In Real Men Love Strong Women*, a feminist laments the fact that weak men are screwing feminism up:
I’ve heard it too many times: “A man likes a quiet woman.” “Guys don’t respond well to smart girls.” “Educated women are too intimidating to attract good men.”
…we feel very clever when we get to diagnose the cause and cure of singleness. “You’re too opinionated.” “You’re too boisterous.” “A woman should be small, quiet, and delicate.”
Yet, it’s easy to forget in the midst of all our diagnosing: whether a woman is “intimidating” is a factor of male perception, not female personality. Do we want women to be less intimidating? That’s a question to be put to men who experience them as such, and we can only wait for such men to grow.
This basic complaint is standard issue for feminists, and you will regularly see the same lament on Jezebel or Gawker. However, what sets this particular ban bossy article apart is that it appears on John Piper’s Desiring God website. Piper you will recall is (along with Grudem) one of the two main founders of the CBMW and the complementarian movement. Piper is also a council member of the other big complementarian group, The Gospel Coalition. John Piper is at the core of the complementarian movement, and he published this piece on his personal website.
As a complementarian argument for feminism, the author (Paul Maxwell) frames ban bossy as a matter of being good Christians:
We live in a time when women are outperforming men in many areas of professional and personal competency. And men have two choices: to find female strength captivatingly attractive, or to be insecure and intimidated. Real men love strong women, because God’s glory is beautiful, and “woman is the glory of man” (1 Corinthians 11:7).
Jesus, give men the grace to see the beauty of glorious female strength. Give women the resilience to remain strong long enough for the right men to find them beautiful for the right reasons. And help men and women to fall in love with proven, genuine faith, which is “more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire” (1 Peter 1:7).
Maxwell offers the example of Jael in Judges 4 in making his case that Christianity discourages women from being meek and submissive:
…often, godly femininity requires being strong, even intimidating. Consider Jael in Judges 4. Jael’s husband Heber “had separated from the Kenites,” and “had pitched his tent as far away as the oak in Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh” (Judges 4:11).
So, when Sisera, a Canaanite military general under Jabin the King of Hazor — the enemy of the people of God — tried to seek refuge, he went to Heber’s tent, “for there was peace between Jabin the King of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite” (Judges 4:17). But Sisera found Jael at the tent and started barking orders at her: “Give me a little water.” “Stand at the opening of the tent.” In response, “she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground” (Judges 4:21). Deborah later sang of Jael, “Most blessed of women be Jael . . . She sent her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen’s mallet” (Judges 5:24, 26).
Thank God Jael wasn’t meek and submissive and respectful toward this friend of her wayward husband. She wasn’t one to be trampled on. Strong women reject the requests of evil men.
A far more relevant (and less obscure) Old Testament example would be Sarah in Genesis. As the Apostle Peter explains in 1 Pet 3, Sarah is the example Christian wives are to emulate:
3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
Note that Peter tells us that wives who submit to their husbands, who cultivate a gentle and quiet spirit, are beautiful to God. Maxwell, on the other hand, tells us that men who are attracted to what God finds beautiful are not real men, and not good Christians. Is God insecure and intimidated because He finds quiet, gentle, and submissive women beautiful? Of course not. Moreover, what is beautiful to God is what is beautiful (period). God does not have faulty “male perception”, He is perfect, and so is His perception.
Not only has Maxwell chosen a relatively obscure OT story while ignoring much more relevant NT direct instruction, but he has managed to miss entirely the point of Judges 4. The moral of Judges 4 is not that men need strong women to lead them. The moral is that it was shameful for Barak to insist that Deborah accompany him to the battle. Because of this, God ensured that Barak would have no glory in the battle by delivering his enemy into the hands of a woman (Jael).
6 Then she sent and called for Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali, and said to him, “Has not the Lord God of Israel commanded, ‘Go and deploy troops at Mount Tabor; take with you ten thousand men of the sons of Naphtali and of the sons of Zebulun; 7 and against you I will deploy Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude at the River Kishon; and I will deliver him into your hand’?”
8 And Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go!”
9 So she said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”
Every other man in the enemy’s army was slaughtered that day by Barak and his men, except for Sisera, whom God reserved for a woman to kill (as punishment to Barak).
16 But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth Hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not a man was left.
17 However, Sisera had fled away on foot to the tent of Jael..
Instead of badly misinterpreting Judges 4, Maxwell could have turned to the book immediately following Judges, the Book of Ruth. While Jael is praised in the Song of Deborah for her role in shaming Barak, she is a foreigner who isn’t chronicled in the Bible as converting to become a Hebrew, and if she had any children they aren’t noted in the Bible. On the other hand, while also a foreigner, Ruth follows God, has a book of the Bible named after her**, and has the honor of being the great grandmother of King David, from whose line Christ was born.
Maxwell could also have gone further to Proverbs 7:11, where a rebellious woman is described as (depending on the translation) loud or boisterous, traits Maxwell is arguing are encouraged by God. He could likewise have turned to Isaiah 3:12:
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
*HT Woodchipper
**If you haven’t read the book of Ruth, or haven’t read it recently, I highly recommend taking a few minutes to read it. The story is moving, sweet, short, and every page is guaranteed to make a feminist want to tear out the hair on her legs.
Pingback: Are real men attracted to boisterous, opinionated women? | Aus-Alt-Right
I don’t mind a strong woman who understand that the man is the head of a household if he is properly providing for his home. Women deserve more respect than given to them. Great read
Off topic:
Economists are puzzled. Why are men leaving the work force?
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/06/492849471/an-economic-mystery-why-are-men-leaving-the-workforce
Interesting. So we’re told that Christian women should follow the example of Jael and murder their sinful husbands.
Proverbs 19:13:
“The woman of folly is boisterous, She is naive and knows nothing.”
NASB
Yes, they’re stimulating. Crazy women are the best in bed, too.
I have a LOT to say about Dalrock’s article, and my counter-article, situated within his domain, will take about thirty minutes for me to write. I’d like you to play this Christian music while you read. It’s a great song, by Chris Tomlin.
Now then. First I’m going to talk about pleasantly meek women and Christianity, then I’m going to segue into a general description of widespread cultural decay. If you’re bored with the notion of women being bitchy (which is not exactly a newsflash) then skip ahead to the summation of my analysis of society’s cultural mores and State-of-the-Religion. First, women and bitchiness.
Dalrock supports the notion of a woman, like Sarah in the Bible, who is pleasant to be with, not a chore, a wonderful helpmate and soul provider/confider.
But let’s be real for a second. I’ve never met a woman like that. Even the sweetest woman turns tyrant against men the second it advantages her.
In reality, women hold a remote control over men, and it’s called “emotional button pushing.” Women can make men feel things by mysterious natural . . . tactics . . . but men CANNOT DO THE REVERSE. I suppose an alpha seducer like me can come closer, but the stupidest, crudest girl has more capabilities in that than my brilliant mind can device. Emotion trumps logic.
So men, in modern times, retreat from their churches and retreat from their women’s dominion, and go to their “man caves.” Is this a new thing, women’s satanic influence over men?
No. If you read William Shakespeare’s contemporarily popular “The Taming of the Shrew,” bitches have a long history in the West. But then, you say, surely the Muslim World is better for its control of women.
On the surface, yes. Through a tremendous — and much-admirable effort — the men of the Islam world have managed to throw a cloak over the inferior gender in public.
But in private, it’s a different story. I recall reading a historical travels account by a Muslim adventurer, who saw a woman berating and controlling a man so badly the Muslim man thought she was the boss of a servant.
It turned out to be her Muslim husband.
And the Chinese, too . . . the women with cold, slitted eyes who rationally decide on husbands based on their net worth. (“Better to cry in a BMW than smile on the back of a bicycle.”) Is this not controlling and domineering?
How could women all be like this, inside?
Because they have the power, and power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Now onto society . . .
The general loss of Christian morals and the abandonment of church by even many believers is a sad testimony to religion in society. I, Greg Nikolic, am not exactly what you’d call . . . .a traditional Christian . . .but I see the value of religion more clearly than most traditional believers.
Religion can be one of the best glues of society, entirely aside from any possible salvation. It unites mass groups, and turns darkness into light. The benefits go on and on. Psychologically, you deal with adversity much better if you’re a true believer. In your financial life, you trust your co-religionists, especially Christian-on-Christian, but this also applies to Jew-on-Jew, and that enables you to conduct business with onerous legal contracts and the like.
Society may be falling in the American Empire. As American transfers religion and culture — and the Third Great Awakening of Christianity looks permanently postponed — into the worship of Mammon, the nation hooks its future to the rise and fall of the market. Whereas Christianity was a rock throughout the Middle Ages, inspiring the building of a single local cathedral over multiple generations, the peasants dragging stones miles, Modern Capitalism seeks to Globalize, Homogenize, and De-Culturize everything, and that includes the general worship of Christianity of society.
To read more about this topic, click on my name. And if you’re sensitive to somewhat crude behavior, skip over my personal articles. They’re kind of low for the higher sensibility.
lol… Depends on the man I suppose. Amen.
~ Bro. Jed
I wish Piper could apply theology as well as he can exegete it.
This must be just how the papists feel when Jorge speaks. For one of the pre-eminent Calvinists to give his approval to posting this makes me sad.
“Jesus, give men the grace to see the beauty of glorious female strength. Give women the resilience to remain strong long enough for the right men to find them beautiful for the right reasons”
A question for Maxwell: Why do women have “strength” and “resilience” – manly qualities, while men have “grace” – a feminine quality?
He has inverted Scripture.
Another question: Are these women using their “resilience” to remain to “remain strong” long enough for a man “to find them beautiful for the right reasons”? Apparently not: Women identifying as Christian on RSVP will put out on the second date That shows Christian women are accumulating a N count as high as their secular counterparts.
Maxwell is going to get judged harshly for this one. And not by the Manosphere.
He knows that teachers get judged more harshly, right?
The weak cuck Paul Maxwell immediately blocked y’r pal Herbie after sending this tweet.
I’m glad he realizes that his position is indefensible. Perhaps he’ll give some thought to coming over to our side, some day.
I have never heard anyone say “A man likes a quiet woman.” Ever. That’s usually how you can tell these types of articles aren’t going to make good points. They always start with some anecdotal, self-evident, societal opinion that doesn’t reflect how anyone you know behaves. They set up this false dichotomy that men don’t like annoying feminism; therefore, they hate all women who talk, have an IQ above 95, and went to college.
I’m late 20s. Nearly all my friends are happily married to woman who have degrees, careers, part time with kids, and are no less intelligent or opinionated than their spouses. This world the writer paints barely exists.
The entire reason women with degrees have a harder time dating is explained by their continuous desire to date-up in the “social status” category. All these types of complaints are just a smokescreen to avoid admitting they won’t or don’t look to date someone with less education or less income than them
thedeti said on September 8, 2016 at 5:40 pm
I’m confused. Jael did not kill her husband, Heber, but killed Sisera, the leader of the Canaanite army.
Maxwell wrote this, too:
Six Truths for Dating Someone with a Sexual History
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/six-truths-for-dating-someone-with-a-sexual-history
A very interesting form of Christianity he follows, to be sure.
I have a LOT to say about Dalrock’s article, and my counter-article, situated within his domain, will take about thirty minutes for me to write.
Wow, you must type really slowly.
In reality, women hold a remote control over men, and it’s called “emotional button pushing.” Women can make men feel things by mysterious natural . . . tactics . . . but men CANNOT DO THE REVERSE.
Hogwash. Once a man learns that women’s emotional button pushing Rolodex is finite, and that he need not respond to her emotional tantrum in kind, he can control that button pushing. And men can indeed push women’s buttons quite handily.
I suppose an alpha seducer like me can come closer, but the stupidest, crudest girl has more capabilities in that than my brilliant mind can device.
Then obviously you are not an alpha seducer, but rather another self-promoting wannabe.
Emotion trumps logic.
“Show, don’t tell”.
PS: Sarah is a standard for women to aspire to. That women fall short of her standard in no way negates the standard.
PPS: It’s interesting how much White Knightery is coming out of the upper reaches of churches now, almost always from some aging Boomer. It’s almost as though some people are doubling down on errors they made years and years ago, whether it’s the Pope returning to Liberation Theology or Piper making an idol of women (isn’t that called “idolatry”? Isn’t that supposed to be a bad thing? I’m so confused…).
Dear Marcus:
Wouldn’t hurt for you to point out the errors of his ways on twitter.
The rest of you guys should get on twitter and have some fourth-wall trolling fun, too. It’s the only place where you can talk back to these idiots and bring the pain directly. The least you can do is spread Dalrock articles around. Think about it!
Boxer
Interesting that even the feminist implicitly seems to understand the natural attraction triggers at work here (that “strong”, masculine women are just not sexy to most men). Contrast that to the dimwitted cuckservative who still believes women naturally only tingle for “good men”.
This is just more feminist projection. A far more relevant sermon might call on women to overcome their “female perception” that is obscuring their desire to put-out for nice guys. Of course, both approaches are akin to hammering a square peg into a round hole.
Ironically, Jael only succeeding in killing Sisera precisely because she acted meekly and submissively
The article you quoted is a perfect example of feminist self hatred.
IFurther, look at what she used to kill Sisera, a tent peg. We Jews have a tradition that she specifically used the tent peg and not a knife or dagger because she did not want to use “the clothing of men”.
Its actually amazing to me how utterly insane the writers of that artcile were.
“We live in a time when women are outperforming men in many areas of professional and personal competency. And men have two choices: to find female strength captivatingly attractive, or to be insecure and intimidated.”
Really dude? Those are the only two choices?
Let’s say they are. Most men actually appreciate a strong woman – strong at being a woman. You can always tell the real thing, and it has nothing to do with being ‘small, quiet, and delicate’ (see history of the American frontier). But the strong that feminists (christian and secular) seem to be going for is a manly strong. This is less appealing.
‘The women are outperforming the men professionally and personally.’ Leaving aside for the moment the plethora of laws, regulations and customs that are designed to advance women in every field of endeavor; why does a man have to be captivatingly attracted to a woman that simply does the things a man does? He has plenty of daily competition both friendly and not so friendly in the areas of professional and personal performance.
Why would he want to see women in that same light? Why should he care to be bothered with them? Why are so many women keen to abandon the very things that are great about them, to try and become more like a man?
Dalrock has already provided some answers, but I still never can come to grips with this at a gut level. I suppose I will have to join the ranks of the insecure and intimidated. I hope you guys won’t tell anyone.
The answer to the question is NO. besides that if she is so strong why does she care if the man can handle her. She doesn’t need him and she damn sure is going to treat him that way too.
@ jamesd127
5/10.
Troll harder, bro,
[D: Indeed. He’s gone now.]
I wrote about this a couple months ago going point by point debunking the whole thing with Scripture:
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/real-men-dont-love-strong-women/
Judges 4 is not at all difficult to understand, yet it is used to teach lies time and again. Spot on once again Dalrock.
I’m glad he realizes that his position is indefensible. Perhaps he’ll give some thought to coming over to our side, some day.
Let us hope and pray so, but I wouldn’t get my hopes up that it’ll happen in the immediate future. Professional white knights having a tendency to choke almost to death on RPs, and none of them who have come around here to defend their positions have fared well (I’m betting that Ken Alexander is still nursing battle wounds suffered here a couple of months back. The odds of our hearing from him again are probably south of zero).
I would love to join in on the FB battle, but still just cannot force myself to get a FB account. Maybe I’ll change my mind eventually if the action heats up.
“We live in a time when women are outperforming men in many areas of professional and personal competency. And men have two choices: to find female strength captivatingly attractive, or to be insecure and intimidated.”
Really dude? Those are the only two choices?
Yeah, that piece of nonsense caught my eye too. The first sentence is pure horse shit. Women are not “outperforming” men; men are being driven out of traditionally male-dominated areas in what can only be described as “sexual cleansing” (think both academia and the professional workplace). Then again, Maxwell is probably about as familiar with traditionally male spaces as I am with the inside of a nuclear reactor control room.
Dear Fellas:
dragnet sez:
Thanks for noting this. I didn’t want to feed into this nonsense originally, but it brings up an interesting possibility.
I may be wrong, but my instinct is lately to assume that anyone who comes here with personal bro-stories about physically beating his wife to be a feminist indulging in black propaganda. The serious Christian and Jewish marrieds that I know aren’t dysfunctional that way. It’s nothing more than a degenerate feminist parody of what the men of the manosphere are supposedly like.
feeriker sez:
Can’t really fault you there. Facebook and Twitter are both horrible time sinks, though our enemies are on there, showing their ass… so I find it irresistible to occasionally log on and tell them the truth. A personal weakness, no doubt, but not one I intend to change.
Best,
Boxer
That was a more entertaining post than what Hollywood makes hundreds of millions on. That was great writing. I wouldn’t have thought to write about the Maxwell post with the twist you put in it. I’ll still be shocked tomorrow when I think about reading your opening and assuming the quote was from a secular academic feminist like Stacy McCain exposes. But it was Piper whodunit!! Pray for Neguy as he tries to strike at the minds of the heart of darkness. I want my pastor to set aside the first minutes of his sermon to read what you wrote. Oh to see such a day, and in God’s power, it’s something that I shouldn’t consider as impossible, even though it seems so unlikely.
Pingback: Are real men attracted to boisterous, opinionated women? | Reaction Times
Boxer,
Great use of a tweet with Maxwell. I think that is a sincerely loving action because it gives him the opportunity to see his errors, and you didn’t attack him or be snarky. One these tweets will work some day and its going to be encouraging to share/see the scales from a leader’s eyes when they show up here and say thanks to Dalrock and you.
If boisterous means energetic and eager to be physically affectionate…sure.
But opinionated? Expletive No. Opinionated is code for: she will want to run everything, without sufficient intelligence and knowledge to do so well. The truly smart women are the subtle ones, they get better results not being the dictator than the ‘opinionated’ fools do.
We live in a time when women are outperforming men in many areas of professional and personal competency.
Moron confuses credentialism with professionalism and competence.
men have two choices: to find female strength captivatingly attractive, or to be insecure and intimidated.
Third choice: find a woman who isn’t annoying (which is different from being intimidated btw).
You don’t ever seem to tire of obliterating the target, Dalrock.
Although I’m agnostic, I’ve enjoyed the Bible. It contains great values and wisdom for living. I would describe my marriage as “Christian” although neither my wife nor I are of the faith.
It’s clear even to me that modern day “Christendom” is anything but. What your blog highlights for me is how human minds are utterly illogical and malleable, along with the power of groupthink to subvert.
Keep up your work.
Yet another example of a Blue Pill man whining about men who refuse to play along with feminist LARPing. https://anarchistnotebook.com/2016/08/05/statism-and-larping/
Churchianity is really the middle man between feminists and ordinary men. Feminists come up with a new inane social norm and churchies are tasked with ensuring that men cooperate it.
It’s no wonder, though, that this is on John Piper’s site. He thinks men shouldn’t own guns and using violence to protect your loved ones is wrong. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/pipers-debilitating-fear-of-saying-no-to-women/
Somehow, this suddenly changes when you put on a government uniform. Then, you can bomb, shoot, strafe, and blast your way into the grateful hearts of churcies everywhere.
This drivel reminds me of what St. Paul wrote: As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Remember that these cuckservative pastorbators are so pathetic, that they will sustain this narrative by gratuitously touting their 5s and 6s in church as ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’. Three times, with the goal of truth-by-assertion.
As feeriker has taught us, this is not just pathetic fem-worship from needy cuck pastors, but even worse, it is evidence of a complete lack of genuine faith.
Once again, a complete lack of genuine faith.
We live in a time when women are outperforming men in many areas of professional and personal competency.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, the modern age has exposed the full extent of female inferiority…..
Then again, when a desperate cuck believes this, that is a good sign that all costs are transferring onto such cucks.
Boxer,
I may be wrong, but my instinct is lately to assume that anyone who comes here with personal bro-stories about physically beating his wife to be a feminist indulging in black propaganda.
If MRAs were smart, they would realize that it would take only 300 MRAs to destroy ‘feminism’ by online sockpuppet methods.
MRA 1 : Pretend to be a ‘feminist’, engage in all sorts of ‘feminist’ harassment of Muslims on social media.
MRA 2 : Pretend to be a Muslim. Engage in very open desire to subjugate Western ‘feminists’ and put a stop to all the sacred cows of ‘feminism’.
Most ‘feminists’, being afraid of criticizing Islam, will not oppose the statements, until the volume and intensity of it grows, and some ‘feminists’ crack and start to say anti-Muslim things. Coalitions will fracture, and the chaos will be magnificent. Eventually, the Twitter storm built up by both factions of MRA black propagandists will have no choice but to war with each other. This will spill into a real-world war.
Remember, that the only reason that ‘feminists’ and Muslims are allies are because cuckservatives are standing between the two (hence, failing every possible lesson from Sun-Tzu, Leonidas, etc. This alliance could not exist if the two sides had to actually interact with each other. Much like the only reason that Germany and Japan were allies in WW2 was that they were far apart from each other and fighting the same (large) enemies that resided between them.
It would take just 300 MRAs doing black propaganda in both directions to start an unstoppable avalanche.
Heb 11.32- Barak but no Jael….hmmm
Reading this article made me think these guys must go over the OT with a fine tooth comb looking for anything they can spin into feminist jargon, trying to confuse christians.
The feminist war of attrition never ends, this years add from a major Australian bank repeats an old lie and shows the making of mangina.
WARNING: Truly nauseating content:
Don Quixote,
At least the downvotes outnumber the upvotes by 9 to 1, which is exceptional for *any* video on any subject. It may even be near a YouTube record assuming a minimum of 1000 votes total..
If any of these people would be smart they would know the difference between intimidating and irritating. We’re not afraid of your intellect, sweetheart – we’d be happy if you had one -, it’s your disgusting presonality that makes you repulsive.
Dragnet
@ jamesd127
5/10.
Troll harder, bro,
[D: Indeed. He’s gone now.]
Eh, that’s just James Davidson. He has made the rounds of various blogs in the androsphere with a mixture of AMOGish “if yer not doin’ it MAH WAY yer doin’ it WRONG” and Christianese chest thumping. I don’t know if he’s a real troller for flames or just likes attention. Not a real loss.
We’re not afraid of your intellect, sweetheart – we’d be happy if you had one -, it’s your disgusting presonality that makes you repulsive.
Oh, I think I speak for all men here when I say I would be DELIGHTED if a significant percentage of women were truly intelligent. And I mean intelligent on the metrics that matter (innovation, invention, values the pillars of civilization and understands what it takes to maintain them). Man, that would be fantastic.
The fact is, most women are not smart in things that actually matter to civilization. Poll a 100 women about what the pillars of an advanced, free, and prosperous society are, and you will be depressed with the answers. Tell a team of 10 women to come up with the Constitution of what they consider to be an ideal society, and you will be horrified with what they come up with.
Dalrock, a hearty AMEN to this post. Thank you for speaking truth so boldly. “Is God insecure and intimidated because He finds quiet, gentle, and submissive women beautiful?” Slam dunk my friend.
They Call Me Tom
But opinionated? Expletive No. Opinionated is code for: she will want to run everything, without sufficient intelligence and knowledge to do so well
The word you are looking for is contentious. Thanks to Anonymous age 72, back when he was Anonymous Age 69, a few words from the book of Proverbs. There’s more – collect the whole set! – but these make the point just fine.
Proverbs 21:19
“It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.”
Proverbs 25:24
It’s better to live in a corner on the roof than in a house with a contentious woman.
Proverbs 27:15
A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike.
Piper’s site has declared that contentiousness is a virtue….in a woman, anyway.
Tarl,
Third choice: find a woman who isn’t annoying (which is different from being intimidated btw).
Fourth choice : Just pump and dump the church sluts with ecstatic abandon, and ensure that the manginas get to pay the bills afterwards. Everybody wins!
@Anon
“If MRAs were smart, they would realize that it would take only 300 MRAs to destroy ‘feminism’ by online sockpuppet methods.”
If MRAs were smart, they wouldn’t accept the false premises of feminism. They’re just like the conservatives in a way — they’re the real feminists, they’re the real egalitarians, they’re going to fix feminism and make it work.
“If we’re all equal like the feminists say, then we should actually make it true!” Not noticing that the premise is false to begin with; equality is impossible and would be undesirable even if it was possible.
My concern is that when feminism inevitably falls due to its inherent insanity, people might turn to MRA philosophy so they don’t have to abandon egalitarianism. That would make a world nearly as bad as the dystopia the feminists have been eagerly creating.
Moron confuses credentialism with professionalism and competence.
Yep. It’s something else churchians have in common with secular progs.
Anon says:
September 8, 2016 at 11:51 pm
I didn’t notice all the down votes, but I will logon to Youtube and add my down vote. Bank are sensitive to that kind of feedback.
It’s time to stop using innocuous language to describe unpleasant women. When a woman is a bitch and can’t land a man, don’t say “you’re too intimidating/opinionated/aggressive” because fruity male feminists will use that to accuse men of being afraid of BADASS WOMYN. Instead, when a girl is too “intimidating,” call it what it really is- bitchiness.
The problem is that due to hypergamy women only want to date up. So women are getting 60% of college degrees and those women ALL want to get married to a man who has at least the same amount of credentials as she has. And feminism lies to these women and tells them that they are really men and men are really women so men will find their degrees attractive. Meanwhile I have my degree and I only date women who haven’t gotten tons of student loan debt so they could be desouled on the carousel of men they ride in college. I only date women who have not gone to a leftist indoctrination center. Plus due to women’s hypergamy these non-degree women look up to me more due to my degree.
Meanwhile these women are left with no one to marry. And it’s only getting worse.
I’m not sure what women think will happen. I’ve chatted with many of them and they seem to think that getting a degree somehow insures that they will get married to a guy who has at least that degree. They think this about their jobs as well. If they get a promotion they will automatically get a husband who is making at least that much money.
But they don’t realize that they are becoming the men they want to marry and taking the degree and job of that man. Leaving them with no man to marry at all. Meanwhile men are more than happy to date a waitress. Or even an unemployed woman who is actually a woman and not a faux man.
Here is one example:
https://archive.is/lvaXf
I feel very bad for this woman. She is being lied to and suffering because of it.
Wow, so much going on again!
MarcusD posted a thread from CAF recently (“wife punishes me using sex”) which was already secured yesterday. One of the regular female members posted that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meg-conley/five-reasons-your-wife-wo_b_5658214.html
I wonder when they start posting links to playboy articles from this bitch, who likes her ass “worshiped”.
Of course I knew what to expect when I saw the author’s face, but it’s a nice cluster of a few common themes:
– choreplay fallacy (do the dishes! change the diapers!)
– men must think less about them selves
– women must think more about themselves
– male sexuality = on/off switch (no need to make sex any more interesting for men)
– female sexuality = airliner, “cock pit” etc.
– help her with her “ambitions” (well, she might not yet know,what she wants, but – support it unconditionally anyway)
– babysit, while she’s having mom’s nights out
– “listen” (in the meaning “obey”, not “perceive sound”)
This is just disgusting.
Disgusting is the level of “pushing men’s buttons” – she’s a pimp (well, I can’t translate it with a good word: advertising sexual services), like on many porn sites – you see a fat slut doing something dirty and disgusting – at least if you’re not brainwashed [yet] by those who want to sell it) and there is a description about how she is shy, fragile etc. And all I see is a fat lewd pig pretending to be pleasuring herself. That’s why I’ve never really had any problems with “porn addiction”.
The “catholics” (and other “christians”) fight porn, but endorse the other kind of porn – without pictures, but just as detrimental 😉
I could write more about it, but it’s not the topic right now. However, I would like to point out, that the male desire is a target of organized manipulation. To some extent the sex drive can be perverted by outside pressure and propaganda (“social constructs”) – sometimes this happens because of insecurities and buffers – e.g. “fat fetish”, “MILF”, “tits man”, “ass man” etc. It’s like marketing – “look boys, everybody craves this”. Blah, blah, blah. And “mamma’s boys” now dream about SIWs expecting to get if not some action, then just an approving pat on the head from mommy.
There is also some internal contradictions – e.g. “look, there is no more yours and mine, just ours”, but then “iron your own shirts” etc. Hypocrisy.
The scheme is simple:
1. Marriage is sacrifice. So cut of one of your balls and sacrifice it on an altar to me. With the one left, you’ll get sex on tap. Just try to imagine! I will appreciate you sacrifice, and – like god – repay you hundretfold. Don’t you trust ME?
2. Hey, now be a real man. Marriage is not 50/50. You have to give your whole self. If you said A, you must say B. Off with the other testicle.
3. OK, now do the dishes, my eunuch slave. You’re so dumb, poor me! I have to articulate my wishes (your commands) manually. You should just practice more to guess my desires in advance.
4. Oh, it’s that time of the month for me again. You have no balls, but you still have a tongue. Maybe I’ll let you help me with my OM-ing while I think of 50-SoG. Learn to find pleasure in it.
5. We need to talk. I feel there’s something missing…
Tomasz G.’s comment I find amazingly insightful.
Regarding women out performing men:
Take a fire department mandated to hire women. You can’t escape the physical reality of the job. What do you do with a woman who has been hired but can not carry a fire hose? You promote her out of the way. Likewise in the computer industry. It is simply staggering how many female “project managers” there are. Are they there because they are outstanding engineers or because the only thing they excel at is telling men they didn’t do something correctly?
Run a statistical analysis on it though and women will be found to clearly be out performing men.
I’ll just leave this here.
http://www.truthinliving.org/CS_Jael.php
Dalrock, you are awesome. A national treasure.
Quiet, kind, gentle is very attractive. Intelligent and educated* isn’t, in and of itself, unattractive. There’s a petite young female engineer at work who has a quiet, gentle temperament who is very attractive. I don’t doubt that her IQ is higher than mine and that she’s better at math.
* The qualities that often come packaged with “educated” often are unattractive though I don’t know that it has to be this way.
“Thank God Jael wasn’t meek and submissive and respectful toward this friend of her wayward husband. She wasn’t one to be trampled on. Strong women reject the requests of evil men.” ~ Maxwell
That’s just a stupid, willfully ignorant way to interpret that passage.
God commands WIVES to submit to THEIR husbands, NOT women to submit to men. Sisera was not Jael’s husband. Heber was Jael’s husband. Jael’s responsibility was to submit to Heber, not Sisera.
Furthermore, Sisera trusted Jael precisely BECAUSE she was meek, quiet, submissive and not the least bit intimidating.
Judges 4:17 Now Sisera fled away on foot to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite, for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite. 18 Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, “Turn aside, my master, turn aside to me! Do not be afraid.” And he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a [i]rug. 19 He said to her, “Please give me a little water to drink, for I am thirsty.” So she opened a [j]bottle of milk and gave him a drink; then she covered him. 20 He said to her, “Stand in the doorway of the tent, and it shall be if anyone comes and inquires of you, and says, ‘Is there anyone here?’ that you shall say, ‘No.’” 21 But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and [k]seized a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died. 22 And behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him and said to him, “Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.” And he entered [l]with her, and behold Sisera was lying dead with the tent peg in his temple.
It’s not as though Jael challenged Sisera to a duel. She invited him into her home, hid him, made him comfortable, gave him milk to drink, pretended to protect him, waited until he was asleep, THEN pounded a tent peg into his temple.
Maxwell’s interpretation is either stupid or downright deceitful.
Where to start.
A quite of spirit do ant mean quite of mouth though they go together. Someone like Mother Teressa the was very vocal about things like the poor or abortion. But I’d say she had a quite spirit b cause she rest d in God.
Smart women are not intimidating. But as it has been said, “I is what you think you know but is really wrong”. So many women are getting Ph.D.s in man hating I mean liberal arts these days why would a man who want to be around them? And with their unquiet spirit that is restless they mouths never shut up about why others, men in particular are terrible
Never mind that. I’ve got a game to play or a mountain to climb or something else to do
This guy teaches philosophy? What the…. does logic no longer fit into philosophy?
Maxwell’s post is filled with fallacious assertions and reasoning. It’s comical at best.
“A discerning person keeps wisdom in view, but a fool’s eyes wander to the ends of the earth.” Prov 17:24
As I have moved about in various directions on this issue–especially in the last few years–I have noticed the following. I no longer think of these traits in terms of whether or not I am “attracted” vs “intimidated” by them. This is because neither word really has anything to do with my reaction.
The FB memes, and all the pop cultural references to “badass” or “snarky” or “successful” or whatever women have really reached the fever pitch as Dalrocks feminsm machines are now turned up to 11.
I now have 2 reactions to this:
1. Ambivalence.
and
2. Feeling sorry for them.
Whether I am engaged in a time-wasting pile on in the comments section of a stupid “badass woman/real man” FB post, or in real life, it seems I come across as completely dead to the description. This, in turn, causes the opponent to crank up the intensity even more as I settle into being genuinely bored by the entire topic. They have found their misogynist, patriarchal boogeyman who is the single cause of all their problems! (Even though I have absolutely no power in the world to keep anyone down).
Then, I move to the second part of just feeling bad that they (including the men) must double down hard on the narrative to prove to me that I am wrong for my subjective internal response to their Laura Croft/badass/snarky caricature.
If your persona is so attractive, why do you care what an old married guy like me thinks? They should be beating down your door, right?
Its weird what exposure to truth can do to a person. As recently as 5 years ago, I was one of the ones propping up the narrative. I am aware of how the scripture defines a good marriage prospect–for both men and women. Its kind of all over the text.
Its been pointed out a million times before around here. It is a buyers market for women right now. The careerist/you better support me/you can’t handle a strong woman types are a dime a dozen. Anything that even slightly diverges from that is the real gem.
In my many years of schooling I never knew education could be so much fun. At Dalrock University you can laugh while you’re learning! In fact I recommend it, otherwise it can all be too sad and demotivating.
@The Question – thanks for directing to here –
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/pipers-debilitating-fear-of-saying-no-to-women/
another instant classic I had somehow overlooked.
The author in question here, along with the other ‘fellows’ writing such things, really do show us their true colors. I can’t tell if they know this is happening or not. To my way of thinking they all have this in common, they sound like women. Because they are abandoning their own manhood, and finding the results dissatisfying, they want us to come along with them in the old misery-loves-company routine. The arguments are not persuasive, they only make me want to punch them. Just the one time, hard. (But I won’t! Not a threat! Never really happen! Their strong women would interpose and I would truly be at a loss at that point).
I understand this is wrong, and beneath the overall dignity and tone of Dalrock, but it’s my feelings, see? My emotions. I wouldn’t feel like this if these authors would man up. Not really my fault if you think about it.
That’s right boys, if she is an unlikeable, rude, obnoxious, entitled shrew, well that “is a factor of male perception, not female personality.” So change your perception because she sure as hell isn’t going to change for you. However, if she finds you to be a frightening, threatening, intimidating rapist, well, that is a statistical fact.
In the broader scope, this is a part of a larger move towards recasting appropriate marital roles as not only not egalitarian (that train left the station some time ago) but female led, and expressly so. If women are being portrayed as being more competent and together than men are, and men are being exhorted to find that greater competence sexy and attractive, this is a kind of femdom dynamic that is being advocated. It isn’t the fetishy kind, but it is femdom nonetheless in the sense of the relationship being cast as the strong, reliable competent women, and the man who is her mate and is dazzled by her superior strength and competence. In this scenario, the woman is rather obviously the leader, and the man is kind of the “brawn”, if you will. This will be extensively advocated in the broader secular culture in the years ahead for obvious reasons: the culture is, in fact, pumping out manly women and feminine men in large degree, and so if the culture does not advocate relationships along these lines, relationships simply will occur much less often. So expect much more of this kind of advocacy in the years ahead. Along with it will also come advocacy for “soft” cuckolding as well, with the idea that no one man could ever satisfy the needs of one woman, and that men need to be loving and supportive of their wives sexual lives and so on, so that is also coming (in fact, we’ve already seen it advocated in a few places, and the rise of gay marriage will bring gay norms more into straight marriages as well).
It may seem surprising to see this coming secular trend pop up in Christian literature, but we shouldn’t be surprised by this. As this blog has very well pointed out again and again over the years, the culture has thoroughly penetrated the contemporary American church. As the culture moves towards open advocacy of femdom, or “female led relationships”, the church will follow dutifully along, and offer the kind of thinking displayed in Maxwell’s piece as the basis for it. We should not be surprised by this — if anything, Maxwell is simply anticipating the same trends that the secular culture is reflecting, and so he’s trying to remain “relevant”.
They are equating feminine strength with loud, pushy,bossy, ballbuster. When I have to deal with women like that, I am not intimidated. Rather, I regard them somewhere between amusing and annoying. Like a barking dog or my neighbors rusty chainsaw. The truly strong women.. The quiet, submissive ones who seem to be in complete control of themselves..those are the ones you need to pay careful attention to.
Here’s a look at the endgame:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3780817/Eat-pray-leave-man-woman-creator-blockbuster-book-film-stunned-fans-surprise-announcement.html
The problem isn’t strength, but what feminists deem to be strength.
My grandma lost her husband, along with everything she owned, at fifty. Her mother in law wouldn’t even let her come to the funeral. The pain she went through was indescribable. Having never worked a day in her life, she buckled down, got certified as a CNA, and spent the next twenty five years as an in-home caregiver for people who were, in some instances, younger than herself. My mom finally talked her into retiring, and now she spends her days volunteering with the bereavement council at her local church, setting up for funerals. She’s outlived nearly all of her friends. She’s at that phase where her body is starting to fail, beyond what medical care can correct, and she’s still incredibly positive. She isn’t perfect, but she holds up and she’s never once demanded that her children take care of her.
That’s strength. Strength is the ability to bear up under whatever life throws at you. That’s a quality I would think would be a good one to have in a wife.
Too often, however, feminists seem to mistake strength for power. To them, a strong woman is a woman who tries to be in charge of every situation she finds herself in, who overrules people around her in a quest to be in complete control. I can see how men would be incredibly turned off by that.
Lost my previous attempt to post this. Maybe someone knows the product and can find the video of the ad where the mom’s job gets the family transferred. The kids are angry, one boy slams a door. Later, kids are grown and arriving with grand kids for a holiday meal. The son says he is thankful for the house. The father is shown at the very end, while the mother occupies the functional head of the table, the father is a blurred figure at the far other end of the table. The mother narrates.
I can only feel sorry for Christians – having the faith run through the coloured-lens of Feminism. I am reminded of Siegfried where its eponymous hero, having killed the dwarf, slain the dragon, and broken Wotan’s spear, discovers on breaking through the ring of fire that surrounds a certain rock the prone and sleeping body of Brunhilde. ‘what man is this?’ he sings though obviously in German – mistaking the woman for a man – for this ‘man’ is covered in a shield and anyway he had never seen a woman before so his mistake is understandable. It is only when he learns that she is a woman that he experiences and for the first time – fear. She is a big girl too and it really is a case of not being over until the fat lady sings especially as she sings non-stop for about twenty minutes at the end of Gotterdamerung. Like Siegfried and perhaps the unfortunate dragon I am devoid of fear of women and enjoy strong empowered woman much the way I enjoy breaking in a wild stallion. Only then as I add them to my growing collection are they of any use.
I foresee a time when men wear skirts and women wear double-breasted suits, when Presidents are women and men take shorthand dictation – though obviously not in Russia, Philippines or Korea (north), and when it becomes in the name of equality standard office-wear for women to wear some form of cod-piece.
“Most ‘feminists’, being afraid of criticizing Islam, will not oppose the statements, until the volume and intensity of it grows, and some ‘feminists’ crack and start to say anti-Muslim things.”
They’re not afraid of it so much as they are afraid of taking their collective loathing off of the cis White males that occupy so much of their time and energy.
Double Breasted suits, we were recently debating if they will come back. We also debated jackets with three or more buttons. Opus just increased the value of every double breasted suit lingering in the back of the American closet. Will be extra easy to sell one if you add a sequined denim applique on lapels and elbows.
Scott’s thoughts are exactly mine. Let me throw two more things that go through my head.
1. Pity; and
2. Boredom
I pity the chicks that not only think their “don’t need no man” stance makes them attractive to men but they believe in the entire Feminist!(TM) package. I pity them for when it hits about 38-45 and they’re alone, unwanted and it hits they’ve been lied to their entire life.
Boredom because they all have the same lines. “You’re scared of real women!” “You just want a doormat!”, etc. So very tired.
The problem is that due to hypergamy women only want to date up. So women are getting 60% of college degrees and those women ALL want to get married to a man who has at least the same amount of credentials as she has.
The thing is, most of those degrees that women are getting are in worthless BS pseudo-majors like communications, women’s studies, political science, sociology, and “fine arts.” They then are deluded into thinking that these worthless toilet-paper degrees make them more capable and more economically valuable than the HVAC tech who went through a rigorous training course that resulted in him being able to do something genuinely useful for society (of course most such men have much better sense than to date or marry any woman with an advanced university degree and freight train loads of debt therefrom).
And feminism lies to these women and tells them that they are really men and men are really women so men will find their degrees attractive.
I would immediately “next” any woman who made it clear, either explicitly or through non-stop chatter on the subject, that either her degree(s) or her career were the most important things in her life. As Lyn87 once so beautifully put it in regards to men’s attitude women’s degrees and credentials “I’ll take ‘Things No Man Gives a Damn About’ for $1000, Alex.”
The sad thing is that for most women today, their worthless degrees and tedious jobs (NOT “careers”) are the only things they have going for them in their lives. Take those things away, and there’s nothing else “there” at all.
I only date women who have not gone to a leftist indoctrination center. Plus due to women’s hypergamy these non-degree women look up to me more due to my degree.
Yep. Men really are between the proverbial “rock and and a hard place” where this is concerned. Even if you’re a multi-millionaire CEO of a Fortune 500 company, you have a choice of either a ball-busting careerist bitch who will try to compete with and dominate you every chance she gets (“submission”is out of the question unless she’s into BDSM), or a non-college-educated, non-careerist woman who, while she may initially be the most loyal and loving wife in the world, can turn on you in a heartbeat once she becomes unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaappy and then take you for every cent you have.
Here is one example:
https://archive.is/lvaXf
I feel very bad for this woman.
I don’t, not anymore. Whether or not women want to see it, the painful truth has been in front of their solipsistic noses for a long time now.
“Yet, I never had a boyfriend.
The reasons are many,and I have thought about many of them:
1. Perhaps I am a boring, unbearable woman with zero conversational/social skills
2. Perhaps I am not attractive enough
3. Perhaps I don’t seem to be LTR material
And the most controversial one:
Perhaps my success intimidates men”“
Numbers 1 through 3 on her list are absolutely and easily fixable, but she has no motivation whatsoever to do so (that would require accountability, effort, humility, and responsibility, four things that are to a woman as sea salt is to a snail).
As for her “most controversial” item, all it takes is for a man she’s attracted to, but who makes it clear to her that he would rather mate with a live electrical socket than her to tell her “you’re just an insufferable bitch, that’s all.”
@ITTO – It is simply staggering how many female “project managers” there are. Are they there because they are outstanding engineers or because the only thing they excel at is telling men they didn’t do something correctly?
Here at Nameless Giant Corp. IT Department, we’re stuck with three levels of upper management populated exclusively by females. Coincidentally, we effectively have no operations level oversight. We’re continually blindsided by major upheavals that had (I assume) some sort of planning/development phase that would have been helpful to be aware of. Project requirements? Pfft. Look, just do the thing like haa, but without so much mu. You want written requirements? What are you, some kind of troublemaker? Don’t worry, we’ll tell you the specifics once it’s out in production.
Here at Nameless Giant Corp. IT Department, we’re stuck with three levels of upper management populated exclusively by females
… almost none of whom can manage, either. Been there, done that (at XYZ Corporation IT Consulting Services).
Oscar wrote:
Nailed it. Paul Maxwell got every story he related totally wrong. Oscar and others covered Jael. Of Abigail, Maxwell wrote:
“In other words,” he said… The man can’t see the barest and purest fact that other words are actually other words. Abigail’s strength–which is in meekness gentleness and quiet–was proved precisely because she didn’t use “other words” and instead chose to be meek, quiet, and humble. Just like Jael. Maxwell wouldn’t be more wrong if he claimed the Bible said Chuck Norris taught Deborah, Jael, and Abigail to dual-wield Uzis.
Don’t miss this remark, either:
The implication is that women, as a group, strive to be good but are failed by fate and by men; that the only reason there are godly children at all is because of most women and a handful of men who don’t get in their way.
Maxwell is a fantastic example of my theory that Momma’s Boys are what drive the current form of ruination. He admits that he was raised by his mother alone, and that his mother was raised by her mother from the age of 9 when Paul Maxwell’s grandfather died. He is a young goat who was boiled in his mother’s milk.
Someone should start a spreadsheet of the TGC and CBMW guys and see who was raised by a “single mother”, or with “an absent father”. I wonder if that, not Christ, is their true foundation.
Cane Caldo: Maxwell is a fantastic example of my theory that Momma’s Boys are what drive the current form of ruination.
Yup. Think of all the coping a young boy must do when his mission is to fulfill all of Mom’s unmeetable emotional needs. These kids had a big responsibility placed on them from a young age and most of the never realize how it distorts their subsequent interactions.
God commands WIVES to submit to THEIR husbands, NOT women to submit to men. Sisera was not Jael’s husband. Heber was Jael’s husband. Jael’s responsibility was to submit to Heber, not Sisera.
No churchian CEO worth his salt will resist the urge to cuck another churchian man via twisted Scripture.
Maxwell’s interpretation is either stupid or downright deceitful.
Both.
It is a buyers market for women right now. The careerist/you better support me/you can’t handle a strong woman types are a dime a dozen. Anything that even slightly diverges from that is the real gem.
I think that this message needs to be sent to the proprietors of every dating site in existence.
They are equating feminine strength with loud, pushy,bossy, ballbuster. When I have to deal with women like that, I am not intimidated. Rather, I regard them somewhere between amusing and annoying. Like a barking dog or my neighbors rusty chainsaw.
Yes, and in both cases if the annoyance continues, I address the source of the annoyance – politely at first, but then much less politely it they don’t cease and desist (it reminds my of an old classic film from the early 60s [I can’t remember the name, it was so long ago] made back when 2WF was first in its ascendancy, in one scene of which the female lead says to the male lead “go ahead, talk to me as if I were a man!” His response: “how would you like a fat lip and a busted jaw?”)
The truly strong women.. The quiet, submissive ones who seem to be in complete control of themselves..those are the ones you need to pay careful attention to.
It will eventually become too obvious for even the most deluded of ball-busting heterosexual feminist harpies to ignore the fact that such women will be the ones who find quality husbands while the harpies will confront a future of dildos, booze, and cats.
cynthia says:
September 9, 2016 at 9:25 am
Yup. Perfect example of the GENUINELY strong woman.
Someone should start a spreadsheet of the TGC and CBMW guys and see who was raised by a “single mother”, or with “an absent father”. I wonder if that, not Christ, is their true foundation.
Or who had milquetoasty eunuchs for fathers and hyper-domineering mothers. That’s probably the most common background all of these guys have.
I can hardly wait until guys like Maxwell start making the case for gender-neutralizing the Bible and no longer referring to God in the masculine.
Hear me now, believe me later.
It’s kinda fun talking about all the symptoms but let’s skip to the chase: men blaspheme God by “hearkening to the voice” of women and women blaspheme God by desiring to control men (in any fashion). If we call God our Father then all we need to do is live that in God’s fashion. If not, then recognize Satan as our father.
@feeriker
Entirely possible, but much harder to catalog. We’d have to interview them for that. Even then, it would be too subjective to be much good. I have also found that there is still a distinct difference between men raised with a father, and those with one even if he was not assertive enough.
My hypothesis is that if there is, among the leadership, a significant minority (say over 10%) of men raised without a father in the home then Daddy Issues becomes a focus of that whole leadership. Thanks to our society’s overall sentiment for rebellion and victimhood, the less assertive fathers get lumped-in with truly absent fathers because what they have in common is: Mom, and a desire to put Dad down.
One thing to notice about Judges 4 is that Jael murdered her husband’s ally in a time of war. Imagine what would have happened during the American Revolution if Ben Franklin had been assassinated by the French king’s wife while asking for help against the British because he gave her a wink & grin.
Not only is that no way for a woman to behave, that’s no way for ANYBODY to behave.
…
The Question @ September 8, 2016 at 10:20 pm:
“He thinks men shouldn’t own guns and using violence to protect your loved ones is wrong. … Somehow, this suddenly changes when you put on a government uniform.”
Christianity has angels. Atheism has soldiers.
Christianity has angels. Atheism has soldiers.
Please explain.
Imagine what would have happened during the American Revolution if Ben Franklin had been assassinated by the French king’s wife
Served him cake she would have
I dropped out of the mix about a year ago (not going to re-hash why) and – having recently returned to “civilization” after a year-plus overseas – I recently started lurking again with no intention to re-engage. However… it’s gratifying to see that my name still pops up now and again after all this time.
Carry on, Gentlemen.
I can hardly wait until guys like Maxwell start making the case for gender-neutralizing the Bible and no longer referring to God in the masculine.
Hear me now, believe me later.
It’s hard to believe that anyone who has been paying any attention would ever doubt that such a thing is all but inevitable. It’s coming much sooner than anyone thinks too, and “conservative” evangelical churches will be its biggest proponents.
Lyn87 says:
September 9, 2016 at 12:53 pm
Welcome back, brother! We’ve missed you. I do hope you’ll reconsider not re-engaging. 😦
Lyn87!! Glad to see you bro!
Email me if you’re bored. xerofrog at gee mail etc. You’ve been missed!
@ Cane Caldo says:
September 9, 2016 at 11:15 am
“The man can’t see the barest and purest fact that other words are actually other words. Abigail’s strength–which is in meekness gentleness and quiet–was proved precisely because she didn’t use ‘other words’ and instead chose to be meek, quiet, and humble. Just like Jael. Maxwell wouldn’t be more wrong if he claimed the Bible said Chuck Norris taught Deborah, Jael, and Abigail to dual-wield Uzis.”
Maxwell also leaves out the inconvenient portions of both scriptures. The way he twists Abigail’s story is even more egregious that how he twists Jael’s.
1 Sam 25:23 Now when Abigail saw David, she dismounted quickly from the donkey, fell on her face before David, and bowed down to the ground. 24 So she fell at his feet and said: “On me, my lord, on me let this iniquity be! And please let your maidservant speak in your ears, and hear the words of your maidservant. 25 Please, let not my lord regard this scoundrel Nabal. For as his name is, so is he: Nabal[c] is his name, and folly is with him! But I, your maidservant, did not see the young men of my lord whom you sent. 26 Now therefore, my lord, as the Lord lives and as your soul lives, since the Lord has held you back from coming to bloodshed and from avenging yourself with your own hand, now then, let your enemies and those who seek harm for my lord be as Nabal. 27 And now this present which your maidservant has brought to my lord, let it be given to the young men who follow my lord. 28 Please forgive the trespass of your maidservant. For the Lord will certainly make for my lord an enduring house, because my lord fights the battles of the Lord, and evil is not found in you throughout your days. 29 Yet a man has risen to pursue you and seek your life, but the life of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living with the Lord your God; and the lives of your enemies He shall sling out, as from the pocket of a sling. 30 And it shall come to pass, when the Lord has done for my lord according to all the good that He has spoken concerning you, and has appointed you ruler over Israel, 31 that this will be no grief to you, nor offense of heart to my lord, either that you have shed blood without cause, or that my lord has avenged himself. But when the Lord has dealt well with my lord, then remember your maidservant.”
Abigail BOWED to David. She referred to David as “my lord” and to herself as “your maidservant” multiple times. What is that if not meekness and submission?
By the way, her submission to David was righteous, because God had anointed David king, as she stated in verse 30.
Maxwell is correct that Abigail gave David good advice and prevented him from committing a great evil, as David confessed.
32 Then David said to Abigail: “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me! 33 And blessed is your advice and blessed are you, because you have kept me this day from coming to bloodshed and from avenging myself with my own hand.
But Maxwell makes it seem as though Abigail lectured David like a schoolmarm and David meekly repented like a guilty schoolboy. In fact, Abigail changed David’s heart by her submission, meekness and humility.
Hey, wait a minute… that sounds a lot like….
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
In fact, Abigail so impressed David with her humility, submission, meekness and wisdom that when Nabal died, David married her.
1 Sam 25:39 When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Praise be to the Lord, who has upheld my cause against Nabal for treating me with contempt. He has kept his servant from doing wrong and has brought Nabal’s wrongdoing down on his own head.”
Then David sent word to Abigail, asking her to become his wife. 40 His servants went to Carmel and said to Abigail, “David has sent us to you to take you to become his wife.”
41 She bowed down with her face to the ground and said, “I am your servant and am ready to serve you and wash the feet of my lord’s servants.” 42 Abigail quickly got on a donkey and, attended by her five female servants, went with David’s messengers and became his wife.
I guess David wasn’t a “real man”.
Obviously, submission, humility and meekness are more effective at changing a man’s heart than nagging, manipulation and cruelty, which is what most wives try.
As for Maxwell, he seems to rely on his audience’s ignorance of the scriptures and unwillingness to read them. I changed my mind. He’s not stupid. He’s a deceiver.
I fail to see how anyone is surprised that a properly conditioned, feminist-evangelical like Maxwell would come up with a pandering fempowerment piece like this. It’s what I’ve come to expect from evangelical Betas running Christian feminine-identification game.
He’s just one more product from the Beta Farm that’s become the church.
https://therationalmale.com/2016/08/30/losing-my-religion/
@ Rollo Tomassi
“Hear me now, believe me later.”
I’m with @feeriker on this one. We can believe it now, because it’s hard to see this going anywhere but downhill.
I’d go even further. Within a decade they’ll be outright rewriting or removing entire parts of the Bible they don’t like to fit the FI and have some pseudo-academic explain how the passage doesn’t fit with “blah, blah, blah, you aren’t a misogynist, are you?” The question is only whether the church will die out due to a lack of members or first get totally transformed into a quasi-religious version of The View.
Rollo has spoken before about open hypergamy, and I’m seeing it play out within the church. Men who have previously argued with me intensely about gender stuff are now regurgitating the same talking points I have. They’re actually contemplating the idea of never getting married and have lost their enthusiasm for dating. They can’t ignore any longer what’s happening because it is so blatant and in-your-face.
Sooner or later, the Benedict Option will be the only viable option for Christian men.
Not necessarily related to the OT, but I’ll leave this Charles Dickens’ novel illustration here.
This is the experience of the young modern Western Christian young man nearly summarized in visual form. I’m getting a copy framed and hung on my wall.
BTW: if you’re wondering, the illustration caption reads: “Fell upon his face in a passion of Bitter Grief.”
There are already so-called “gender-neutral translations” of the Bible, and Thomas Jefferson–among many others–long ago removed inconvenient passages from the Bible.
These things aren’t new. We are new. It’s our turn to show our fidelity.
This is why the heart of Christianity if faith. It takes true faith to believe in the god of the bible and not shape him into your own image. Maxwell’s trope, which is essentially comforming Christianity to cultural feminism in order to flatter women’s envy and feel superior to beta christian men, takes absolutely no courage or conviction. Then, when he does get push-back (like on Twitter), he blocks the opposition. Wouldn’t want to threaten the facade! Cowardice. No faith.
True faith means to believe in the God of the bible despite things that make us uncomfortable, or seem odd or irrational. True faith is actually harder then works, because it demands the believer subdue the self and rely on something not of our own making.
It’s also why the core of Satan’s strategy is to undermine faith. Forget enticement to sin, that will simply follow when faith is abandoned.
In Maxwell’s article you see one example of the larger problem driving feminism and other errors in the modern church: lack of faith in the bible, and a corresponding lack of courage and conviction. They are ashamed of the gospel because it makes women uncomfortable!
Rollo:
I read you losing my religion post this morning and thought it was brilliant. Even though you are not a christian, you’re perspective is valuable. I have already forwarded to several blue pill Christian friends I’ve been working on over the past couple months.
I would only say, while you have (rightly) rejected the modern church, I would encourage you not to reject the bible. As Dalrock and others have masterfully illustrated, it is very Red Pill. The reason the church sucks is because of the people running it, not the bible. The bible is truth and worth careful consideration on your part.
Anonymous Reader @ 12:28 pm:
“Christianity has angels. Atheism has soldiers.
Please explain.”
Atheism believes that humans are perfectible, that utopia can be built if we simply try hard enough and smart enough to impose it. The practical result is that government takes up the role of God for that society. Also, when objective morality is rejected the only other morality is whatever can be forced upon others… and coercion is the central purpose of government, making it the very definition of good and evil.
Once you hold the State as your deity of choice, its official representatives become avatars ushering in the Brave New World. That is what the angels of Christianity do. Hebrews 1:14: “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” The catch is that while the angels of God prepare our souls for a postmortem Heaven, the angels of Potomac think the only reason we aren’t already in Heaven is a few dissenters and malcontents clinging bitterly to the old ways… easily reeducated or silenced.
And so the angels of Potomac serve the many by making omelets out of the few. Soldier work.
Maxwell’s trope, which is essentially comforming Christianity to cultural feminism in order to flatter women’s envy and feel superior to beta christian men
You’ve just described churchianity to a T in that one sentence.
They are ashamed of the gospel because it makes women uncomfortable!
It would be fascinating to pinpoint the exact point in modern history in which the Gospel began to “make women uncomfortable” to the point where men felt compelled to talk around or even omit large parts of it. While I’m sure that certain parts of the Gospel have ALWAYS made women in general uncomfortable, there seem to have been few, if any times before the last half century in which this discomfort became at all relevant for men of the faith (yeah, I know … 2WF).
Yet, it’s easy to forget in the midst of all our diagnosing: whether a woman is “intimidating” is a factor of male perception, not female personality. Do we want women to be less intimidating? That’s a question to be put to men who experience them as such, and we can only wait for such men to grow.
The more I see women make this argument, the more I find myself suspecting that what they’re really doing is indulging in a female version of the Nice Guy’s Lament. Think about it: Both situations start with someone who lacks decent romantic prospects basically arguing that a certain set of virtues (which are conveniently the same virtues they have) should be enough to earn them the love and the sex that they want. And when things play out quite differently, all they can do is shake their head in disgust and wonder why it works this way. The Nice Guy will never understand why the courtesy, respect and deferential behavior he offers to women as a class is less attractive to them than the Bad Boy’s alpha swagger, and the Strong, Independent Woman is miffed when men overlook her multiple degrees and sassy confidence to chase after her sweet and submissive younger sisters.
Of course the big difference between the two is that modern society and the modern church won’t hesitate to tell the Nice Guy that he needs to get over his sense of entitlement and start realizing that women don’t owe him anything. The Strong, Independent Woman, on the other hand, is going to hear them tell her that she’s perfect the way she is, and that the real problem is with all these pathetic men who are too stupid to realize that they don’t even want the right things.
Off topic, but only slightly. Can’t believe I missed this one.
Last year, televangelist and “pastor” Paula White married former Journey musician Jonathan Cain.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/megchurch-pastor-paula-white-marries-3rd-husband-former-journey-rocker-jonathan-cain-shes-his-4th-wife-138804/
It’s White’s 3rd marriage; his 4th.
White was married to Randy White; together they pastored a church in Florida. Paula White divorced Randy in 2007 and currently pastors a different Florida church. White made her bones as a success story in addiction recovery/failed first marriage, specifically ministering to women. Much emphasis is put on her attractive appearance (and she is an attractive 40-something woman).
It’s pretty clear why she married Cain. He’s an aging badboy, but he’s still got badboy in him. Compare the photos of Cain (with White in the link above) with photos of Randy White below, and we can all see why.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=randy%20white%20pastor&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=randy%20white%20pastor&sc=8-18&sp=-1&sk=&ghc=1
@ Darwinian Arminian
That is a certain percentage of the women. On the reddit post, it was basically analogized to a neckbeard basement dweller complaining that women are not attracted to him.
Other women, like the nice guys, actually believe they’re attractive. These are the deceived/deluded ones. Even if they’re told they’re wrong they still won’t believe you and get angry.
We shouldn’t be surprised to see that when women become like men and men become like women, as encouraged by our society, that there will be lots of these types scenarios that crop up.
Feeriker:
I am by no means and expert on the subject, but I would hypothesize that in prior generations there was a commonly held (and correct) understanding that women are MORE vulnerable to sin than men are, and thus need to be subjugated, first by their fathers, and then by their husbands. The potential damage wrought by female sexual sin was of particular concern, thus the emphasis on female chastity. This is of course a biblical and true perspective.
This has now been flipped on it’s head. I’m not sure when/why the shift occurred. It’s clearly a tendency that goes back to the Garden of Eden, and was a recognized temptation in biblical times, hence the bible’s overarching emphasis on marital roles when it discusses marriage.
It has required vigilance on the part of church leaders to keep the culture from backsliding. At some point the fight was abandoned. I’m a young guy (in my 30s), so maybe some of the men here with longer memories have some idea. My guess though is the shift started somewhere at the turn of the century as society became more secular, and gained steam in the 80s and 90s as boomers steeped in feminist ideology took over church leadership. The church has simply surrendered. It’s a sad state of affairs. And like I said in my original post, the core of the problem is loss of faith in the scriptures. I’m hoping that as the culture becomes more anti-Christian the unfaithful Christians will give up the act under the pressure of persecution, and men of true faith will be able to step forward and beat a new path. Wishful thinking, but hey, I’ve got two boys I’m (trying) to prepare to take the mantle, and two daughter I’m preparing to marry young, bear children, keep the home, and spread the word.
@ Deti:
Pastor Paula White is also one of Mr. Trump’s “spiritual advisors” for those who may not know:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/who-is-paula-white-donald-trumps-spiritual-counselor-2-135501897.html
I’ve had the same thought many times. And pussy cuck faggots like Paul “I’m-a-real-man” Maxwell will lead the charge. He’s not a Christian of any kind, he just carries the name. This guy is nothing but a pussy-worshiping deceiver. It’s also funny how this man-boy projects his pathetic insecurities onto others. And all because he doesn’t have the balls to put the feminist cunts in their place.
@ RPChristian
Regarding the feminization of Christianity… probably somewhere in the 1000-1300 or so was a big shift. Exacerbated by the Renaissance and romanticization period.
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/08/22/the-feminization-of-christianity/
We also discussed this here:
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/the-feminization-of-christianity/
Els:
There sure are a lot of manospherians on the Trump bandwagon. He’s the least worst choice, better than Hillary. But Trump isn’t anything like presidential or what the nation needs. He certainly won’t make America great again. He will lose anyway. The fix is in; and Hillary will be the next president.
I welcome the coming of our liberal overlords. We’ve done the “first black president” thing with Hillary’s husband (Obama was our “second” black president, according to our liberal friends, don’t cha know). We now MUST do the “first woman president” thing. It’s required.
In other words women are in competition with men and are contending against them. The book of Proverbs has much to say about women who contend:
Proverbs 21:9 Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.
Proverbs 21:19 Better to dwell in the wilderness, Than with a contentious and angry woman.
Proverbs 25:24 It is better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.
Proverbs 27:15-16 A continual dripping on a very rainy day And a contentious woman are alike; Whoever restrains her restrains the wind, And grasps oil with his right hand.
Men indeed have two choices, just not the ones that Maxwell proposes, they can either contend with women which is like trying to stop the wind or refuse to contend and choose the better path of avoiding contention even when it means dwelling in the wilderness. What is not validated by the Word is to encourage women in their contention or to shame men for the sins of women, both are teachings which Maxwell has engaged in with his writings.
@Dalrock
I’m curious what you see happening when this all falls apart. We all know the system can’t go on forever. We’ve speculated on this in the past, but what happens when the number of unmarried women actually hits a significant percentage and panic ensures, yet men still won’t marry them?
Right now 90 percent of white women marry by 40. What if that is only 75 percent with the latest round of unmarried twenty-somethings in five-10 years? Are they going to just keep whining about manboys to their graves? Or will these single women just keep delegating more and more husband/father authority to the government to compensate for a lack of marriage?
However, that can’t go on much longer, either. The whole charade is propped up by artificial prosperity. The Piper will need to be paid soon, and the market will violently correct itself.
I just see a lot of chaos and social upheaval ensuing.
“My concern is that when feminism inevitably falls due to its inherent insanity, people might turn to MRA philosophy so they don’t have to abandon egalitarianism. That would make a world nearly as bad as the dystopia the feminists have been eagerly creating.”
No need to worry. Feminism will fail when the consequences of believing men=women can no longer be denied (or afforded). At that point, feminism-lite would just suffer the same fate. Overcorrection is more likely than undercorrection.
Oh well: in for a penny – in for a pound.
We all know that guys compare ourselves to each other based on metrics like money, physical attractiveness, success with women, job title, etc, because that’s how men compete for women. Now women have joined the game, but they get a playing field tilted to their advantage with things like female-centric education, Affirmative Action, credentialism, and even high N-counts (essentially, the outward markers of elevated male SMV/MMV). The result is that they have “become the men they wanted to marry” – at least in their own warped estimations. But… with all the artificial propping-up society gives these women, they actually believe their Ivy League Ph.D. in Women’s Studies or Interpretive Dance is superior to a man’s “State-U” B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, or E-4 rank in the Signal Corps, or HVAC licensure… it’s not.
Now… this chick seems to have real accomplishments rather than the empty credentials most “accomplished women” possess, and while an attractive guy who has his M.D. and speaks six languages would be a “presumptive alpha” unless/until he proved otherwise, and might well be intellectually intimidating to a lot of “regular guys,” they wouldn’t want to go gay and sleep with him, because none of that has anything to do with what men find attractive. What men find attractive is femininity. So while some guys know enough to realize that a “chick degree” means nothing, a non-zero percentage of them might think that this woman in particular would be likely to shoot down any guy who can’t match her credentials… and they would probably be correct in that assessment based on her responses within the thread. Lower-status guys know better than to try with her, and high-status guys can do better than her, so she gets the worst of both worlds.
So she’s got real accomplishments, but they work against her, because none of them are the things that signal EITHER “Wife-and-Mother status” OR “Carousel Rider” status. To most men, she’s literally not good for anything. But because she doesn’t understand that men and women want different things, she flaunts her accomplishment like she’s in the job market while she ought to be cultivating and displaying different things entirely if she wants to compete in the mating market. (Seriously, what guy wants a woman who constantly calls attention to her credentials, especially if those credentials would be impressive if held by a man? A guy with an M.A. in Women’s Studies would be (justifiably) mocked because an M.A. in Women’s Studies is not a serious degree, but a sextilingual guy with an M.D. and enrolled in an MBA program would not be.)
Welcome back Lyn87 and don’t leave it so long next time – great comment too.
Lyn87,
but they get a playing field tilted to their advantage with things like female-centric education, Affirmative Action, credentialism, and even high N-counts (essentially, the outward markers of elevated male SMV/MMV).
Don’t forget tattoos, swearing, and jerkboy behavior.
Obama was our first gay president.
Dear “The Question”
I had to look up what Benedict Option was. I’d never heard of it.
The “Benedict Option” refers to Christians in the contemporary West who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American empire, and who therefore are keen to construct local forms of community as loci of Christian resistance against what the empire represents.
This is identical to the sort of strategy that Marcuse advocated. The way to defeat the feminist state is not to fight it directly. It’s to concentrate on building up rival institutions to compete with the corrupt ones that already exist (in a weak and topheavy form) while showing our brothers and sisters a vision of the new world that might erupt, if they would merely quit paying attention to it.
In any event, it’s very, very interesting and I was glad to see that Christian brothers had started thinking along these lines. I respect people who have done this, because it’s hard for people to fully realize the truth. None of us owes this rotten system any allegiance. The American flag is a piece of shit, the flag of the family courts and of Title IX. The sooner we start imagining our roles in a healthy, patriarchal, post-feminist system, the sooner it will erupt upon the scene.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/benedict-option-faq/
Forget conservatism. It’s dead. Be a revolutionary.
Best,
Boxer
Of all the dozens and dozens of commentators here today, Feeriker has the best line and most salient truth:
“Numbers 1 through 3 on her list are absolutely and easily fixable, but she has no motivation whatsoever to do so (that would require accountability, effort, humility, and responsibility, four things that are to a woman as sea salt is to a snail).” — Feeriker
I would go even further. I would say that women do not have an accurate grasp of reality at all. Being supported by white knights even when they’re mediocre in looks — and veritably worshipped by most men if they’re cute — they live in a kind of “Plato’s Cave” where the shadow-pictures are very pretty, very entertaining, very cute — but not as fun as the little fire of their self-regard burning on the cave’s floor.
Credentialism: the first go-to response AND most perfect indicator of someone without any actual accomplishments or useful knowledge. If one truly has intelligence and wisdom, it will be apparent forthwith. Waving a piece of parchment will never make it so.
How about some numbers to demonstrate the true undistinguishedness of any degree?
‘According to the government’s National Center for Education Statistics: “During the 2013–14 school year, colleges and universities are expected to award 943,000 associate’s degrees; 1.8 million bachelor’s degrees; 778,000 master’s degrees; and 177,000 doctor’s degrees.”‘
That’s 3.7 million degrees, in a single year. Without going into the highly variable value of the various “degrees” awarded, that’s the entire population of Connecticut getting a degree every year. How can that be anything special?
And sad news for professionals of either sex: nobody gives a wet slap about your work accomplishments. Your HS GPA probably has more relevance.
GunnerQ
And so the angels of Potomac serve the many by making omelets out of the few.
Hmm, ok. I can’t tell if you are advising us to rely solely upon angels for protection, or not.
My issue is this: I have a long history of being told by Bible thumping people to get rid of any and all tools for self protection because it’s all up to God. That means I’m supposed to put myself and any people who may depend upon me purely upon the mercy of evil men.
It’s Quakerism. I’m trying to figure out if that’s what you’re saying, or not. Still don’t know.
@ RPchristian says:
September 9, 2016 at 2:15 pm
“It’s also why the core of Satan’s strategy is to undermine faith. Forget enticement to sin, that will simply follow when faith is abandoned.”
It’s always been the same strategy: “has God really said… ?” Our flesh is enough to entice us to sin all on its own. Satan and his demons, I think, concern themselves far more with false doctrine.
1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
Obama was our first gay president.
And our first Muslim one.
Credentialism: the first go-to response AND most perfect indicator of someone without any actual accomplishments or useful knowledge. If one truly has intelligence and wisdom, it will be apparent forthwith. Waving a piece of parchment will never make it so.
PERFECTLY summarized. It’s also a clear explanation of the fact that as the quality of goods and services (especially the latter) produced in this nation continues on its steep downward trajectory, the producers thereof (increasingly female) become more and more obsessed with both parchment and alphabet soups of credentials appended to their names.
One minor symptom: a letter of curriculum vitae written by a PhD that is so full of misspellings and incoherent sentences as to be both illegible and incomprehensible.
Fourth choice : Just pump and dump the church sluts with ecstatic abandon, and ensure that the manginas get to pay the bills afterwards. Everybody wins!
Nobody wins following advice like that. “Bang the sluts” advice is no better than your average “marry up those sluts” message. Whether marrying unrepentant whores or simply fornicating with them the cycle of whoredom is perpetuated and encourages more of the same. Both of those roads spread misery and disaster.
Better to call them out for their misdeeds and warn them to repent. Don’t participate in their stupidity.
From Dalrock’s OP:
Pastor Maxwell writes:
Whoa, dude: from false premises (‘intimidating’) come false conclusions, so maybe engage brain before opening mouth/deploying keyboard?
The fact is, misc. women (of a particular kind) notice that “no man is inti-dating-mi”, and infer from this that, “I must be inti-mi-dating to all these men” (or whatever insane “logic” it is exactly, that takes place as that hamster-wheel spins), followed by which cuckservative FI apologists like Pastorbator Maxwell just take that complaint at face value, as a premise, unexamined, and run with it. Not so fast. Let’s examine the premise.
If I do not want to date a woman, it could mean anything: I could be sick with cancer; married; on my way out of the country just now, thanks, to spend a month trying to sell spark-plugs to the Mexicans; busy with my franchise or start-up; finishing up The Great American Novel; trying to debug the damn payroll software before month’s end; or all tied up packing my condo, because I’m moving to Tucson in two weeks. Whatever.
But, despite all that (whichever or whatever it is), apparently my life is supposed to revolve around some woman or other. Gosh, I apologise for not realizing she is in fact the centre of the universe. It must be because I found her intimidating, obviously. It’s not the chemotherapy, my loyalty to my wife, the publishing deadline, whatever — no, it’s her master’s degree in gender studies! How could I have been so blind!
And, I haven’t even touched on men who are genetically programmed to go MGTOW, or who have chosen to go gay. (Or are those the other way around? I forget …)
Nor have I touced on the sexual attractiveness (or not) of self-centred people, to the opposite sex.
In any event, even granting this “it’s all because of her awesome degrees, salary, intelligence, blah-blah-blah” premise — let’s toss in a few other, relevant adjectives, and see whether the (cough) good Reverend (cough) is talking any sense at all, or instead trips over his own shoe-laces before he’s even off the starting blocks:
Do any of those statements (each of which is fully comparable and analogous to Maxwell’s) make any sense whatsoever? No. Right out of the gate, the Reverend Makes-Swill is simply spewing just so much garbage, that there is almost no point in reading on.
In fact, if I weren’t reading along so as to follow Dalrock’s commentary and analysis, I would already be clicking to “close tab” button on my browser.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
From Dalrock’s OP:
Pastor Maxwell writes:
Competency, you say? Great: Name five. Heck, three. Ha! One!
(And remember: competency>, not something only almost like, passing for, presented as, or “generally considered to be” competency …)
From Dalrock’s OP:
Pastor Maxwell writes: “Give women the resilience to remain strong long enough for the right men to find them beautiful for the right reasons.”
Why-ever for? There is no need, right? Women need men like fish need bicycles, therefore, this is a non-problem, right? Hahahahahahahaha. Pastor Maxwell: bite me.
JDG,
Nobody wins following advice like that. “Bang the sluts” advice is no better than your average “marry up those sluts” message. Whether marrying unrepentant whores or simply fornicating with them the cycle of whoredom is perpetuated and encourages more of the same. Both of those roads spread misery and disaster.
I disagree.
i) A man has the right to pursue his own entertainment without putting the Female Imperative first, and to extract said entertainment with as little cost to himself as possible.
ii) This is an exceptionally good way to punish manginas, who are the only thing holding the edifice together.
iii) They are going to have sex with someone anyway. Might as well be the man who would like to receive that.
iv) It seems your only options are either marriage to a woman with substantial N (fraught with extreme risk), or MGTOW (shaky, unless the man was already successful with women before). I say this is better than either.
Anon Reader,
I think what GunnerQ is saying is that the role of angels in the Christian worldview is performed by human actors in the utopia-on-Earth worldview… nothing more.
As for the Quakerism, when I used to teach school (Christian secondary), one of my students read Jacques Ellul and got hooked on “Christian anarchy.” She was heavy into the “non-violence” aspect of it… being a pretty blonde girl living as she did in a nice, white bubble with almost no crime. She shopped one of his lengthy essays around among the teachers and they all told her it was nonsense without reading it. They were right – it IS nonsense – but she wanted more detailed answers. I actually read the dreck and wrote her out a detailed explanation about WHY it’s nonsense. She still needed some convincing, so I availed myself of an ad hoc “teaching moment” that presented itself. It was after school and her mother had come to pick her up. The three of us were in an interior hallway and it was fairly dark, and to illustrate my point I pinned her up against the lockers and put my hand to her throat so she would feel the immediacy of the thing and said something like, “Let’s say you were in bed tonight and some guy came through your window and put a knife to your throat and you knew he was going to rape you and then kill you. Would you fight back?” It’s one thing to talk about letting yourself and your loved ones be victimized when it’s an academic exercise, and another thing entirely when you’re pinned by a stronger opponent and your life is on the line. Then I said, “By the way, you can’t call the cops, either, since getting someone to do violence on your behalf is not morally different than doing it yourself.” [Note] (Somewhat tangentially, a woman calling the cops on a husband/boyfriend without real cause should be categorized as female-on-male domestic violence for that same reason.)
I don’t know how thoroughly I convinced her, but she stopped trying to convince the other teachers and students (not because she was afraid of me… she knew I was just making a point and would never actually hurt her.)
[Note: I could only get away with “object lessons” like that in a private school. Most of the students and their parents loved my to-the-point style (the girl’s mother was right there, in fact), but there’s no way I could get away with that in a government school.]
“Note that Peter tells us that wives who submit to their husbands, who cultivate a gentle and quiet spirit, are beautiful to God. ”
Peter…might have to consider that name if I have a son.
On the side bar, this thread reads as, “Are real men attracted to bois…”.
That seems amazingly fitting to the point.
Lyn87: Your idea was actually pointed out by Steven Dutch in two essays.http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ProblemWithPacifism.HTM
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ForestDesert.htm
And sorry. I forgot to mention this essay which deals directly with the book you mentioned
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/AntiSci70.HTM
@solitude
”Nearly all my friends are happily married to woman who have degrees, careers, part time with kids, and are no less intelligent or opinionated than their spouses.”
The problem with careers in the prime of life for women is that they have to put their kids in daycare. Motherhood is a full-time career.
Suboptimal parenting if you ask me.
@Lost Patrol
”Most men actually appreciate a strong woman – strong at being a woman. You can always tell the real thing, and it has nothing to do with being ‘small, quiet, and delicate’ (see history of the American frontier)”
And there is also nothing wrong with being small,quite and delicate. And why is strength(a male characteristic) desirable in a woman anyway aside from perhaps morality and psychological toughness?
@infowarrior1
You’re right. I shouldn’t say it has ‘nothing’ to do with it. In my mind I was conveying a notion that strongly exhibiting femininity, grace, charm, a soft edge rather than a hard one; is strong at being a woman. What I’m thinking and what I type are not always well correlated.
You can’t get away with anything around here. As it should be.
Men are intimidated by smart W is one of many dumb fem classics. Women are generally nowhere near as smart as men – their IQ is 5 points lower (feminists prob more). What we may object to is your delusionanal, PC narrative driven, overly-opinionated menstrual rants!
INTELLIGENCE? NO WAY!!!
What a disservice Maxwell is doing to the very women he pedestalises. He’d get them all hitched and well laid if he advised those women to be, well, feminine.
Instead, he basically counsels them to keep doing what they do and expect a different result because he’ll change the nexus between cause and effect.
“Fat acceptance”, anyone? An end to “slut shaming”, anyone?
John Piper believes believes today’s prophets can be fallible–that the prophecies they hear from God can be wrong.
Now compare this to the gift of prophecy. It is prompted by the Spirit and sustained by the Spirit and based on a revelation from God. God reveals something to the mind of the prophet (in some way beyond ordinary sense perception), and since God never makes a mistake, we know that his revelation is true. It has no error in it. But the gift of prophecy does not guarantee the infallible transmission of that revelation. The prophet may perceive the revelation imperfectly, he may understand it imperfectly, and he may deliver it imperfectly. That’s why Paul says we see in a mirror dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12). The gift of prophecy results in fallible prophecy just like the gift of teaching results in fallible teaching.
http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-authority-and-nature-of-the-gift-of-prophecy
Compare that to what the Bible says about prophecy:
But any prophet who falsely claims to speak in my name or who speaks in the name of another god must die. But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the Lord?’ If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared. Deut 18:20-22
Piper’s position on prophecy is at odds with the Biblical standard. According to Piper, no modern prophet could start his statement with “Thus saith the Lord…” Piper provides cover for the modern charlatans who claim direct revelation from God. Why test the prophets when it’s OK for them to be wrong?
The point is that Piper strays from the Bible in multiple doctrines. If Piper says something is Biblical, you’d be better off assuming he is wrong.
infowarrior1 says:T he problem with careers in the prime of life for women is that they have to put their kids in daycare. Motherhood is a full-time career. Suboptimal parenting if you ask me.
It’s also a suboptimal use of our (limited) education resources.
60% of college degrees go to women.
10% of women with a masters degree opt to be stay at home moms
20% of women with a college degree opt to be stay at home moms
11% of working moms would opt to be SAHM if they could afford it
50% of working moms would work part time to spend more time with their kids if they could afford it.
The better the university a women graduates from, the more likely she is opt to be a stay at home mom: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637647 .
Female doctors work fewer hours than male doctors, which has resulted in a shortage of physicians: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6240467.
Why do women physicians work fewer hours than men physicians?
Because of the large public investment in medical education, it is important to understand why women physicians work significantly less than men physicians. National survey data on office-based private practice physicians were used to estimate (using two-stage least squares technique) hours and weeks worked for men and women physicians separately. Contrary to conventional wisdom, shorter work weeks for women physicians are not the result of child care responsibilities. Nor would higher earnings encourage women physicians to work longer hours. Instead, we found significant work reductions among married women physicians (but not men), implying subordination of careers by women where combined family incomes are high.
I’ll just leave this here:
I’m a 32-year-old virgin, and I’m living the feminist dream.
So yeah, I don’t want to be married to an opinionated and boisterous woman. I don’t want to be married to a woman who opts to stay at home and raise the kids while I go out and work but yet will constantly get told how she sacrificed her career for the family whilst enjoying the fruits of my labour.
Don’t worry John Piper, they ain’t waiting… lol!
Option number 3 for 200, John!
No marriage. Thanks.
Otto Lamp says:
September 10, 2016 at 9:51 am
Piper, like the majority of other churchian “leaders,” is enjoying the fruits of keeping his flock biblically ignorant. Biblically educated Christians would have called out Piper’s nonsense long ago and would have loudly rebuked him for it.
Even on Christian single blogs there is the attitude of:
Men are intimidated by women who own businesses, or work, or who are “educated”
I once made reply to this, and what did all these “empowered” women do? They ran to the administrator, they “man” in charge and “complained” (tattled)
I was told to “stop” this behavior “or else”! And what was funny, all these liberated, strong, amazing, career women who “love Jesus” more than anything in the whole world could not even reply, defend, or stand up to my reply. Mind you, I used zero foul language.
“And men have two choices: to find female strength captivatingly attractive, or to be insecure and intimidated.”
This is a neat summary of the latest ultimatum issued to men over the last 40 years.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/40-years-of-ultimatums/
“While women have every right to pile on the ultimatums, men must also have the right to say no thank you. That deal is no longer attractive to me. After all, an ultimatum means take it or leave it. Yet the men who more and more say leave it are the people in our society we are criticizing the most. We made the terms of the deal unpalatable, and instead of understanding when they walked away we are furious with them.
This isn’t a question our society has spent much energy wrestling with. The underlying feeling is; who cares, so long as they man up and marry these women once they are done riding the carousel. ”
Which is why Maxwell writes with the presumption that men will take the deal. Notice he didn’t even say they’ll stay single. He said insecure and intimidated.
The trouble is, they won’t take the offer this time, and there’s nothing the marriage-hunting women can do to make themselves marriageable. They can’t turn back the clock and redo their 20s.
Also, he’s forgetting that women have their choice, too. Since the state has taken on so much of the role traditionally given to the husband as a provider, she can pine away for that ideal husband who meets her highly unrealistic standards while settling for what the state provides. If a real man can’t be the beta bucks, the government will suffice.
For a lot of Christian men, this is going to lead to unofficial,modern-day monastic lives in which men either live by themselves (hermit) or in community with other single Christian men (monastery). Basically, a Christian version of MGTOW as Rob Fedder defined it.
Jason said:
I was told to “stop” this behavior “or else”! And what was funny, all these liberated, strong, amazing, career women who “love Jesus” more than anything in the whole world could not even reply, defend, or stand up to my reply. Mind you, I used zero foul language.
Just keep this in mind: these women are so desperate for men that they’ve resorted to a dating website to solve their problem. That and the reaction that you elicited from them when you shined “the flashlight of truth” in their direction tells you all you need to know about them (i.e., keep FAR away from them unless a life of hell on earth is your goal).
“Christian” dating sites: predisqualifying churchian bitch-sluts as wives so that Christian men don’t have to.
Speaking of misers:
@MarcusD
The sailor should be prosecuted for sexual assault, the photographer for creating revenge porn and the woman for having sex (and clearly more than willing) in public. SonyaD (presumably no relation) should be prosecuted for trolling and hate speech – may I never be a sailor who survives a world war to be shamed for my natural joie de vivre.
We live in a time when women are outperforming men in many areas of professional and personal competency.
As we speak, the ratio of men to women among those awarded baccalaureate degrees is less than unity. However, there are fields of study where men predominate and fields where women predominate. The Digest of Education Statistics provides the data. These are the fields where the ratio of men to women is lower than it is among the general population.
0.9430 Social sciences
0.7478 All fields, total
0.7062 Biological and biomedical sciences
0.6372 Visual and performing arts
0.5702 Liberal arts and sciences, general studies, and
0.5515 Communication, journalism, and related programs
0.4743 Multi/interdisciplinary studies
0.4621 Foreign languages, literatures, and linguistics
0.4599 English language and literature/letters
0.4212 Area, ethnic, cultural, gender, and group studies
0.4196 Legal professions and studies
0.3060 Psychology
0.2633 Education
0.2155 Public administration and social services
0.1844 Health professions and related programs
0.1364 Family and consumer sciences/human sciences
0.1333 Library science
Just some annotation here: I’ll wager a finer breakdown would reveal that ‘health professions’ consists predominantly of nursing degrees, The credentials for peri-medical occupations like pharmacy and audiology are now graduate degrees. I’ll wager ‘public administration and social services’ refers to social work degrees, for the most part. ‘Legal professions’ would be the graduates of paralegal programs. “Education” refers here to the credential for elementary schoolteachers, for the most part. An academic degree followed by an MEd would be modal for a high school teacher. “Social sciences” can refer to challenging and quantitatively oriented programs (e.g. economics) or it can refer to fuzzier subjects like cultural anthropology; if my own experience as a student of economics is representative, economics graduates are predominantly male.
So, we have preparation for what have been for generations predominantly female occupations, some of them paper hoops of dubious value (nursing, social work, elementary school teaching, library administration, dietetics / nutrition), generically dubious credentials (j-school degrees), and academic degrees which serve as labor market signals of a sort but which seldom prepare one specifically for a worksite. Of these last, you see two from the sciences (biological sciences and psychology, the latter of which spans the natural sciences and social research disciplines) and some humanities disciplines with operational measures of competence (foreign languages).
There’s been much discussion of why women predominate among college graduates, and the foregoing data suggests that the labor market is segmented and the BA as a credential is more consequential for sorting the feminine segment)
BTW, men outnumber women among those with bachelor’s degrees in engineering by a margin of 4 to 1.
Q:
Are real men attracted to boisterous, opinionated women?
A:
Yes, but it’s an intellectual attraction. I am attracted to their opinions, their ideas, their words.
I want nothing to do with them romantically or emotionally.
Did Abigail have an opinion?
Yes, she did.
Did she voice her opinion to David?
Yes, she did.
Did Abigail’s voicing of her opinion change David’s heart?
Yes, it did.
Men don’t have a problem with women holding an opinion and voicing it. We have a problem with the way most women voice their opinions. We have a problem with women who confuse “strong” and “bitchy”.
@LostPatrol
I think a better description of such women is iron on the inside, while soft and feminine outside using her inner toughness to uphold her husbands house(as in family) possessing a quiet and gentle spirit that is beautiful in the sight of God.
@Oscar
”When Abigail saw David, she quickly got off her donkey and bowed down before David with her face to the ground. 24 She fell at his feet and said: “Pardon your servant, my lord, and let me speak to you; hear what your servant has to say. 25 Please pay no attention, my lord, to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name—his name means Fool, and folly goes with him. And as for me, your servant, I did not see the men my lord sent. 26 And now, my lord, as surely as the Lord your God lives and as you live, since the Lord has kept you from bloodshed and from avenging yourself with your own hands, may your enemies and all who are intent on harming my lord be like Nabal. 27 And let this gift, which your servant has brought to my lord, be given to the men who follow you.”
1 Samuel 25:23-27
An wonderful example of how a woman ought to act when expressing an opinion. With all due respect and humility.
I believe part of the reason we hear this woman pedastalizing nonsense from the pulpit is that these men pastor in environments where their beliefs are never challenged and I for one am sick of it. If you look at these sites, they don’t allow comments because the comments section is the most influential part of an Op Ed piece on a reader’s opinion, more so than even the Op Ed itself. This is also the reason Pro-Hillary Mainstream News sites Social Justice Weasel blogs have disabled comments.
We live in a time when women are outperforming men in many areas of professional and personal competency.
Really? Then why is it women are whining about Teh Wage Gap? Getting accepted into college is not the same thing as “professional and personal competency”. What is “personal competency” anyway? You can tie your own shoe laces? Balance your checkbook? What?
And men have two choices: to find female strength captivatingly attractive, or to be insecure and intimidated.
Or take the third option, which is hold out for a woman I think I can live with.
And… “Intimidated”? When a 300 pound all-muscle marine gives me the drunken stink-eye in a bar and asks “What’re you lookin’ at” I’m intimidated. When I run into a woman with a PhD in psychology and $250k in debt I may be thinking “what a waste of money” or “who would marry all that debt”, but “intimidated” isn’t the word I’d use.
Feminists seem to think “intimidating” and “bitchy” are synonyms.
There sure are a lot of manospherians on the Trump bandwagon. He’s the least worst choice, better than Hillary. But Trump isn’t anything like presidential or what the nation needs.
It’s not like Hillary, or Obama for that matter, are anything like presidential either. Being the wife of a former Big Man, or playing magic negro and post-racial national healer, doesn’t make you presidential. On the other hand, Hillary is basically a female Brezhnev, so I guess she’d be a fitting president for a nation in terminal economic stagnation, social decay, cultural exhaustion and an empty, sham leftist state ideology.
He certainly won’t make America great again.
As opposed to Hillary?
He will lose anyway. The fix is in; and Hillary will be the next president.
I reckon people declaring with absolute certainty, even on this blog, that Trump will never get the nomination in the first place, so I wouldn’t be so sure. At this point, it’s impossible to measure the real extent of anti-Hillary sentiment.
Having said that, BLM will surely threaten nation-wide urban riots if Trump wins, which will probably result in many white normies voting for Hillary out of simple fear.
@Oscar: ‘Men don’t have a problem with women holding an opinion and voicing it. We have a problem with the way most women voice their opinions. We have a problem with women who confuse “strong” and “bitchy”.’
We also have a problem with women confusing “opinion” and “command”. I don’t mind hearing my wife’s opinion on a choice or matter – I even solicit it. But I don’t want any whining when, after considering it, I do something that seems better to me.
When I run into a woman with a PhD in psychology and $250k in debt I may be thinking “what a waste of money” or “who would marry all that debt”, but “intimidated” isn’t the word I’d use.
Such women seem to have grown louder and more obnoxious over the last few decades as every last remaining restraint on their anti-social behavior has evaporated. Thirty years ago my reaction to the woman you describe would have been one of a mixture of bemused contempt amd mild annoyance. Today, on the other hand, it takes all of my self-control and then some to keep from whacking them hard across the mouth with the back of my hand (and no one is going to convincingly tell me that I’m unique in feeling the urge to do this).
Feminists seem to think “intimidating” and “bitchy” are synonyms.
They’ve no doubt been led to believe this after decades of white knight manginas crumbling and melting in their presence when they got loud, nasty, and obnoxious and utterly failing to “regulate” this behavior (IOW, failure to ask “who bitch be dis?!” and proceed accordingly).
Speaking of male feminist articles, I’ll just leave this here:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/holy-spirit-nymph-rebel-and-crone
But this one goes in for blaspheming the Holy Spirit and admits ”I do not know who Jesus is”.
Q:
Are real men attracted to boisterous, opinionated women?
A:
Yes, but it’s an intellectual attraction. I am attracted to their opinions, their ideas, their words.
I want nothing to do with them romantically or emotionally.
Then you are not attracted to them as women. You would be equally attracted to a congress of baboons who are similarly boisterous and opinionated.
I am attracted to a well grilled, light brown slab of Tilapia, for instance. But I assure you, it is not a romantic attraction.
His choice early on is false. Some men are repulsed not intimidated by “strong” women. My feeling around women striving to be men is more along the line of revulsion and feel ashamed they choose their careers over their children.
Strong women are essential to Christianity and rearing children in this wicked world. Loud women who want to pursue careers and be mouthy are not. His definitions are bad, his conclusions are worse. By his definitions what is a strong man? Someone who is loud and mouthy? No, his definition of a strong man is a
man smart enough to find a woman to submit to so he can wallow before her magesty his whole miserable life (until she frivorces him).
A strong woman resists the siren song of the world and follows God, not the trendy caricatures of feminity alive today.
@Opus
I’ve heard a few veterans of WWII state that those who died in the war were the fortunate ones.
Good read
@ Hmm says:
September 11, 2016 at 6:17 am
“We also have a problem with women confusing ‘opinion’ and ‘command’.”
Oops. I meant to write that “Hmm” made a good point.
When I run into a woman with a PhD in psychology and $250k in debt I may be thinking “what a waste of money” or “who would marry all that debt”, but “intimidated” isn’t the word I’d use.
The woman who got $250K of student loan debt to still have no clue about psychology will be the same woman, decades later (age 55+), who loses another $250K to a Nigerian romance scam. The PhD in psychology didn’t save her, did it?
Those are the two big outlays of her life.
An important point. Thanks for making it.
Pretty much guarantee that all of the sane married regs on Dalrock have wives who are hotter, stronger, and far more intelligent than any of the bitches that goony Paul Maxwell has laid down with. Strong, capable women don’t need to show out or mouth off. They’re too busy raising kids and enjoying the good life with their husbands.
Boxer
@Dave
If you like grilled tilapia, you might try grilled eel on rice.
Re Hillary:
The fix is in, but a rigged balance box won’t help them if she’s too sick to get through a single public appearance without fainting.
Re women in general: I think taking women on a moderately challenging uphill hike would be a god test of boisterousness. If they can still voice boisterous opinions after walking uphill for 4 km, maybe they have enough aerobic fitness to warrant their verbal enthusiasm. How many feminist opinion-makers can hike uphill?
Guys, I thought y’all might find this interesting…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-male-chemical-engineer-attacked-for.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29
@Otto Lamp
Also career women incur other costs that would normally be mitigated by economic value produced in the home by the wife:
http://thefutureprimaeval.net/seizing-the-means-of-home-production/
@Oscar
Just realized you already quoted the passage already. Ha.
Strong men convey their strength through their actions. What they do is a demonstration of their power.
How many feminist opinion-makers can hike uphill?
None. They have never tried.
Note that the more subsidized by government a particular demographic is, the less you will see them out in nature. They instinctively know to avoid nature because their SJW belief’s will be challenged every second.
Related :
Zoos teach children dangerous gender stereotypes.
The competition for ‘World’s Dumbest Feminist’, who then also claims the title of ‘World’s Dumbest Human of Any Age’ is pretty darn steep.
@gaikokumaniakku
How many feminist opinion-makers can hike uphill while chewing gum?
FIFY 🙂
Single Mom needing relationship advice
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1024466
Posted by… “proudsinglemom”
@Marcus
proudsinglemom says:
I don’t know if he is Catholic or not (never asked him) but if he isn’t I’d like to talk to him about how peaceful & awesome our religion is (I am convinced that it got me through the bad times in my first marriage).
I’m just sitting here shaking my head and letting that sink in.
I’m not even Catholic and yet I feel embarrassed by this airhead’s nonsense.
Sorry about getting off topic, but does anyone know about a Bible Commentary by Nancy M. Rue? Legit or feminist poison?
One reason men don’t like “strong, opinionated, loud” women is that they’re never half as clever as they think they are.
All these strong, strong, strong women all over the place for the last 30 years. When it comes time to rant about ‘No Good Men’ they are Herculean. When it’s time to put down the Haagen-Dazs bucket then that strength has already turned in for the night.
Don’t ask me to admire the ‘strength’ of a gender in which about 92% of its members can’t call up the ‘strength’ to go for walks five times a week to remain presentable and healthy.
(Iverson voice)
“WALKS. WALKS, MAN. WE TALKING ‘BOUT WALKS. WALKS!!!”
Also, who really needs a partner who is same great conversationalist/opinion machine in the era of the internet? Who is really isolated in some prairie home these days? I get enough opinions in 5 minutes of surfing.
Aye! Gaikonumaniikiuu
You made the point first. I should have read it all first. I was redundant there.
MarcusD delivers the goods again!
Holy cow – that woman is nuts, and so is everyone who responded to her thus far (is anyone on Catholic Answers even Catholic?). Her first, obvious, problem, is that she’s Catholic and divorced (not even annulled), which makes remarriage in the church impossible for her – so her crush on / lust for the guy is moot. In addition, several of the things she wrote jumped out at me:
1) She says her marriage was “very abusive” without declaring what she means (we all know that DV is rare, one-sided DV is less than half of those cases, and male-on-female DV is the least likely subset of that small subset). I simply do not believe women when they say that their past relationships were abusive unless it is to confess their own abusive behavior.
2) She’s fat. She claims to have lost 50 pounds and she’s still fat! No wonder she doesn’t have a man in her life. She says how much she lost, but without knowing her starting weight, that information is useless – but her concern that he may be turned off by her current weight is telling. Going from 170 to 120 is a LOT different than going from 385 to 335.
3) Quality men don’t view fat, broke, post-wall single moms as sexual/romantic prospects any more than the girls on the USC cheer-leading squad look at the neck-beards in the campus “Atheist-Plus” club that way. That means that she’s obsessed with a guy who probably doesn’t know she’s alive, except insofar as he interacts with her because he’s a genuinely nice guy who wants to help her kid… aaaaand… she’s paying him.
4) She says the boys need a father. That’s true, but they already have one… She says he’s out of the picture, but she doesn’t say WHY. (Does she have a court order keeping him away? Did she interfere with his visitation like most custodial mothers do until he just gave up? Did she harass him when he tried to be a father to his sons, or did she get the cops to do it for her? How thoroughly has she poisoned his kids against him?)
5) She’s totally obsessed with the music teacher. (What? A chick with a history of bad relationships falls for a drummer she barely knows? What?!?! That’s un-possible!) So now she has a severe case of oneitis with an unobtainable man. When she says it’s not a “crush” or “lust” she’s just letting her hamster do the talking. She claims that she’s deeply in love with him, but she barely knows him. She doesn’t even know if he’s Catholic, although that seems to be important to her (except insofar as Catholic doctrine talks about things like the permanence of marriage, the romantic and sexual constraints on divorcees, and a married women like her obsessing over another man).
I’ll bet dollars-to-donuts that she thinks of herself as “strong,” too. What a catch.
Nailed. It.
All Christians are told be quiet in the Bible. A quiet spirit is not about strong opinion or being boisterous or about speaking loudly. Those things stem from personality and culture. A quiet spirit is divinely inspired inner tranquility. A silent but constantly anxious, worried woman doesn’t have a quiet spirit, but a woman with a loud voice, firm opinions and outgoing personality very well may. A Christian with a quiet spirit may have strong opinions but will not desire to give offense or stir up conflict and strife.
Pingback: Catholic Answers Forum Newbie | v5k2c2
I wrote up a little response to Proud Single Mom,
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/catholic-answers-forum-newbie/
but my nigga Lyn87 brought the realtalk at the same time, and in a much more concise way than I did.
As it was, and is again.
I had a look at Proudsinglemum on CAF (why is it that the people who claim to be proud are people whom one feels must secretly be ashamed and would do better not to draw attention to themslelves – Homosexuals, Unwed Mothers, Ugly Feminists). I am in this instance more sympathetic despite his excellent analysis than Lyn87: being a single mother no matter how it happened is not easy and even though she swore that she would never fall in love again Cupid always has other plans for people who profess being forever henceforth MgTow or Wgtow – I just hope Cupid will leave me in peace. Falling in love with your son’s teacher especially as he seems to be Deti’s friend FuckbuddyRockDrummer and especially when you are much overweight – despite losing fifty pounds – it is not likely, even were she of normal weight, that he will return her feelings – life does not tend to work that way. As she said, some people do seem to float from one relationship straight into the next. Was she abused during her marriage? Of course she was; they all are, or so they say, but that is of course a way to distance themselves and thus go out and find that the next man being so much better is in fact the man of her dreams.
Are real men attracted to bois…? I kind of think the answer must be no.
I’m convinced that the author at Dalrock did this on purpose. The biological women referred to are much more boi-ish than girlish, after all.
Someone needs to come up with an encyclopedia of delusional excuses. E.g., along the lines of “you just don’t like strong women.”
Ominous Cowherd @ 1:01 am:
“Sorry about getting off topic, but does anyone know about a Bible Commentary by Nancy M. Rue? Legit or feminist poison?”
Can’t be legit because women aren’t allowed to teach Christianity. No need to look further.
…
PM @ 9:56 am:
“All Christians are told be quiet in the Bible.”
Citation? I only see the requirement for women.
“A silent but constantly anxious, worried woman doesn’t have a quiet spirit, but a woman with a loud voice, firm opinions and outgoing personality very well may.”
I’d rather have the former… a wife who constantly worries she might end up without me, who quietly goes along with my every decision, than a wife who yells her firm opinions at me. “I already TOLD YOU, I have a QUIET SPIRIT! Don’t make me say it AGAIN, hubby!” Whoa, I got a tingling to go hide in a cube farm just typing that.
Heck lol, what a hoe! I’m inmolove with him, yes siree, I sure am! Lol, what a hopelessly deluded cunt!
Maxwell’s reference of Abigail is ironic, because this is what she says when David asks her to marry him.
1 Samuel 25:41 – She bowed down with her face to the ground and said, “I am your servant and am ready to serve you and wash the feet of my lord’s servants.”
Somehow I doubt Maxwell will write an article on how strong women say this when they are proposed to.
He also says she rebuked David; this is wholly incorrect. She apologized on behalf of her foolish husband and offered food to make up for it. It was a very graceful approach.
Notice also in the other verses she tactfully waited for her drunk husband to sober up before telling him what she had done.
Again, when these people speak of “strong,” they butcher the word and its meaning.
Virtually all of this “confusion” over what men find attractive in women, personality or looks wise, is based on taking the relationship between men and women out of the context of fatherhood/motherhood.
Physically, men are attracted to women who are youthful – a proxy for fertility – and beautiful – a proxy for health and good genes.
Personality wise, a man is attracted to a woman who comes across as someone who would make a good mother.
I’m more and more convinced that the Catholics were right all along. Due to birth control, sex – thus romance – has been taken out of the context of reproduction and family.
Your pastors are lying to you because they are are only in it for the money and church is little more than a paid social club for women.
Has anyone ever come across a pastor who has pointedly asked a 22 year old woman, “why aren’t you married and pregnant yet?” Of course not. Pastors are hired by women to scold men, they are harpies-by-proxy.
John Piper has a large congregation. If he was a man of God, he’d have his hands full tending to his flock. But instead Piper runs a media channel, complete with a TV show, videos, book publishing, blogging, etc. He is not content with his own congregation and the personal relationships he could be cultivating with the people who go to his church. He wants to be a celebrity. He’s just a Church-flavor Oprah Winfrey.
The first time I ever heard about John Piper was in an article in the Wall Street Journal, the WSJ being a newspaper that covers business not religion. That should tell you all you need to know.
Christians should know that people don’t want to hear the truth, the Bible says they prefer comforting lies. So a businessman like Piper isn’t going to tell the truth, because there’s no money in it.
It’s really that simple, all else is commentary.
Thanks Opus. I agree that being a single mom is probably hard… just like running a 5K after you cut off your legs at the knee with a chainsaw is probably hard. Life is generally tougher when one makes bad life-choices (like marrying unwisely and becoming morbidly obese).
But it occurs to me that I didn’t offer her any solutions, as Brother Boxer did on his blog. I’m not Catholic, but I know quite a bit about Catholic doctrine (I was expelled from Catholic kindergarten for heresy in the late 1960’s for being “too literal” about what the Bible says… long story). The bottom line is that “Proudsinglemom” (pride is a sin, by the way… and Roman Catholics consider it to be one of the “seven deadly sins”) is a married women to an estranged husband according to her own faith. To the extent that she’s interested in Drummer Man, that interest is tending toward adultery. So what should she do? Since she’s married and her husband’s sons need a father, she should be doing everything in her power to have him in their/her lives. That probably means that she has a good deal of apologizing to do to him and them, and no small number of difficult changes to make within herself. Remember that apologizing has three parts: the “Three “R’s:” Responsibility, Remorse, and Restitution. Responsibility for her actions… without resorting to excuses or blame-shifting onto him. Remorse for what she’s done and the harm she caused. Restitution for the damage to her husband and sons caused by her actions… regardless of what that restitution costs her. That may well mean returning the money she had the state take from him on her behalf, and giving him time to build a relationship with the boys far beyond what the “law” requires. She also needs to stop fantasizing about the teacher: she’s a married woman who claims to be a serious Catholic. If her son “needs” drum lessons, his father should take him so she has no further contact with the object of her unseemly desire. She should make every effort to reconcile with her husband, which will include submitting to his authority as her husband, and becoming human-size and staying that way. Calories In – Calories Out is simple physics and is not subject to negotiation. She should get her finances in order… she’s not a child: she’s supposed to be an adult.
And she should definitely stop trolling for strangers on CAF to tell her that she should “follow her heart” because “God Want You To Be Happy!”TM
I find Lyn87’s comments to be amazingly insightful.
Someone needs to post Lyn87’s analysis in the thread where the single mother can read it. Preferably do it in a ‘concern troll’ manner so as to avoid the banhammer there.
@Boxer
I am not sure (from your comment) whether or not, you – or indeed anyone else regularly reading here – are aware that Boi, spelt that way, has a meaning; usually, a rather boyish younger lesbian rather as gurl (spelt that way) seems to refer to young males who identify (as best they can) as female. I never think about the details of my ontology.
I agree that being a single mom is probably hard… just like running a 5K after you cut off your legs at the knee with a chainsaw is probably hard.
Lyn, you just made another addition to my collection of “quotable quotes” (with full attribution, of course).
Lyn said:
Remember that apologizing has three parts: the “Three “R’s:” Responsibility, Remorse, and Restitution. Responsibility for her actions… without resorting to excuses or blame-shifting onto him. Remorse for what she’s done and the harm she caused. Restitution for the damage to her husband and sons caused by her actions… regardless of what that restitution costs her. That may well mean returning the money she had the state take from him on her behalf, and giving him time to build a relationship with the boys far beyond what the “law” requires. She also needs to stop fantasizing about the teacher: she’s a married woman who claims to be a serious Catholic. If her son “needs” drum lessons, his father should take him so she has no further contact with the object of her unseemly desire. She should make every effort to reconcile with her husband, which will include submitting to his authority as her husband, and becoming human-size and staying that way. Calories In – Calories Out is simple physics and is not subject to negotiation. She should get her finances in order… she’s not a child: she’s supposed to be an adult.
That is, of course, exactly what this women should do – every last syllable of it. The problem, however, comes in the delivery of the advice. Every word of what you just wrote above might as well be written in ancient Sumerian as far as the average woman is concerned. The concepts expressed simply don’t register in the female brain. Short of being FORCED into doing it (by her father or other closest male relative), to the extent that she understands the concepts at all, she’s going to rebel against the very idea with every fiber of her fried food-bloated being. The biggest problem comes with the assumption in your last sentence (which I’ve emboldened for emphasis). “Supposed to be” are the key words here, but very few women actually behave as such. If any man here has a wife who does, he is indeed blessed. This “women” is obviously one of the majority: a perpetual adolescent in an adult body.
John Piper has a large congregation. If he was a man of God, he’d have his hands full tending to his flock. But instead Piper runs a media channel, complete with a TV show, videos, book publishing, blogging, etc. He is not content with his own congregation and the personal relationships he could be cultivating with the people who go to his church. He wants to be a celebrity. He’s just a Church-flavor Oprah Winfrey.
Sadly, this isn’t confined just to megachurches. I’ve been involved in the past with much smaller churches whose pastors spent more Sundays away on “mission trips” or on “visiting ministries” than in their own pulpits tending to their own flocks.
Very interesting! I was indeed unaware of this nuance, which itself attests to the fact that I have never been to Thailand, nor have I ever spent considerable time in San Francisco. Such trivia is in fact untrivial, and I shall note the subtleties accordingly.
Hope you are well, counselor.
Dear Lyn87:
She came much closer to admitting that she was partly at fault than most women, who will paint themselves as perfect angels, and the ex-husband as cross between Ted Bundy, Jared Fogel and Anthony Weiner.
The marriage was very abusive & I never thought I’d love again. strikes me as synonymous with “we were both assholes who quarreled a lot, and eventually I found leaving preferable.” The difference is subtle, but worth noting.
Dalrock this is a perfect post.
What some consider a strong woman are, in reality, poor examples of ‘Godly’ women. I don’t know what Maxwell, lost all respect for him, is saying. Ruth is a great example of a Godly woman.
@Boxer
Thailand and San Francisco: me neither.
Hipster Racist @ 11:40 am:
Virtually all of this “confusion” over what men find attractive in women, personality or looks wise, is based on taking the relationship between men and women out of the context of fatherhood/motherhood.
It’s based on elitist know-it-alls gathering in a room, deciding what men *should* find attractive in women then leaving the room to force goodthink upon the proles. That’s utopianism, which is how I wandered off on my little tangent above. The very idea that what men find attractive about women can be altered is a denial that we are a created species as the Bible teaches… and as real men keep responding to giggly T&A over mouthy BBW, the complementarians will eventually either resort to the use of physical force or admit their beliefs are wrong.
As the linked article put it, “whether a woman is “intimidating” is a factor of male perception, not female personality.” With apologies to Captain Picard, There. Are. Four. Chins!
@Gunner Q
Think about it this way. Before the internet, had you ever read a Cosmo magazine, or similar publications geared toward women? Thanks to the internet, men now read articles about how “there are no good men” or “men should love BBWs” and the like.
Those articles were never meant for men – they were meant for women. The audience was women, and women were talking to each other for their own reasons. We know that women value acceptance by “the herd.” Women also communicate differently.
So women talking about what men “should want” was never actually directed to men – they certainly had no intention of men actually listening to them. It was simply women telling other women, “never tell a BBW that she should lose weight to get a man. Also say something nice to her and say it’s the man’s fault.”
When a “career woman” talks about how men should be sexually aroused by her degree – it doesn’t literally mean that men should be sexually aroused by her degree. What it means is, “I’m a career woman, thus superior to you younger, hotter women, and my life is better than yours because the superior men are attracted to my degree.”
The internet now has men reading articles written by and for women. And we read these articles and think, “are they kidding? That’s not at all how we are.”
It works the same with these pastors. I’m not a member of John Piper’s church – and neither are the rest of us. We’ve probably never even read his books. We aren’t really his audience. In fact, he’s really just “Churchian” entertainment for women – Pastor Oprah. All the Calvinism is just squid ink to deflect criticism from those who understand theology (percentage of women who understand theology is likely in the low single digits.)
Dalrock is doing a great service by pointing out people like Piper and how they are poisoning women by trying to destroy marriages, or prevent them from taking place at all. Hopefully, he’ll prevent at least some women from listening to pastors like them, and warn men about the lies women are being told. But Piper’s audience was never Christians hungry for the Word, it was women with easily tickled ears who have enough spending money to buy a book or make a donation. It’s strictly a business model, which is why pastors like Piper, Osteen, and Warren get profiled in the Wall Street Journal, just like Oprah and other similar businesses.
Women are what they are – what the manosphere says is true when it comes to hypergamy. Dalrock is right when he talks about how women are encouraged to blow up their marriages. Women, after all, are social creatures and are easily led.
Women have a fallen nature just like men, and businessmen like Piper make their money by catering to women emotionally and selling “Churchian” language women can use to attack their husbands and men in general with. We need to understand, however, that this sort of thing was never really directed toward us.
In real life, women are hyper-aware that men like hot young things and couldn’t care less about their degrees. In real life, overweight women are perfectly aware that they are not attractive. In real life, women know full well where they stand in the sexual marketplace and they usually have a much more realistic understanding of that then men do. All the feminist talk is not particularly different than men telling each other that “size doesn’t matter” or “women don’t notice my bald spot” or “only gold-diggers care about the size of my paycheck.” It’s all just talk to make people feel better about themselves – and making people feel better about themselves is big business in a society where people prefer reassuring lies to inconvenient truths.
One of the commenters here wrote a great article about how a man could find an overweight woman, become her exercise partner, and basically “coach” her to get rid of the weight. By the end of it, he may have turned that woman into a woman worth marrying. That is in fact taking leadership.
But it’s probably not a good idea to obsess over the lies that women tell themselves, because women are already hyper-aware that they are lying to themselves to make themselves feel better. They just get frustrated when men are so crass as to point out they are lying. And it’s not our responsibility to point out the lies women are telling themselves unless they are *our* women – our wives, daughters, friends, family, church members, etc.
Businessmen like Piper should simply be pointed out as the snake-oil salesmen they are. Just don’t buy their books.
Just my opinion.
@feeriker
I know there used to be churches where the pastor had a real job and didn’t take a salary for being a pastor. There used to be churches where the pastors lived in the same neighborhood as their congregation, which meant they were in the same economic class as their congregation. They were not celebrities and they were not entertainers.
I supposed there is a place for a full time pastor, but you really have to ask yourself what are they being paid to do? Are they being paid to minister to their flock – like visiting the sick and the elderly?
Or are they being paid to hawk their books and speaking engagements?
If your business is to sell books, you are going to tell people what they want to hear.
Hipster Racist & Lyn187: simply awesome commentary. Thank you both. :^)
@Ominous Cowherd
Further to Gunner Q’s comment, see 1 Tim chapters 2-3:
2:11 Let a woman[b] learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman[c] to teach or to have authority over a man;[d] she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
3:1 The saying is sure:[e] whoever aspires to the office of bishop[f] desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop[g] must be above reproach, married only once,[h] temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.
LOL! You’re gonna bring my polygamist bros out to fight over this one. Watch and see.
Hello All, I am new to DalRock’s site and I have been reading for a month and it has been a God send. I guess you could say I am recovering from modern Christianity where its been infiltrated with feminism and other egalitarian ideologies. Are there any books you would recommend on real Godly masculinity, marriage and gender roles?
Thanks
[D: Welcome GunnerGlory.]
So I logged on here and before I saw the title of this thread, I saw the Reader Comments updates on the upper right hand side of the page, saying, “Are Real Mean Attracted to Bois” because it cuts off the name of the headline. Scared me for a minute there.
I can count the number of genuinely intimidating women I’ve met on one hand. Usually, they’re intimidating because they’re hot, they’re hard charging, high powered, etc. Not because they’re boisterous or highly intelligent. A good, albeit fictional example is the gal Elizabeth Banks used to play on ’30 Rock,’ Avery Jessup.
Otoh, I can’t think of a less intimidating woman than one with a high IQ. Being so insecure about how their high IQ’s must be a turn off to men makes them far more of a pushover than the average woman.
And I can’t tell you how many times I’ve come across women who said men found them intimidating, when the reality was (and I could never bring myself to say it) that men simply found them a turn-off. Usually they’re too forward or act desperate, have dorky senses of humor or are just not physically attractive to begin with. They’re just telling themselves they intimidate men because it helps them sleep better at night. It’s hard to imagine any of these women ever intimidating a guy.
@ Hipster Racist
Having tried this multiple times, I do not recommend. If a woman doesn’t like exercise and likes you she will do it for you, but eventually you can tell she won’t like doing it. There’s very few women who like exercise and nutrition after doing it for a while.
Are there any books you would recommend on real Godly masculinity, marriage and gender roles?
Every book of the New Testament.
Boxer, I’m one of those guys who thinks polygamy is – although obviously not ideal – at least permitted to male (see note) believers (and by permitted I simply mean “not prohibited”). But I take a hard line on the required qualifications found in 1 Timothy and Titus for elders and deacons, so although I would accept a polygamist as a fellow brother in Christ, I would never accept his claim to ecclesiastical authority… any more than I would accept such a claim from a woman. It says what it says. I’m so hard-lined about it that I don’t consider myself qualified for those positions either, since I have no children, and a child-free man like me obviously cannot, “[keep] his children submissive and respectful in every way.” For the same reason, unmarried men are not qualified, either. The church has gotten away from the clear teaching of scripture on these matters, but like the old saying goes, “If you find yourself farther from God than you used to be, guess who moved.” My opinion (and that’s all it is), is that God places the requirements of being a man, a husband, and a father in with the other requirements because the men in those positions need to be able to speak and counsel from experience and personal gravitas as well as scripture… they need to exemplify “what right looks like.”
Note: My wife and I had this hypothetical discussion some time ago and she asked if – by that logic – a woman would be permitted to have two husbands. I said that she could not, because wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, and “you cannot serve two masters.” Since she’s an officer’s wife, I explained to her I could have many subordinates (those who submit to me), but only one commander (he to whom I must submit) at any given echelon. She agreed that I had proved my point.
Maybe the “Proud Single Mom” to whom MarcusD has directed out attention has simply chosen the wrong path in life, and should have gone this route: http://oconnorc5.wixsite.com/rcwp-toronto.
Oh yeah? And exactly who is this so-called “St. Paul” fellow, to tell them such outrageous, self-esteem-injuring things, anyway? Obviously he’s badly in need of some sort of epiphany, no?
Ha! I jest (obviously, I hope).
But, I had to share that link, just so y’all would know that the FI rot, which is everywhere in Christendom, extends in the RC community well beyond just merely gently deluded self-centredness here and there amongst the comments found on a blog somewhere.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
@ GunnerGlory
The Scriptures.
The life of Jesus, obviously. Any time He encounters adversity (e.g. hometown, Pharisees, Saducees, Romans, etc.) see how He handles it.
1 and 2 Timothy and Titus — Paul is writing to men younger in the faith about how to grow into a man in the faith.
1 and 2 Peter — We know Peter was married and the rock Jesus built His Church on, so we know 1 Peter chapters 2-3 are good for marriage roles. Additional chapters that discuss marriage roles are Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, and Titus 2.
Genesis 1-3. You could spend a year studying these chapters and continue to gain insight onto male and female nature and sin nature. I have a bunch of posts up on my blog about this.
Rest of Genesis — Can’t go wrong with understanding how the Patriarchs operated both in their triumphs and sin.
Job, Joseph, first half of David’s life — Understanding suffering is a normal part of life and to stay steadfast.
Solomon — can have everything but women can lead you astray if you let them.
Prophets — Living a godly life is hard. Very hard. Prepare to be persecuted.
The church has gotten away from the clear teaching of scripture on these matters, but like the old saying goes, “If you find yourself farther from God than you used to be, guess who moved.” My opinion (and that’s all it is), is that God places the requirements of being a man, a husband, and a father in with the other requirements because the men in those positions need to be able to speak and counsel from experience and personal gravitas as well as scripture… they need to exemplify “what right looks like.”
Yes. As the church continues to neglect/undermine/discourage marriage and the formation and sustainment of Christian families, it finds fewer and fewer men available and/or qualified to assume the role of elder (garsh, imagine that …). This leads to filling the position with clearly unscripturally permitted and unqualified people, which in turn discourages qualified men from stepping up. And the vicious circle self-perpetuates, with the eventual acceptance of the heretical as normal.
I’m trying to imagine any church today “starting over and doing it right” by removing unqualified elders from their positions. The resulting uproar would probably make the Rodney King Riots of ’92 look like a campus sit-in by comparison. Rare indeed is any pastor brave enough to risk his neck on such a venture.
Feeriker,
If all the people filling pastoral roles were reduced to those men actually called by God to do so, the number would plummet to a fraction of what is is now. The early church typically had one church for each geographical area… the church at Ephesus, the church at Rome, etc. I live in a suburban area of about 46,000 people, and Google tells me there are 43 churches in that area claiming to be Christian. Many of those churches have multiple people in positions with “Pastor” in their titles, such as “Youth Pastor,” “Singles Pastor,” “Children’s Pastor,” and so forth. It’s probably not an exaggeration to estimate that there are a couple hundred “pastors” in this little area of fewer than 50,000 people. I KNOW many of them weren’t called by God because they do not even meet the demographic criteria laid out in 1 Timothy and Titus (husband and father), much less all the rest of the requirements.
And rest assured that there are many “loud and boisterous” female “pastors” in the mix… and few people even bother to object any more. If “Christians” are willing to sit under the theological headship of women (which is OBVIOUSLY in direct defiance of black-letter, unambiguous Scripture), how much more willing are they to accept more subtle errors, like “servant leadership” within marriage, stripping husbands of their authority, or divorce-and-remarriage?
@Lyn87:
I’m so hard-lined about it that I don’t consider myself qualified for those positions either, since I have no children, and a child-free man like me obviously cannot, “[keep] his children submissive and respectful in every way.” For the same reason, unmarried men are not qualified, either.
Aren’t you reading too much into what Paul wrote, and are not interpreting his words in the right context?
It is clear that Paul had Apostolic authority. He was neither married nor had any children. Would you say he was unqualified to hold a position in the church? Apostle John never married either, nor did he have any children. Was he similarly unqualified? What about our Lord Jesus Christ? What was his wife’s names and how many biological children did he have?
As I see it, what Paul was saying is quite obvious: a man who aspires to lead God’s people must be above reproach, and must have everything in his life in order, whether that be family, business, personal habits, and the like. He merely cited some examples of the areas that came readily to his mind, as inspired by the Holy Spirit. The list was not exhaustive in the least. He could easily have added that such a person must have no ungodly entries in their online blogs, and see that they always drive cars that had passed emission tests, and drive within the posted speed limits.
Paul did not mean to say all of these things (e.g. family, business, cars, etc.) are required if a man desires to lead God’s people, but rather that if such a person had them, must see that they do not constitute a hindrance or become a source of disrespect for the office sought.
At least that is what I got from the passage.
Lyn wrote: “I’m one of those guys who thinks polygamy is – although obviously not ideal – at least permitted to male believers (and by permitted I simply mean “not prohibited”).
I must say that the issue of multiple wives and or girl friends is not well known.
First let me deal with the issue of a girl friend.
The whole issue of having a girl friend or in the language of the Bible פילגש. This comes up mainly in Chronicles I 2:46 with the friend of Joshua כלב בן יפונה. I have mentioned before that Calev Ben Yefuna was the only person in the Bible that it says the amazing phrase וימלא אחרי השם “he walked totally with God.”
The basic outline of the subject you can easily see in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.
The Rambam it is known is against this and allows a girl friend only to a king. The Gra pointed out that that can’t work in the case of Calev Ben Yefuna (who was not a king). But the Gra has a different explanation of the whole thing. He says a פלגש is with kidushin but no ketubah. The חלקת מחוקק and בית שמואל point out that even to the Rambam, a girl friend is only an אסור עשה that is a prohibition that is derived from the lack of doing something–that is making kidushin.
That is to say it is not that same thing as זנות which is a לאו a straight forward prohibition.
In any case on the side of permission we have at least the Raavad and the Ramban and some say the Rosh also. The reason is the Rosh only mentions the problem of she might be embarrassed to go to the mikveh. People like the Radvaz and later achronim went through the trouble to find how many rishonim allow it and as far as I know there is no doubt that the majority of Rishonim allow it.
This really would not even need to be necessary to mention except for the fat that I have heard people confuse this with adultery which it is clearly not. This opinion I imagine can only have originated with people that can’t read Hebrew. Adultery is a totally different story. It is an act of sex with a married woman. It has nothing to do with a girl friend. Thus a man can have many wives but a wife can not have two husbands since each act of sex would be an act of adultery which gets the death penalty as we see in Leviticus 20
If all the people filling pastoral roles were reduced to those men actually called by God to do so, the number would plummet to a fraction of what is is now.
Yep. The RC and Orthodox call this process “formation” and it is grueling. (Yet still some bad ones get through).
When I went to seminary (baptist) I had to write about my “testimony” which was not a word we used much in my faith tradition (Church of Christ) at the time. So I wrote “I was baptized in 1981.”
There was a page and half of empty space left in that section of the application. I still got in. (They still interviewed me where I explained my short answer).
Genius! Make marriage absolutely unpalatable to men thereby removing any ability of qualified men to lead it. Shear brilliance. I don’t think there is any reason to believe married men more capable than unmarried men or childless men to lead a flock. Married men have gotten the rest of us into this mess by kowtowing to their wives, their marriedness making them all the more subservient.
Not good.
All this done by married men in the Church. Lyn’s point isn’t as strong as he surmises. SIngle men are far more able to follow the Lord absolutely compared to a married man. Married men live in a state of subservience to their wives and not the Lord. The flock needs a strong Shepard, not a submissive dolt.
Come on Lyn, married only once doesn’t mean that someone who has never been married cannot take the role, it is a restriction on someone who divorces and remarries being a leader ’cause, quite frankly, they could never choose properly to begin with. If there were a restriction on single men, it would be stated ‘matter-o fact’ and not through some wordsmithing.
I’m with Dave on this one. Even the children and household things and written with respect to men who have children and families, not as a limitation on who can hold office. It’s not an either or option. A single man is better able to handle his household, is he not?
Spell check hassling me again. Dalrock, please change Shepard to shepherd. Thank you.
One of the muslcal developments in modern Christianity has been the so-called “Jesus is my boyfriend” type of song – a lyric that is unclear whether the object of the writer’s affection is Jesus or their earthly lover. This is not a new phenomenon – consider the lyrics to “In the Garden” (from 1913):
I come to the garden alone
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses.
And He walks with me, and He talks with me,
And He tells me I am His own;
And the joy we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known.
It goes on like this for another couple of verses. What man feels comfortable singing this?
But as the FI takes over country music, there seems to be an increasing reversal: “My girlfriend is God” songs. The latest is perhaps the most blasphemous: “H.O.L.Y” by Florida-Georgia line:
When the sun had left and the winter came
And the sky fall could only bring the rain
I sat in darkness, all broken hearted
I couldn’t find a day I didn’t feel alone
I never meant to cry, started losing hope
But somehow baby, you broke through and saved me
You’re an angel, tell me you’re never leaving
‘Cause you’re the first thing I know I can believe in
You’re holy, holy, holy, holy
I’m high on loving you, high on loving you
You’re holy, holy, holy, holy
I’m high on loving you, high on loving you
You made the brightest days from the darkest nights
You’re the river bank where I was baptized
Cleanse all the demons
That were killing my freedom
Let me lay you down, give me to ya
Get you singing babe, hallelujah
We’ll be touching, we’ll be touching heaven
(I’m sure there’s punctuation in there somewhere, but this is what the lyrics site produced).
I wasn’t trying to start an argument about deacons and elders… I was simply responding to what Boxer wrote. Frankly, we’ve been here before and I have little desire to return, so I’ll say my piece and bow out of this particular topic. If the rest of you want to continue in this vein, have at it.
Many things in the Bible don’t make sense to us sometimes. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” – Proverbs 14:12 (among others). The point is not to do “what seemeth right” to us… it is to obey God and His word. I’m open to the possibility that I’m being overly strict about my reading of 1 Timothy and Titus in this matter… I’ve certainly been told by plenty of people that I am, and I doubt any of you can tell me anything I haven’t already heard and found unconvincing many times. Then again, the current consensus is that women can be called to preach, and that’s nonsense, so I take “majority view” with a grain of salt when it comes to gray areas like this one. But in the absence of a compelling argument from Scripture that it means something other than what it plainly says, I’ll take it at face value – and “at face value” restricts those offices to married fathers. Although God is under no obligation to explain His rationale to me, my view also has the virtue of making sense to me… in that I see the value of restricting ecclesiastical authority to those who have demonstrated their headship at home with a wife and children, (“For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?“), and only married fathers have demonstrably done so. No doubt about it – there are single men (and men with rebellious wives and children) who could do an admirable job of pastoring (just as there are some very serious Christian women who could perform many pastoral functions pretty well)… but I have neither the desire nor the authority to carve out exceptions to Scripture because of what I think or feel. If I’m not going to deviate from the plain, literal meaning for women, I’d be a hypocrite to do it for myself.
It’s important to me to not be one of those “Cafeteria Christians” who interprets Scripture to my own advantage. We all know people who are ever-willing to point out where others miss the mark of Scripture, but also seem to always have some esoteric reason why their own deviations are somehow acceptable. I don’t want to be that guy who says, “Yeah… only men may pastor (because it that’s what it says), but the part that applies to me (having his children in subjection) doesn’t (because that would preclude me from doing it).”
I’m done with 1 Timothy and Titus. Like I said: if the rest of you want to keep going, go ahead. I’m going back to the main topic.
Lyn said:
I’m open to the possibility that I’m being overly strict about my reading of 1 Timothy and Titus in this matter… I’ve certainly been told by plenty of people that I am, and I doubt any of you can tell me anything I haven’t already heard and found unconvincing many times.
It’s important for us to remember that when people use words like “strict” and “too literal” when talking about Scriptural interpretation, what they really mean to say is “not in accordance with modern thought and practice.”
Since I said I was going to go back on-topic, I visited the CBMW website Dalrock linked in the main article. I noticed a link on the side labeled “Feminism” and decided to take a look. There’s an article by a woman named GraceAnna Castleberry that I found unobjectionable during my quick read-through, but there were also a few articles by Courtney Reissig that I found a good deal less compelling. Like a lot of “Christian” writing concerning women, she makes a decent head-fake toward values we here would all applaud, but can’t seem to stop herself from inserting a big dollop of feminist leaven into the mix.
The late David Hunt once asked those attending a CBN gathering (or, as I call it, The Heresy Network) what systems they had to ensure their members were not preaching falsehoods over the airwaves in their name. The same could be asked on many “ministries.”
Scott said:
When I went to seminary (baptist) I had to write about my “testimony” which was not a word we used much in my faith tradition (Church of Christ) at the time. So I wrote “I was baptized in 1981.”
There was a page and half of empty space left in that section of the application. I still got in. (They still interviewed me where I explained my short answer).
Sadly (although, alas, not surprisingly), many Protestant seminaries and Bible Colleges are becoming like a lot of their secular private university counterparts (the ones now going bankrupt and closing down in record numbers). The only requirements for admission are 1) a pulse and 2) sufficient money for tuition.
The late David Hunt once asked those attending a CBN gathering (or, as I call it, The Heresy Network) what systems they had to ensure their members were not preaching falsehoods over the airwaves in their name. The same could be asked on many “ministries.”
Hmmm, interesting? And what was their response?
Speaking also of getting back on the topic of loud, boisterous women, I was radio dial flipping the other day and landed for a few moments on that well-known CCM station. At the and of a song an ad came on that featured a woman’s hoarse, bellowing, strident, “hellfire” preaching voice. That of course immediately raised both hackles and red flags. I immediately began to wonder “who bitch be dis, and where be her man to shutz her mouf?” when the first part of the question was answered: Beth Moore (that’s “Beth Moore, evangelist to you, dontcha know?).
This gets back to the point about unqualified elders in the church (i.e., nearly all of them, even those who are “married to one wife” and are the [nominal] heads of families). If they can’t lead by controlling their own mouthy, boisterous wives who violate Scripture by preaching like men, then they obviously can’t lead anyone/anything else.
Except I didn’t use either of those words. Lyn has not shown that the scripture says what he means it to say.
‘Married only once’ is clearly a restriction on how many wives a man has or those who are divorced, it is not a command that the man has to be married. It does not restrict single men or widowers.
RE multiple wives:
It may be permitted, but it is rather stupid and solves none of the problems that some claim it would solve.
Scott,
This leaves out any point of specific conversion. It fits with a belief in church traditions over the Scriptures, but it does not provide a point where
happened based on faith in God’s promises. This rather puts a physical action, something you were personally not active in faith for (if I recall correctly that this was an infant baptism).
I understand why you believe this way and you are free to do so, but it is not consistent with a Sola Scriptura point and using that to put down many other preachers has serious flaws. The seminary you went to clearly did not apply their standards well, if they really had any, but many of us seek to apply the truth that all are lost at some point and only “saved” when reborn as noted in the Scripture above.
This can have less impact on the issues discussed on this blog unfortunately since we still have to wash out our minds with God’s Word and many people do not do that effectively today.
(I am not meaning to argue the issue, only to point out that it leads to accusations that are founded in a difference in belief rather than what is claimed. I cannot state the exact date of my own conversion, but I know the approximate time frame and it has nothing to do with an external action and is solely based on my own belief and acceptance of Jesus as Lord of my life. My own baptism as an infant in the RCC did nothing to change the spiritual state of my life. Others are sure to disagree.)
feeriker,
It’s been quite a while since I heard Dave Hunt’s story (and he’s been dead since 2013), but I don’t recall them having any reaction at all other than perhaps embarrassed silence.
One of the things women such as Beth Moore tend to do is stress that their “ministries” don’t put them above the spiritual headship of their husbands, or release their female audience members from submitting to the authority of their husbands. I’ve never found that particularly convincing. Their husbands may well support then, but then again there is no shortage of milquetoast men sitting in pews taking their cues from women – particularly their wives.
Having said all that, it’s not my place to judge hearts – only results. I have no reason to think that Beth Moore is not a believer, although I question the validity her calling to do much of what she does. But, “By their fruits ye shall know them” is within our mandate – mind-reading is not.
@Lyn87:
It’s the core Vanity desire in Women. When they’re operating in a “public” capacity, the only time they can prevent it infecting their words is when they’re doing actual Testimony. As that process requires putting their own Sin to light, which has a massively clarifying effect on their talking. They are, for the rare moment, being honest.
Any other time, even if the female speaker is making a good point, just wait. She’ll always drop a line that makes the entire point of her endeavor there about her. Once I noticed this, it’s become fascinating to watch. A Woman can hold it off until the absolute end of the presentation, but there’ll always be that one line.
Though there is a self-selection effect. The Women that can pull off a presentation that isn’t all about them, in public, wouldn’t put themselves in a position to do it. Their instincts would make them horribly uncomfortable about performing such a role. Which is to their credit and their Faith.
Lyn87,
I have read that one of the requirements to be a Pharisee was to be married. We are not told what happened to Paul’s wife if that is true, nor anything about any possible children. This undercuts (in my mind at least) the requirement of marriage and children, though I would grant that the written elements lean towards requiring those.
feeriker,
That is sometimes true, but is not a hard and fast rule. Some of us are simply trying to align what is written with our real lives and that is harder than it may seem. All different views are not necessarily a result of some form of heresy, but more often a fact that we see through a dark glass at this point.
I have no reason to think that Beth Moore is not a believer, although I question the validity her calling to do much of what she does.
Agreed.
A good general practice for anybody, male or female, who feels “called by God” to do something would be to do a thorough search of Scripture to ensure that what they feel called upon to do is indeed Scriptural.
“If all the people filling pastoral roles were reduced to those men actually called by God to do so, the number would plummet to a fraction of what is is now.”
A supernatural calling by God isn’t a Biblical requirement for priesthood. Neither has such a calling been a guarantee of trustworthiness. Why would God have bothered to write a book if He wanted to keep doing things the old, direct way?
Given the lack of miraculous signs and wonders these days, I daresay the number of truly “called” pastors in the West is zero. That would be God’s doing, not ours.
OT but perhaps related:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-young-men-dont-work/
Interestingly, they don’t actually speak with (or quote, even anonymously) any of the “young men” they’re conjecturing about. Why not?
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC:
Young Swedes are having less sex.
http://familyinamerica.org/newsletter/august-16-2016-chasteand-happiermillennials/
I’m thinking that the Swedes may be getting a bit more conservative as the birth gap between the liberals and the conservatives over the past 50 years starts to produce significantly more conservative families as a percentage of Swedish society than in the past.
The Amish population in America doubles every 22 years, so the pendulum may swing back toward conservatism here also at some point. In 100 years, we’ll all be Amish!
2 Now a bishop[g] must be above reproach, married only once
LOL! You’re gonna bring my polygamist bros out to fight over this one. Watch and see.
So, you marry several women……simultaneously, only once 😉
Thank you @Deep Strength for the topics and passages. I added your site to my reader.
@PokeSalad: “So, you marry several women……simultaneously, only once.”
Unfortunately, when you Greek it out, that verse literally says “a one woman man”. Whatever we may make of singularity, divorce and widowerhood, Polygamy need not apply.
Sorry. Well, maybe not, looking at the tough times Biblical polygamists had…
Wow, 400,000 comments. I am from a different generation. These conversations were just not necessary. This is going to tick some people off, but I get the sense a lot of men today are pussy-whipped. Mother, may I? Don’t give in to it. She will love you more if you don’t.
Not everyone with several wives in the Bible had trouble. With Jacob there was some trouble, but overall I think he did pretty well. King David’s son Solomon came from Bat Sheva who was not David’s first or only wife. Caleb Ben Yefuna had a few wives and few girls friend simultaneously and the Bible says about him the most unique phrase it uses anywhere וימלא אחרי השם He walked totally with God. “Totally” here means “completely,” or 100%.
@feeriker
”Sadly (although, alas, not surprisingly), many Protestant seminaries and Bible Colleges are becoming like a lot of their secular private university counterparts (the ones now going bankrupt and closing down in record numbers). The only requirements for admission are 1) a pulse and 2) sufficient money for tuition.”
Here you go:
http://www.garynorth.com/seminaries.pdf
Entryism in the seminaries too easy.
@Avraham rosenblum
Monogamy makes for more powerful high-quality warriors and civilizations.
https://archive.org/details/b20442580
I did not see much there [in the paper your mentioned] in the way of proof. Lots of factors might have gone into that. I see no reason to be more strict than the Law of God in the Five Books of Moses.
The “haredi / religious” women in Israel dress and act modestly. It is amazing to see – they shame the “christians” without saying a word.
Allow me to suggest getting back to what is written. Christianity is an invention of the Councils of Laodeica, Nicea, Antioch, and Elvira.
Yshua and all the apostles were Torah keeping Jews who attended synagogue on the sabbath and read Moses and the prophets (see below).
Real orthodox synagogues and yeshivas are great – it is “men only” – it is absolutely fantastic. In addition, the women wear head coverings. The downside is the talmud, but the there is debate and high degree of intellectualism that is missing from Christianity.
Btw, here is Acts 15:19-21 in context from the NASB
19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from:
1. things contaminated by idols ( pagan celebrations)
2. from fornication (improper relationships)
3. from what is strangled (how food is killed)
4. from blood (how food is cooked)
5 Moses from ancient generations (what is read)
6, every city those who preach him, since he is read (geographical locations)
6. synagogues (where it is read)
7. every Sabbath (when it is read)
28“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
~Shalom
When the Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce, he responded by referring to the first of Moses’s books to explain God’s plan for marriage.
Mark 10:2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to [a]divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and [b]send her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “[c]Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother[d], 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
He referred specifically to Genesis 1-2. How many women did God create for Adam?
One.
God’s plan was – from the beginning – one woman for one man for life. Everything else has been added by men and women since then.
Continuing with Moses’s books; who was the first polygamist? He was an evil man, a descendant of Cain, named Lamech.
Genesis 4:17 Cain [j]had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son. 18 Now to Enoch was born Irad, and Irad [k]became the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael [l]became the father of Methushael, and Methushael [m]became the father of Lamech. 19 Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah. 20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
23 Lamech said to his wives,
“Adah and Zillah,
Listen to my voice,
You wives of Lamech,
Give heed to my speech,
For I [n]have killed a man for wounding me;
And a boy for striking me;
24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”
What do the other books of Moses – and the rest of the Old Testament – tell us about polygamy? They tell us that polygamy leads to the worst family dynamics imaginable – jealousy and strife among wives and concubines, wives and concubines manipulating husbands to gain advantages over their rivals for themselves and their children, brothers selling brothers to slavery, brothers murdering brothers, incestuous rape, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
That’s why Paul instructed that an overseer “must be above reproach, the husband of one wife”, because that is what God intended from the beginning, that is what right looks like, and an overseer is supposed to be an example to the men he oversees of what right looks like.
Anyone who reads the Bible and thinks polygamy is a good idea is treating the Bible like a buffet, picking and choosing what they like and what they don’t like out of the Scriptures.
If something is not forbidden then why say it is? You want to be more strict than Moses?
No. I want to follow God’s design. Do you?
Allow me to point out that The Divine Monarch doesn’t explicitly forbid lots of things in the text… smoking dope, jaywalking, base jumping, polygamy, competitive streetfighting… In context, I think he’d explain that he gave you a well-designed brain, with the ability to delay gratification, and he expects you to use your best judgment. Some of the things he does not forbid can still be bad ideas.
Unlike many of you, I’ve seen polygamy up close. Some of my Mormon relatives live “the order” and it’s nothing like what Hollywood sells in trash tee-vee shows like “Big Love,” where a respected patriarch bangs several hot wives in tandem. It’s more likely that the aspiring polygamist will end up henpecked, perpetually broke, and worked like a slave for his much shortened life. His kids will grow up unkempt, not really knowing their dad, and prone to falling in with gangs/druggies/street criminals like the child of any other single mom. You have been warned.
@Avraham rosenblum – how many wives and cocubines did Moses have? Interesting enough – what does the Torah say regarding the cohanim?
The Torah, Psalms, and prophets condemn multiple wives :
“He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself. Deut 17:17
Do not give your strength to “women”, Or your ways to that which destroys kings. Proverbs 31:3
He who finds a wife finds a good thing And obtains favor from the LORD.Proverbs 18:22
You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.d So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth. 16“The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”e says the Lord Almighty.Mal 2:14-16
Did not Solomon king of Israel sin regarding these things? Yet among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless the foreign women caused even him to sin. Neh 13:26
As noted Mal 2:14-16 is in the singular, Proverbs 18:22 is singular, Neh 13:26 is foreign & plural (women).
Allow me to suggest, scripture and history show that one good one wife (Ie Prov 31) is better than multiple “headaches and problems” as clearly denoted by the wives and concubines of the Patriarchs.
~Shalom
The general way to understand the Law of Moses is thus: There are things that are forbidden. These always come with the words, “Thou shalt not do such and such.” There are things one must do. They always come with the words, “Thou shalt do such and such.” Then there are things that are neither forbidden nor obligated. They might be good to do but they are not obligated. There might be things that are not prudent, but they are not forbidden.
Christians try to argue that two wives is not prudent and therefore must be forbidden. However that does not follow. Also the entire existence of the Jewish people is the result of Jacob having four wives. Plus Caleb Ben Yefuna is not a minor figure in the Bible. He is well known as the friend of Joshua and the fact that he had a few wives and girl friends is not ignoble.
“Christians try to argue that two wives is not prudent and therefore must be forbidden.”
That is not my argument. How about you try and address the argument I actually made instead of arguing with figments of your imagination?
I admit I can not address ur arguments nor do I understand them very well. I was simply trying to make a difference between what the Law of Moses is is forbidden and that which it does not forbid. The cases of multiple wives that I know about are usually quite happy. The women are attached to some Alpha Male and are willing to put up with anything in order to be with him. And I never saw anything to indicate that the children were worse off. But people that are more familiar with Mormons might have different observations–I admit.
@ Avraham rosenblum – I can see where your coming from and will address this from Jew to Jew and Jewish hermeneutics and Tanach.
When the Torah was given – there was a sharp redefining of the relationships as seen in Lev 18.
What was allowable before, was no longer allowed. Marrying your 1/2 sister such as Abraham did was longer allowed (Deut 27:22).
Proper hermeneutics (rules of Hillel as a minimum & “2-3 witnesses” from scriptures).
What you are doing is separating the Chumash from the rest of the Tanach ( Nevim & Kutuvim).
~Shalom
Avraham,
Been away for a couple of days. I thought I’d address your comment about King David’s (in your view rather successful) polygamy, True, Solomon his heir was not from his first wife. But look at his other sons from different mothers – at each others’ throats, threatening even Solomon’s accession to the throne. Tamar was raped by her half-brother Amnon. Absalom her brother retaliates and is killed. Adonijah sets himself up as king to usurp Solomon.
Not a happy round of polygamy if you ask me. And of course Solomon’s ultimate failure is attributed in part to his many wives.
Dear Hmm:
You bring up an excellent point, and your analysis of the text is similar to mine, in that I read these stories not as admonitions to indulge in polygamy, but as cautionary tales as to what happens when one man thinks he can wrangle multiple women and all their children.
King Solomon was a man’s man, the alpha of alpha males, with unlimited resources, political and social power that no man here is going to approach in his lifetime. Still, polygamy made him miserable. It oughta tellya.
Boxer
@Boxer
Jay Leno had a great joke one time when some Mormon fundamentalist with umpteen wives was arrested a number of years ago: “Can you imagine what it would be like to have seventeen wives? You’d come home from work and have seventeen screen doors to fix!” It got a pretty big laugh.
At it again is our Maxwell: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/blessed-are-the-man-boys
Pingback: Time and fantasy. | Dalrock
Pingback: Question: Why Should a Woman Change Herself to "Get Along" with a Man? | Σ Frame