Imagine if every person in the “church” went their own direction, and no two worked together. How effective would they be?
In addition, I think that because the same chapter says “Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure” (verse 4-6). Having the leader think he can interfere in all of the marriages of the group by commanding the husband in how the husband believes or leads his family does not seem to be indicative that marriage is “honoured by all”. Instead that would be tearing the family down through demeaning the authority figure in that marriage.
Verses that give anyone, “pastor” or otherwise, authority to rebuke anyone else for their honest attempts to interpret and obey God’s commands (i.e. Scripture):
The best passage (that I can think of) for your question is in Romans 14. Go read it. It shows we are not to either “look down” or “condemn” those who believe differently that us. “Who are you to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for God is able to make him stand.”
This chapter directly addresses your question.
I can think of three others. And all are directed against religious leaders, not the general people. Titus 1:5-9 says that an elder “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine, and refute those who oppose it.”
So the husband should be giving a rebuke to the pastor/elder for failing to hold to Scripture, not the other way ’round.
Matt 15 shows Jesus rebuking the religious leaders.
Matt 23 shows Jesus rebuking the religious leaders.
Heb 6:1-3 talks about leaving elementary teachings behind, going on to maturity. This talks about growing in my own wisdom / faith however, not bullying other people in their beliefs.
Titus 2:6-8 says to give sound teaching, and to give a good example. Nothing in there about ordering others to think as I do; the commands affect the speaker, not the listener.
Even Titus 2:1-10, which says what to teach, is
a) generic, not giving “interpretations”. E.g. teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love, and in endurance.
b) Per above, the commands are for the speaker; this passage tells me what to teach, rather than giving me authority to control your thoughts.
Anyone else think of others?
If I rebuke you for not following my interpretation of Scripture, perhaps:
1) consider if I am doing so because the clear, unambiguous text of Scripture contradicts your position. If so, perhaps your argument is with God, not me.
2) consider if I am following the example of Satan, given in Genesis 3 and also Matt 4, attempting to use God’s word to accomplish my desires instead of God’s desires. And I need you to stand up to me, telling me that you will obey God instead of me. Also consider asking me what verse in the Bible says that my interpretation is guaranteed to be the correct one.
Feeriker suggested you confront the sinful behaviour/teaching with Scripture. Also he suggested to hold frame. These are fantastic. (But unfortunately easier for me to say than to do.)
Similarly, if I teach something not in Scripture, you can try to point out my blasphemy by asking me to show you the false teaching in Scripture. When I fail, call me a false prophet. Memorize a couple verses from Eze 13 and use them 🙂 That should do the trick.
I understand that those who follow (false) religions that have strong hierarchies, where person A is trained to think they have the authority to control/dictate the beliefs of person B, find non-strongly hierarchical groups “unorganized”. They think these groups must be immature, as the group will have members with 10 different understandings of the same passage. And certainly, there is a possibility for a man to continue in rebellion, refusing the attempt of his friend to correct an obviously false interpretation.
With this Biblical group however, where each man seeks to obey Jesus’ teachings (John 14:21-24) rather than the (unified) teaching of the cult leader, while there will of course be disagreement, there is also a chance for each man to be obedient to God. When I replace God with the cult leader, and let the cult leader order my beliefs, then I am no longer following God, but rather an idol. I am reading through Ezekiel now, and God is not impressed with those who “set up idols in their hearts”.
Even in areas where the Bible does give or recognize authority, people are not given the authority to control the beliefs of those legitimately under them in authority. Examples:
– Masters/slaves (Eph 6, Col 3:22-4:1). Sure, the master controls the slaves work, but not his beliefs.
– Husbands/wives (Eph 5, Col 3:18-21). Sure, the husband can direct his wife and her actions, but not her thoughts/beliefs.
– For children, one passage says that a man can be an elder only if his children believe (Titus 1:5-9), but even there, it does not say the children must believe everything the father does; it says only that an elder must be “a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient”. I do not think this disqualifies a man from being elder, just because his son disagrees on what a certain prophesy means.
@thedeti
>If she doesn’t divorce him, he should divorce her.
Certainly you were being facetious, as 1 cor 7 shows followers of Christ are not to divorce. Although if the marriage is already broken by her, e.g. by adultery, then there is no marriage to end. So if she has already ended the marriage, then for him to admit that fact may be appropriate.
>Anagram. (The geek in me couldn’t resist.)
Damn, you beat me to it 🙂
feeriker @ 11:23 am:
“This is also a perfect example of how women refuse to be held accountable for anything.”
That’s the worst part about modern women. Today, she has always liked you; tomorrow, she has always hated you.
If this guy hasn’t already gotten a vasectomy, it would be the perfect way to put his foot down. If she then ends the marriage, better divorced without kids than divorced with. And she’d be punished by God as an adulteress! Sounds like win.
…
Good post, Dale!
Yup. And you never know when that’s going to happen. I know of even happy marriages that lasted 10, 15, 25, even 35 years. Then all of the sudden the little wife decides she’s not happy and then…BOOM! Lifetime alimony for her and the street for him. So never think to yourself, “Oh MY wife wouldn’t do that!” Heh, yeah. They all think that until they’re standing before a judge (aka: extortion enforcer).
Yup. And you never know when that’s going to happen. I know of even happy marriages that lasted 10, 15, 25, even 35 years. Then all of the sudden the little wife decides she’s not happy and then…BOOM!
Oh, even worse. I know a great (American) guy who lived in Taiwan, and married a Taiwanese woman 23 years younger than him (He was maybe 55 and she 32). They had two kids. He came back to the US, and kids are now 4 and 3 each. Within 12 months of being on US soil, his Taiwanese wife who grew up (mostly) outside of American values serves him with divorce papers. Even worse, he has cancer and was having surgery the same week as she served him with papers. She didn’t care about the timing at all. Now, he has been kicked out of his house the same week as his cancer surgery.
This puts the ‘foreign, non-Western bride’ myth to rest. Unless you are literally willing to live in that other country permanently, this strategy has little to no higher safety than marrying an AW.
BTW, that Night Wing mangina deletes all comments that point out the flaws in his logic, even while holding himself out as a defender of personal responsibility.
A pure cuckservative, that one is.
I’m not even talking about these foreign cunts who want a green card but the home grown ones with different motivations.
You know what is going to happen because it is possible by law,culture and church. That is how you KNOW your marriage will fail. No civilization or majority of marriages survive when the outcome is based on the judgment and character of a woman.
At this time and place the burden of civilization and your well being in marriage sir is by law ,culture and church on her.
” the idea of male headship might be attacked as a philosophy, but if they came into our homes, our wives would not want to be freed from anything.
These fools have painted themselves into a theological corner, where Jesus invites us to turn away from sin in spite of temptation but husbands are somehow bestowed from the Holy Spirit (read: Feminine Imperative) the ability to negate their wives’ temptation altogether. Umm… No.
@Anon
>This puts the ‘foreign, non-Western bride’ myth to rest. Unless you are literally willing to live in that other country permanently, this strategy has little to no higher safety than marrying an AW.
According to some US government agency, probably immigration, the rate of divorce involving foreign spouses (or was it specifically brides?) is 20%. Since it is 40 to 50 % in the general population, you have half the risk with a foreign bride. “Half” is not zero however. So while she is demonstratively better, she is not bullet-proof.
This puts the ‘foreign, non-Western bride’ myth to rest.
Only if stats are meaningless (20% is a lot less than 50%). As for anecdotes, I am connected with over a hundred couples where the wife is foreign born. Out of these only three divorces. One of those was initiated by the man (so he could go back to Asia to find another younger bride). Again I will repeat that from what I have seen these women treat there husbands far better than most of the US born women I have met do.
@ JDG agreed. Two of my uncles married foreign women. My uncle met a woman in Thailand when he was stationed there in the USAF (during Vietnam) in 1965. They will celebrate 51 years together in September. My other other uncle met and married a woman from Nicaragua when he was there on vacation in 1977. Forty years for them next year.
Both of their marriages have had challenges at times that men who don’t marry foreigners cannot comprehend or understand…..but they both have “made it” and I can say with honesty, both of them are happy.
Again I will repeat that from what I have seen these women treat there husbands far better than most of the US born women I have met do.
Don’t waste anymore time and energy hammering home this easily provable truth. The religiously regular deniers of it are guys who could easily be reaping the fruits of it, but aren’t willing to make the (relatively minimal) effort that it would take to do so (then again, that pathology is typical of Americans of both sexes). Since they can’t be bothered to improve their own lot in life where marriage is concerned, they’re naturally resentful of those who have.
This is a thoroughly over-flogged dead horse, so this is my final word on the subject. Further expenditure thereof is pointless.
Only if stats are meaningless (20% is a lot less than 50%). As for anecdotes, I am connected with over a hundred couples where the wife is foreign born. Out of these only three divorces. One of those was initiated by the man (so he could go back to Asia to find another younger bride). Again I will repeat that from what I have seen these women treat there husbands far better than most of the US born women I have met do.
I think you are using too many examples of women from an older generation, who married 30 years ago. That generation was before most ‘feminist’ tainting, and are thus comparable to,say, 1920s-era American women.
But among younger foreign women, they have had more exposure to ‘feminism’, and are rapidly converging up to AW levels of divorce and single motherhood. Among the under-35s, their habits are the same as AW. Certainly the practice of having an N of several before marriage, if they were in the West before marriage.
Plus, even among those that are not divorced, don’t think in binary terms. They may avoid divorce in order to save face, but their mistreatment of the husband manifests in other ways, like making him do an excessive amount of needless housework, etc. That is not divorce, but it is mistreatment of the man.
70sjason,
My uncle met a woman in Thailand when he was stationed there in the USAF (during Vietnam) in 1965. They will celebrate 51 years together in September. My other other uncle met and married a woman from Nicaragua when he was there on vacation in 1977. Forty years for them next year.
Yep, 40-50 years ago. Women outside the West of that era were like 1920s or even 1800s American women. The modern, younger ones, not so much, as they have had a lot more exposure to Western feminism.
A foreign bride who is under 35 today has a substantially lower chance of divorcing her husband only if you think she is marrying as a virgin of with an N of at most 1. If her N is 5, 10, or higher, the risk is probably just as high as with an AW.
An era adjustment is where the confusion is. Those who claim foreign women have lower rates are citing marriages that started 30, 40, or more years ago. An entirely different generation of foreign women.
Those who claim foreign women have lower rates are citing marriages that started 30, 40, or more years ago. An entirely different generation of foreign women.
Actually for me its more like between 7 and 30 years ago. It would be interesting to see stats on younger foreign born and raised brides verses their mothers.
Perhaps the nation wide foreign bride divorce stats are as high as 20% due in a large part to younger foreign women having been infected with feminist thinking, or perhaps its something else like the fact that these stats include couples who have a visa / money agreement and intended to divorce as soon as legally possible from the start.
@JDG:
I think far too many assume that Women don’t follow the “When in Rome…” methodology of life. Women hew to their environments in ways Men don’t. So the only real way to ensure the much lower divorce rate is, well, being in their native culture. The Whispers is a very real thing that Women do to each other, since “misery loves company”.
“@ JDG agreed. Two of my uncles married foreign women. My uncle met a woman in Thailand when he was stationed there in the USAF (during Vietnam) in 1965. They will celebrate 51 years together in September. My other other uncle met and married a woman from Nicaragua when he was there on vacation in 1977. Forty years for them next year.”
One of my best friends married a Thai woman. She was adopted as an infant by a Vietnam Veteran and his wife while in Thailand and raised her in the US. She’s a spoiled, disrepectful ballbuster. Just goes to show you, it’s the way the US raises it’s daughters that makes them so corrupt.
I think far too many assume that Women don’t follow the “When in Rome…” methodology of life.
I think far too many assume that primary socialization is not a very powerful determinant of behavior. A woman raised in a patriarchal society will be much less open to adopting wholesale the feminist lifestyle compared to the AW who has been on a lifelong steady diet of feminism.
Also understand that for a foreign born woman, her most trusted friends are the ones she grew up with, and who are still in her home country, not the new ones she might make when she migrates to the US. Those long term friends will never cheer her on to disrespect her husband, or dishonor her marriage.
One of the most feminine and submissive women I have ever met was a Polish colleague I once worked with. She was not only very attractive, but also a brilliant professional. But her femininity was unmistakable in all her interactions with everyone, especially the men. If ever there was a special snowflake, one can argue that she was one. She was brought up by her Polish parents and she spent many years in the US, but she did not imbibe the AW lifestyle. She was often repulsed by it. I let her get away, and I regretted it for a long time.
Frankly, I would argue that all those men on this site and elsewhere who think foreign brides are just as bad, or will generally become as bad as AW, have never dated any foreign women. If you want to know what a real woman is, you must go foreign. The typical AW did not have the right modeling when growing up, so she does not know how to be and act like a woman.
@Jim
How ISIS treats women is the other sinful extreme for instance.
I would have to admit in the West women seem to have an attitude problem
Dave,
I think far too many assume that primary socialization is not a very powerful determinant of behavior. A woman raised in a patriarchal society will be much less open to adopting wholesale the feminist lifestyle compared to the AW who has been on a lifelong steady diet of feminism.
I am not seeing it. In any big city, take all the foreign born women in their 20s who are single. They do just as much slutting up as AW. Maybe a little bit more reserved about actual intercourse, but only a little. A foreign born single woman in the US who parties a lot and is still single at 30 does not have an N of zero or even 3.
The examples given here are of women who never even get to the US before marriage. The ones who do, and work in jobs in the big city, do almost as much slutting it up as AW. That is, unless one is willing to believe that a woman in the big city, who goes out on Fri and Sat, and is still single at age 30 and has a profile on Match.com, still has an N of zero just because she was in a non-Western country until age 22 or so…
If she is working in a job in the US, goes out on Fri and Sat nights, and still single at the age of 27, you can assume she has an N that is well above zero, even if born in China, Iran, Lebanon, Russia, Poland, or wherever.
In any big city, take all the foreign born women in their 20s who are single. They do just as much slutting up as AW.
How do you know this? I’m not agreeing or disagreeing here, I just want to know where you are getting your information. The only 20 something foreign born women I know are already married (except one who was recently widowed).
Also understand that for a foreign born woman, her most trusted friends are the ones she grew up with, and who are still in her home country, not the new ones she might make when she migrates to the US. Those long term friends will never cheer her on to disrespect her husband, or dishonor her marriage.
This is the case with the women I know. Also, when they run into each other they exchange phone numbers and invite each other to all sorts of occasions (and the food is excellent). In addition they are in constant contact with their parents and immediate family who reinforce traditional values, so yes the “herd” mentality is at play here but in a good way.
I believe greyghost is correct that US law does not recognize or enforce genuine marriage (Bible based), and I believe Looking Glass is correct in that the safest bet for a marriage is to expatriate. In addition, I must add that carefully and prayerfully vetting your potential mate is critical no matter where they live, because being born in a non-Western country does not guarantee your particular intended was given a decent upbringing or even that said upbringing took root in her particular case.
With all that being said, foreign bride divorce stats AND my personal experience demands that I disagree with those who say that a woman’s training during her formative years means little or nothing against the onslaught of a hostile environment. There are many factors associated with who, how, and why that are in play which are not seen on the surface. So if a man is determined to marry in this anti-male and marriage hostile environment, then why shouldn’t he look in a place where women are still raised to respect men?
@Jim
I said extremes. You shouldn’t expect non extreme examples.
With all that being said, foreign bride divorce stats AND my personal experience demands that I disagree with those who say that a woman’s training during her formative years means little or nothing against the onslaught of a hostile environment.
It matters a lot whether her formative years were the 1950s, 1970s, or 1990s. Marriage to a foreign woman in 1977 is not the same thing as marriage to a foreign woman in 2016. Western media memes are in a lot more countries than a generation ago. Remember that the iron curtain fell in 1991. Western TV shows did not appear in China until 1997. And so on…
I know of no shortage of women who grew up outside of the West, came here for grad school and got a job in the US (at an age of, say 23-24), and slut it up just like any big city chick.
To say a foreign woman is substantially more suitable for marriage is to claim their N at the time of marriage is zero or 1. If it is 3 or more (which is highly likely if her age at marriage is over 25), then the risk of marrying her starts to converge to that of an AW.
Roosh wrote about how the Americanization of women in Poland was so fast that the change from 2011 to 2015 was almost like 40 years compressed into 4.
How do you know this? I’m not agreeing or disagreeing here, I just want to know where you are getting your information. The only 20 something foreign born women I know are already married (except one who was recently widowed).
Do you live in a large US city? If so, a lot of the 25-35 y/o foreign born women have corporate jobs, are single, and have casual sex. I find it hard to believe that you don’t know of any 25+ foreign born woman with a corporate job, who is single.
They differ from AW only in that they have sex on perhaps the third date rather than first or second.
Go to any PUA blog and ask them how many foreign-born women they have fucked in their local city.
then why shouldn’t he look in a place where women are still raised to respect men?
If he can stay in that country, sure, do it. But be wary of how laws change. Remember that a lot of American men getting divorced today married in the 1990s or even 1980s, long before the anti-marriage messaging and media were so non-stop.
But bringing that woman to the US may or may not be safer. Some internalize pro-marriage thoughts early (as do some US women from small town, etc.). But some quickly follow the US media messages. I would add that as more time passes, the risk to the man rises. The first 10 years after bringing her to the US may be great. But what about in Year 11? Year 21?
Plus, divorce is not the only form of husband-abuse. They may stay married to keep up appearances, but the demands on the husband to do needless housework just for the sake of abusing him may arise. A lot of in tact US marriages feature this, so an in tact marriage to a FW may feature this as well.
@Anon:
It’s important to keep in mind, since we talk in generalities, that some Women just aren’t the divorcing “type”. And it’s not even an upbringing aspect, simply a part of their natural temperament. Doesn’t mean they aren’t the worst harridan in a 50 mile radius, but actually divorcing just isn’t on their minds.
So their actions are still craven, but that doesn’t mean they’ll ever file the papers.
that some Women just aren’t the divorcing “type”.
Yes. This of course is not specific to being American or non-Western. Some women just think the loss of face from divorce is too high to do it.
The point is, many non-Western countries are undergoing the last 100 years of American misandry in just 25 years. Hence, a foreign woman from Poland or the Philippines marrying in 1977 is a world apart from the one marrying in 2016.
For example, in China, they did a study. In 1997, only 10% of people had sexual intercourse before marriage. By 2015, it was 75%. That is how much changed in just 18 years. Remember that in a fast-growing emerging market, everything happens at 3x the speed of the West, due to the ‘catchup’ effect.
feeriker and Dale:
Thank you.
I find it hard to believe that you don’t know of any 25+ foreign born woman with a corporate job, who is single.
All the FW I know are Asian and married. If a man is determined to marry my advice would be to search over seas and stay away from any woman anywhere (here or abroad) who goes partying, clubbing, or what have you.
Go to any PUA blog and ask them how many foreign-born women they have fucked in their local city.
So that’s your source?
Plus, divorce is not the only form of husband-abuse. They may stay married to keep up appearances, but the demands on the husband to do needless housework just for the sake of abusing him may arise.
As I said before, I have often heard AW deride their husbands. I have never seen one of the women in this group do this. From what I can see, the FW I know treat there husbands much better than most of the AW I have known. They show respect to and for their husbands that most American men have never known. The only AW I see treating there husbands this way are devote Christian women who take their faith seriously. The difference between FW and AW that I have witnessed is like night and day, even among the 20 somethings.
For example, in China, they did a study. In 1997, only 10% of people had sexual intercourse before marriage. By 2015, it was 75%.
A link to this and any related studies would be genuinely appreciated.
All the FW I know are Asian and married.
That is the problem. Your sample size is skewed. You have already preselected a group of FW who marry in their early 20s, and as virgins. That too, of a generation older than the current twenty-somethings.
If you simply don’t know any FW who have corporate jobs in the West, and are still unmarried by the age of 27, then you just don’t have a diverse enough social network from which to draw a sample size.
You are actually suggesting that an unmarried FW over the age of 27, with a corporate job, still has an N of 0 or 1. I doubt many here would agree with that.
Regarding China….
More and more Chinese are having pre-marital sex.
“Ms. Li said, after citing her research, which shows 71% of the population has had premarital sex, up from 15% in 1989.”
Are you still going to remain in denial?
All the FW I know are Asian and married.
That is the other problem. You are limited to Asian only. You are in no position to comment on the casual sex habits of Latin American or Russian/EE women (which, I guarantee, are not dramatically different than Western women, especially after they come to the West while still single).
Your extremely narrow sample size provides far too little on which to make any sweeping defense of ‘foreign women’. Very akin to someone in New York City who says ‘they don’t know anyone who votes Republican’, and is then baffled by how a Republican gets 48% or more of the vote.
You are in no position to claim that unmarried FW with corporate jobs over the age of 25 in the US have an N of zero or 1. Almost anyone who has a lot of single-guy experience in the US will confirm that single FW with corporate jobs are just as promiscuous as AW.
That is the problem. Your sample size is skewed. You have already preselected a group of FW who marry in their early 20s, and as virgins. That too, of a generation older than the current twenty-somethings.
The problem is that I didn’t specify ASIAN FW since that is the market I was speaking to. I re-read my comments and see why anyone might think I was referring to all FW. My bad. The women I am speaking about are are from over seas in Patriarchal families.
I wouldn’t presume to know about Polish, Russian, or Serbian women. As for Hispanic women I have known more than a few. They too treated their men better than their US contemporaries; however, I can not speak to the outcome of those marriages or their N counts.
you just don’t have a diverse enough social network from which to draw a sample size.
For a broad sweep I do not.
You are actually suggesting that an unmarried FW over the age of 27, with a corporate job, still has an N of 0 or 1.
I am doing no such thing (at least not intentionally). A single FW in the US with a corporate job has a red flag. Any woman foreign or domestic female unmarried at 27 also has a red flag, and any woman who goes clubbing has a red flag in my book.
Your extremely narrow sample size provides far too little on which to make any sweeping defense of ‘foreign women’.
Granted that my sample size is too narrowed to speak to this alone, but the divorce rates with FW is still less than half of the rates for AW. Those stats include FW from all nations to the best of my knowledge.
Thank you for the link by the way.
Granted that my sample size is too narrowed to speak to this alone,
That is the issue. Your sample is preselected for a) Asian, b) marrying in their early 20s, and c) not working in a corporate job. American women who meet b) and c) might also have a lower divorce rate..
Note that the FW divorce stats being lower are skewed since many FW alive today have the same values as AW from the 1920s. But each generation Westernizes at, say, 3x the speed due to the rapid catchup (see the China data), so marrying an FW in 2016 might have risk that almost matches an AW. The ruin that took 3 generations of AW can happen in just 1 generation of FW.
Plus, the lower divorce stats of FW include the vast majority that stay in their own culture. Once a FW is willing to marry outside of her ethnicity, she is already more ‘Westernized’ than others of her culture, and thus a higher divorce risk.
Thank you for the link by the way.
The speed of that change in China is noteworthy.
Note that the FW divorce stats being lower are skewed since many FW alive today have the same values as AW from the 1920s.
Which reinforces my 1st point made in response to your claim that the ‘foreign, non-Western bride’ myth was put to rest. The stats aren’t skewered. That’s how many FW divorces there are verses how many AW women have. It would seem that at this time FW have better values than AW regarding marriage and divorce. That is not a myth but fact.
My argument is that the marriage market at this time is better over seas than here. Not just a little better, but a lot better. Sure a lot can change in a few years, but I have some knowledge of what is happening in some of those countries. Things are moving in the wrong direction, but they’re not even close to where we are yet.
My argument is that there are more families raising their daughters with traditional values over there than there are over here, and that kind of upbringing makes a difference. Neither myself or anyone else that I am aware of has claimed that this situation was for all time or for every individual. I’ve written about this before, and I’ve also written about my concerns that that this advantage is likely a temporary one.
American women who meet b) and c) might also have a lower divorce rate..
Sure, if you can find one that isn’t already married. I won’t hold my breath.
The speed of that change in China is noteworthy.
Agreed. I’m grateful that this isn’t yet the case everywhere in the East.
Plus, the lower divorce stats of FW include the vast majority that stay in their own culture. Once a FW is willing to marry outside of her ethnicity, she is already more ‘Westernized’ than others of her culture, and thus a higher divorce risk.
Interesting point except in my “sub-group” (if you will) nearly all are married out side of their own ethnicity (Asian to Caucasian).
“I’m grateful that this isn’t yet the case everywhere in the East”
In Japan, it is not unusual for married men to hand over their entire pay check to their wives and receive an allowance. Married men in Japan spend many hours after work drinking with friends and colleagues so that their wives may think that they are still working overtime.
In China, rapid urbanisation and economic progress have placed Chinese women almost on par with their Western counterparts in terms of their feminism. YouTube throws up numerous clips of women (young or old) battering their male partners, which would have easily been deemed as assault or abuse if tables were turned the other way.
Am not 100% sure about Korean women.
In Hong Kong, the term “Princess Disease” is well-known and is similar to the EAP that you have in the States. Taiwan is much better. The struggles they have economically might not have brought feminism to the fore and moreover, their males are conscripted and there remains some modicum of respect and gratitude among the women for the males.
Taiwan is much better.
In Taiwan, perhaps. When they come to the US, see my quote from an above comment :
“Oh, even worse. I know a great (American) guy who lived in Taiwan, and married a Taiwanese woman 23 years younger than him (He was maybe 55 and she 32). They had two kids. He came back to the US, and kids are now 4 and 3 each. Within 12 months of being on US soil, his Taiwanese wife who grew up (mostly) outside of American values serves him with divorce papers. Even worse, he has cancer and was having surgery the same week as she served him with papers. She didn’t care about the timing at all. Now, he has been kicked out of his house the same week as his cancer surgery.”
At least he wasn’t physically abused.
At least he wasn’t physically abused.
Perhaps that is the only plus, yes. Or maybe he is not telling me that, as he still defaults into the ‘I still love my wife’ mode that such a blindsided man will oscillate in and out of.
But she served him with divorce papers, and kicked him out of his house and away from his kids, just two days before his scheduled cancer surgery. She has only been out of Taiwan, and in the US, for 12 months up to that point.
To me, it seems obvious that she is getting horrible advice from either some TV show or some American harridan who is telling her to do this..
Been meditating on feminism and its correlation with modern “faith” for some time. Particularly our submission to our Lord. If our Lord makes His will known to us is that sufficient to prompt to act in accordance with His will? Does He have to cajole us, remind us, nag us, further convince us and “game” us? Do we remind Him that He is to sacrifice for us and suit our happiness? Do we negotiate our preferences with Him?
Feminism teaches us this model of marriage between a Man and his Bride.
More provacatively, the wish of the Husband should be the Bride’s command. Lately, that is my view of submission.
If that’s so, then this pair doesn’t have a marriage. John Piper should have noticed that right off but failed to do so. This pair doesn’t need marriage advice, they need to be told to stop shacking up.
That is a very good question. If her ‘equality’ must be guarded by someone other than herself, how naturally ‘equal’ could she be? And asking the counterpart question, who guards his equality, reveals this whole way of thinking as nonsense.
Pingback: Complementarian Platitudes | Jill Domschot
Eve was tempted and she chose temptation, saying she was “deceived” is making excuses for the female because she’s female.
As far as I’m concerned, you haven’t demonstrated anything here…or here…or in this post for that matter. The very idea that men being unaccommodating or sinful as the basis for feminism is so off base is laughable. It’s the idea that everything revolves around men (like your argument) and that women need to be coddled that creates feminism. Your narrow words and superficial views stand as example to what women everywhere are working to eradicate. For those who do not join the fight, like those in your examples for instance…all I can say is that war isn’t for everyone. They will still reap the benefits, even if they are too cowardly to fight.
Also, this discussion about Adam and Eve and sin is seriously the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard.
Pingback: Mere Churchianity - The Rabbit Hole
Pingback: God and sinners reconciled – joyful all ye nations rise | vulture of critique