I stumbled across an old CBMW newsletter from 1995 (the year after VAWA was passed), and like the founding statement the influence of the Duluth model on complementarian thinking is obvious:
OFTEN, THE RELATIONAL TENSIONS BETWEEN MEN
and women are described in terms of power or control. This semantic slant on the discussion often wrongly leads egalitarians to the conclusion that headship includes the forceful use of power by a man, resulting in domination if not outright abuse of his wife. Because of this, egalitarian efforts to level the distinctions between men and women in the home and the church are easily focused on the woman’s reclamation or assertion of power or control in the relationship.
Power and Control is the foundation of the Duluth model that has saturated our thinking on domestic violence. Since complementarians believe that feminist envy and rebellion is caused by men, they of course identify the root of problem not as radical feminists obsessed with usurping power, but men who aren’t loving their wives* (emphasis mine):
A glimpse at some Biblical injunctions should correct this false assumption and its conclusion. Jesus’ reminded the disciples in Luke 22:25-26. “The kings of the Gentiles lord it overthem; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.”…
Along these lines, Diane Knippers of the Institute on Religion and Democracy declared in Beijing, “I am likewise skeptical of the use of the concept of power in the family…. What a sterile and bankrupt view of the most private and intimate human relationship!…The root problem is husbands who do not love their wives. Our goal should be to change their minds and hearts, not merely to restrict their behavior.”
The very next article in the newsletter is from Mary Kassian, and reinforces the message that when women are tempted to feminist rebellion, it is men who are to blame.
A battle is raging across the nations. It is a spiritual battle. And although the battle is not isolated to role relationships between men and women, much of it does take place on that front. Those of us who have experienced the goodness of God’s plan for male- female relationships must be careful not minimize or trivialize its severity. Countless women experience extreme pain and suffering from the hands of the very men who ought to guard and protect them. It is real. It is damaging. And from my perspective, it is increasing in violence and intensity.
My personal experience
I have been extremely fortunate to have had good men in my life. My grandfather, father, brothers, husband, and male friends have all blessed me in both action and word. But consider the woman who has been molested by her grandfather, ignored by her father, sexually derided by her brother, slapped by her husband and ridiculed by her male friends. She reacts to the wounding by adopting a feminist and/or egalitarian philosophy which assures her of her worth and value as a woman. And no wonder!
To be sure, such a woman needs truth. But most often, she needs healing of her pain before she is able to respond to truth.
Kassian describes a feminist woman she knew in College:
When I met her, she was contemplating becoming a Christian, but was struggling with how to reconcile Christianity with her feminist world-view. Sandra did give her life to Christ, but continued to hold on to feminist beliefs.
Kassian doesn’t directly say what type of abuse Sandra suffered that drove her to become a feminist, but she explains that it took a good man to undo all of the bad things men had done before Sandra could abandon her feminism. Fortunately, Sandra found a Christian husband who was willing to “sign a contract agreeing to stay home half-time should they have children.” Through the love of this good man, Kassian explains that Sandra’s desire for feminism eventually went away.
This is terrible theology, as there is no biblical backing for the claim that women are only tempted to rebel because men drive them to it. It is true that men and women are both sinful, and therefore there is no man who has not sinned (aside from Christ). But this theology declares that women are only tempted to sin because men sin first, and this desire to sin will go away if men are nice enough.
Not only is this terrible theology, it is also bad logic. If the root of feminist rebellion is men who aren’t nice enough, then why is it in the modern age that we suddenly have so much more feminist rebellion? Were the men in the ancient world, the middle ages, etc. more egalitarian and nice than modern men? Of course not. Feminist rebellion is growing because we are unwilling to say no to women, not because we have suddenly started saying no to them.
One other interesting note about Kassian’s article. Kassian uses the massacre of women by Mark Lepine to paint men in general, including many complementarian men, as brutish woman haters. If you aren’t familiar with the background on this, Mark Steyn explained it back in 2007:
Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage).
*Technically it is true that men are failing to be loving leaders, but not in the way the article is claiming. The article is arguing that if men were nicer women would stop rebelling. Modern Christian men are failing women, but we are failing them by not confronting the rebellion.
Pingback: The root of the problem. | Aus-Alt-Right
Feminism: Based on lies, distributed with lies, and perpetuated by lies. Rare is the man who hasn’t fallen for it. Practically extinct are the women who do not live by it.
Pingback: The root of the problem. – Manosphere.org
Kassian describes a feminist woman she knew in College:
Anybody else wanna bet that “Sandra” is really Kassian’s own alter ego?
@feeriker:
Likely an amalgamation of someone real and her own projection. She’s the type of writer that will have little trouble “remembering” someone into the form of example they need.
Having trained and struggled with so much of the Duluth models presuppositions, I can say, these posts are invaluable, D.
It is important to understand that at the base level of its ideology, the society must reject that there is anything specifically or inherently valuable about husbands or fathers. In the psychoeducation groups I once taught, one of the primary objectives (over the 52 week required period) was to dismantle any of the “clients” beliefs related to “male privilege.” It was considered a prime indicator of “progress” that could be reported to their probation officers.
Any hint of the idea that being the husband in the relationship carries with it any sort of due honor was scorned and confronted, using the more advanced men in the class for “accountability.”
A site, like my new project would be considered deeply troubling to them.
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/
Think about this–there a million “mommy blogs” devoted entirely to honoring motherhood. These sites exist to advertise how harrowing, self-sacrificing, painful and difficult it is to be a mom. But not even one that’s sole purpose is to say: “dads. We honor you.”
Think about this–there a million “mommy blogs” devoted entirely to honoring motherhood. These sites exist to advertise how harrowing, self-sacrificing, painful and difficult it is to be a mom. But not even one that’s sole purpose is to say: “dads. We honor you.”
Scott, I have to say that that is one beautiful blog you have set up. I was genuinely touched by the first several profiles you added, a couple of them featuring guys who clearly are carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders. I wanted to add some comments of encouragement, but the problem is: how do you do that for multiple profiles without sounding pro forma?
Anyway, may this new blog gain worldwide attention quickly. God bless you for setting it up!
Pingback: The root of the problem. | Reaction Times
Ideas on how to avoid thoughts of motherhood?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1018995
Why you will marry the wrong person
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1018996
“Male Privilege”? I don’t consider being drafted for Vietnam a privilege. Did any American women get drafted? Of course not! But women got to vote for the continuation of those wars without having to fight in them. Privilege is bring able to implement policy that you don’t have to suffer.
“Sexually derided by her brother”? WTH is going on in these heads?
In other words: All you nice Christian boys should volunteer to become the cucks who enable your wives’ selfish and carnal pursuits. (That’s what Kassian is actually saying, here.)
Once “empowered” this way, your wives will truly begin to love and respect you.
To stop the horrible abuse women continue to face at the hands of evil Christian men everywhere, there should be a moratorium on marriage for the next thousand years. Only through such methods can we even just begin to stomp out the disgusting abuse that lingers on the tongues and hands of Christian men who are evil and beyond redemption.
Christian ladies, daughters of the King most high, save yourselves and do not seek marriage to a Christian devilish brother.
You do not marry a feminist women under any circumstances, even if a gun is pointed at your head, you let that bullet be fired at point blank range and die, knowing you dodged a bullet.
Kassian is merely taken more women to hell with her. If they are unable to repent for their sins because they keep on laying the blame on men, they will be hell bound. Sorry to say, this lady needs to be dropped like a hot potato and told to go find a real, feminist job somewhere else. Anywhere else but a Church, Church group or anything to do with Christianity, her work is of the devil.
These women are sick and see any criticism by a male of their bad behaviour as abuse. It is that simple. When a brother derides his sister for acting like a cunt, which is probably the case here, that is what she is saying is abuse.
The solution is clear, as said above, just tell women ‘no’ at all requests until they shut up. No, no no no. Worked rather well in my life, I may not get to be married but I don’t have women asking me to do shit for them either, they know the answer. Either submit or shut the fuck up and go away.
Tried this yesterday, but it got lost somehow. From Aimee Byrd:
http://theaquilareport.com/does-complementarity-just-boil-down-to-a-tiebreaker/
Summary:
1. No, complementarity does not just mean the man gets the tiebreaker. It’s complicated.
2. At the bottom line, when conflict arises, the husband should sacrifice his preferences to his wife’s. That’s his call.
So as I read it, the message came across clearly: leadership by the husband means submission to the desires of his wife.
>>>Fortunately, Sandra found a Christian husband who was willing to “sign a contract agreeing to stay home half-time should they have children.” Through the love of this good man, Kassian explains that Sandra’s desire for feminism eventually went away.
Dead man walking. As we have learned, and I suppose he will too, this type of behavior stokes the fires of feminism to white hot. The notion that such a woman’s desire for feminism eventually went away is absurd. All that happened is that she became queen of the world, and despised him for it.
A nice man can only pacify, for a short season, a woman’s rebellion, which gives the illusion of a loved wife not in rebellion. But the rebellion is still present and ready to be utilized when necessary.
Scott,
That website is somewhat revolutionary in concept. Men are being honored without much reference to women. One wonders if you will get pushback for your ‘oversight’ (the polite ones) or your ‘misogyny’ (the hard cores).
Maybe even feminists are OK with guys trying to be good dads?
What is interesting is that stories of male sin are stored and treasured by such women. Repeated and told over and over, these stories become valuable emotional shields against God’s commands to the wife, and proof that husbands have to right to obey God either.
The formula is always the same. Bring out the polished perfected story of horrific sin done by males, load that story with emotionally impactful language. Then proceed to explain why scripture can’t possibly mean what it does because [story].
Pingback: Guarding her equality. | Dalrock
Lost Patrol-
Your comment made me think, I need to write a “comment policy” page for the site.
You have articulated the one part of this new project I could not really put into words. The truth is, after only a handful of them (I just started a few days ago) the reason there is very little mention of wives/moms in the posts is not so much “intentional” as it is a natural by-product of what I have learned in my 5-ish years of reading around here. It is the natural outcome of the purpose of the site.
And I think you are right. I do not pretend to be the most prolific writer around these parts. My last blog, Morally Contextualized Romance was the most successful one so far, and on a good month, I got about 7,000 new visits. My threads were running around 25-75 comments. Compared to the heavy hitters, I am small potatoes.
But–my hypothesis is that I will get consternation in the form of “what about the mom?” or “behind every good man…” type stuff.
If that is the case, it will actually prove what Dalrock and others have been saying for a while. In the totally feminized world we live in, any amount of space devoted to men must be infiltrated and marked as territory.
Scott said:
Your comment made me think, I need to write a “comment policy” page for the site.
Actually, I’d be inclined to let any negative comments from the Estrogen Pool stand as “documentary evidence” of why the blog is needed (and, in the case of some of the fathers you profile, why they’re doing the job by themselves).
“Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage).”
“Marc Lépine was born Gamil Rodrigue Liass Gharbi on October 26, 1964 in Montreal, Quebec, the son of Algerian immigrant Rachid Liass Gharbi and Canadian nurse Monique Lépine.[3][4] His father Rachid, who was a mutual funds salesman, was travelling in the Caribbean at the time of his son’s birth.[5] During his absence, his mother Monique discovered evidence that her husband had been having an affair.[6] Rachid was a non-practising Muslim, and Monique a former Catholic nun who had rejected organized religion after she left the convent.[7] Their son was baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant, but received no religious instruction during his childhood;[4][8] his mother described her son as “a confirmed atheist all his life.””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine
Actually, I’d be inclined to let any negative comments from the Estrogen Pool stand as “documentary evidence” of why the blog is needed (and, in the case of some of the fathers you profile, why they’re doing the job by themselves).
I thought about that, and here is my counter point. Those kinds of comments belong in a separate section of the site. If they appear in any individual mans comments section, they stain the post– which is to honor that particular father and nothing else.
I am most concerned that since these men have agreed to have their photos in the blog, people who know them will want to tell “the other side of the story” which is not appropriate for my purpose.
@Hmm:
I notice no comments section on that article. A well-run site’s comments section is always extremely insightful, at least until it gets too popular. But, well, it’d show the author up. And we can’t have the Truth interceding on the situation, can we?
I notice no comments section on that article. A well-run site’s comments section is always extremely insightful, at least until it gets too popular.
It’s hard to imagine anyone paying any attention to a blog that doesn’t have a comments section, give that interactivity is the whole purpose of a blog.
…given that…
I am continually amazed at these findings, Dalrock. Modern Christianity teaches men to submit an that men are ALWAYS at fault when a relationship fails because he failed to lover her like Christ loved the church.
After giving Eve paradise and ONE SIMPLE RULE TO FOLLOW she rebelled against God almighty Himself. Then she convinced her husband to sin. Then she lied about it. Then she hamstered an excuse.
Query: Did Eve rebel because God failed to love her like Christ loved the church?
There is an interesting parallel to modern churchian thinking and Married Red Pill in that the Merps (Married Red Pill-ers) ALWAYS blame the man no matter how much of an awful bitch the woman might be. Even if she is an evil harpy who has made it her mission in life to destroy you, the guys will STILL blame the man. He didn’t vet her properly! I have tried to oppose this line of thinking but the tendency to pile on is strong.
BPP-
It’s a very strong urge indeed.
I have made a conscious effort to NOT do that, and still sometimes catch myself.
The earliest detection I had of it actually came from Dalrocks discussions about fragging Christiain headship.
It’s a big part of what led me in the direction of my new effort.
My first rule for the new site is 1. No “you’re doing it wrong” comments.
That’s because it’s not Christianity it’s gynocentrism. Woman worship. The secular institutions and “Christian” churches are the moral support for cunt behavior and daddy government is it’s almighty enforcer.
Scott,
I see you have laid down clear and simple ground rules for commentary on the new website (which BTW makes one want to meet some of these dads in person). I for one, and possibly others here would be interested to learn later if you have had to block comments that DON’T honor fathers so to speak – although I don’t know how that could be done without going off topic or otherwise disrupting one of Dalrock’s posts/threads. Just curious as to how far some feminists might be willing to go to cast aspersions on the concept. Or be pleasantly surprised to find that even feminists are OK with guys trying to be good dads.
LP-
I am curious too, for the same reasons. So far, nothing but positive stuff. (But the site is 4 days old).
BPP,
Holding a man accountable for what he does is not the same as blaming him for everything. The man is very often responsible for his situation and ignoring that because of the exceptions is not smart.
Though many of the warnings about an unchangeable wife are quite similar to those about abuse by the husband. Both can dsitract from the issues the one making them can control.
Men are not women and can handle calls for greatness. Don’t treat them like women just to avoid bothering a few.
Scott, your site may be better to limit the part of changing ourselves as men, if it is aimed as it seems. Start with some healings and build on the other when things are in place to support that.
I would not use their real pictures. Find some stock photos or other illustrations. Connecting on the Internet is too easy and you don’t need to make it easier for a hostile spouse or other to ruin them over it.
That’s because when it comes to women most guys are complete pussies no matter hoe “Red Pill” they claim to be. It’s one of the reasons we’re in the situation we’re in now. Sometimes you have to do the difficult thing and that takes effort. But most are too lazy or cowardly to do what needs to be done.
Scott
In the psychoeducation groups I once taught, one of the primary objectives (over the 52 week required period) was to dismantle any of the “clients” beliefs related to “male privilege.” It was considered a prime indicator of “progress” that could be reported to their probation officers.
I know a man who got sent to one of these. The “how” and “why” aren’t important. What matters is he was tacitly urged not to tell other men what was going on in these sessions. Scott can correct me if he wishes, but at least some of these year-long group sessions are eerily similar to the infamous “self-criticism” of Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural Revolution. Repeating slogans that one doesn’t believe over and over has an eroding effect. Being trained to turn on each other for the slightest deviation from Correct Thought has another effect.
Knowing that the only way out of 52 weeks of pain[*] is to repeat the slogans with enough fake enthusiasm to convince a skeptical, feminist, misandrist is motivating in a way. I only have the one data point, but it really did sound a lot like something from a totalitarian, thought-control regime. Which shouldn’t be a surprise, given that a lot of 2nd stage feminists apparently admired Mao’s China quite a lot.
[*] Over coffee one day he muttered miserably that if he missed a single class for any reason he’d have to start over. He even called his wife to double check. I doubt it will surprise anyone to learn that some years after his re-education experience, she divorced him.
Scott
But–my hypothesis is that I will get consternation in the form of “what about the mom?” or “behind every good man…” type stuff.
Totally testable. Negative hypothesis: you won’t get any of that stuff. So even a single comment of that sort will prove your hypthesis. I’ll be amazed if you don’t get one by the end of August.
“Men Do That Too!” is a go-to diversionary tactic that women always trot out. And by “always” I mean “in every case where there is a disagreement over women’s behavior”, this applies from the large-group societal level right down to the individual contentious woman squirming to get out of admitting anything derogatory about herself to her husband. Macro to micro, it’s apparently hardwired.
@Scott
Sounds to me a little like AA’s Twelve Step Programme. I know a certain amount about that as my late, poor unfortunate brother, was an attendee. One had to bare ones soul and say what a dreadful person one was; for my brother that was meat and gravy: what he needed was building up not knocking down. Did it however help his alcoholic problem? No, of course not, but at least whilst on the course it kept him away from drink.
@Anon Reader
If you have a bit of time you might want to check out: Santa Clara County Probation Department STANDARDS FOR BATTERERS PROGRAMS AND CERTIFICATION. I’ve thought of doing a post on it, but there may be too much to try to tackle.
Thanks for the pointer, Dalrock. The relevant parts are not hard to tease out. There is a grudging admission of the possibility of female batterers, but most of the languages is pure Duluth.
It must be interesting, in a somewhat morbid way, for the true believers in the Duluth Wheel to cut and fit it to homosexual relationships, where the whole “Who? Whom?” of 2nd stage feminism simply doesn’t fit.
tl;dr – as with Federal guidlines promulgated in association with VAWA, a man who cuts up the credit card of a spendthrift wife is “battering” her, if someone wants to make a case of it. “People”, meaning women, are to be allowed to do what they want with no interference from anyone.
“’People’, meaning women, are to be allowed to do what they want with no interference from anyone, and without suffering consequences of any kind from their behavior, said consequences being transferrable at will to any conveniently available male.”
FIFY.
MY WIFE ATTACKED ME
My enraged “Christian” wife came at me, so I ran into my office and I locked the door. (Fellas, It is unwise to defend yourself from an attacking female because when she gets one MARK or SCRATCH on her by you defending yourself, YOU ARE TOAST!)
She beat on the door demanding I open it. Then she got a paper clip and pressed the pin to release the lock, so I put all my weight against the door and called 911. I told the operator my wife was out of control and threatening me.
When the two police officers arrived at the door, she answered it and I came out of my office. The police immediately approached me assuming I was the aggressor. I had to convince the cops my wife was threatening me, and that I MADE THE 911 PHONE CALL! Can you believe the operator didn’t tell them?
So, once they understood she was threatening me, did they approach my pretty blonde wife like they did me? Nope. They simply put us in separate rooms to get our stories. The Police Report is on file in High Point, NC.
Males are now receiving the same discrimination IN CHURCH that we receive in society.
Join AMBEC by clicking the LINK below and help put a stop to the “anti-male bias” which exists a majority of pastors and leaders.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/reportAMBEC/
I had to convince the cops my wife was threatening me, and that I MADE THE 911 PHONE CALL! Can you believe the operator didn’t tell them?
I can think of few things easier to believe than this.
So, once they understood she was threatening me, did they approach my pretty blonde wife like they did me? Nope. They simply put us in separate rooms to get our stories. The Police Report is on file in High Point, NC.
You’re lucky they don’t have a “must arrest” ‘policy where you are. In many places, the cops are required to arrest the party which is more likely to do physical harm — which is pretty much always the guy unless the woman is brandishing a weapon at them when they arrive.
@Jim
Its incredibly easy to do what you just did, and to initially be unaware that you’ve done it. Ive read along your comments. Lots of guys here can relate to those frustrating facts with great specificity. The choir here is using the same and the right song book. But in zeal, to start the AMOGing in this way that you have there will quickly make you part of the problem, and surely no part of any solution. Not that there is a solution to be a part of readily available.
And people — especially over-30 women — are so mystified as to why MGTOW is growing so much and so fast.
It’s better for a man to be single than to fervently wish that he was.
I am a Christian man and I never take crap from a woman and I have noticed it always works in my favor. A few years ago i was out of work and a client of my wife said she would pay me to drop and pick her up from a train station about 100 miles away. She was in her early 70’s (I was about 55) and a nationally successful free lance writer. Thru my wife I learned she was a feminist and regularly verbally abused her husband. When it came time to pick her up, I ran into some traffic issues and was 5 mins late. (She had no cell phone or I would have given her a courtesy call) Upon arriving, I picked up her bag and was walking off, when in public she began to berate me like I was a child.
I turned around and gave her my look of death and said, “What in the hell did you just say to me?” Her look of shock was priceless. It was if she was thinking “Uh oh real men do exist and I just screwed up.” I continued walking towards her until I was looking down at her and said, ” Don’t you ever speak to me that way again in public or private. I am a man and you are a woman and if you can’t keep your place then I will put you in it, is that clear? She gave a very sheepish “yes sir” and was quiet for about 30 mins. She apologized and the ride back was actually pleasurable.
Later I heard from my wife when a similar situation was discussed among them that she stated that she knew her husband (me) would never tolerate that and that I was movie star good looking. Nice to get a compliment but the point being when she was put in her place she actually enjoyed it and was certainly a nicer person to be around from that day forward.
Pingback: Ideas for a treatise on Patriarchal marriage | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: The Scriptures, Tradition and Canon | Christianity and masculinity
The attraction and increased female adoption of feminism and other Marxist viewpoints stems from their increased political power. Women naturally want to find the best mate possible and keep them. That mate would have to pay for the woman and their children, and the woman would have certain roles within a hierarchy and familial/community government. But with the destruction of traditional states and advent of hyper-inclusive democracies, the economic transactions from certain incentives that were formerly voluntary and mutually valuable have been taken over and perverted by the state. Women are on net tax consumers, men are on net tax payers.