Scott commented on my last post, noting that his blog focused on honoring respectable men runs against the prevailing culture:
So far, the response has been positive but with the caveat that speaks to what Damn Crackers is alluding to. What I do is make a post, then I share it on FB and tag the dad. Generally, I get comments from that dads friends (who are usually not my friends. My FB friend list is VERY small, on purpose) and the comments are characterized by “a well deserved tribute” followed by other statements related to how “hes not like all those deadbeats out there.”
It is basically inconceivable to the average person that I am honoring fatherhood–as fatherhood. (Even though it is expressly written in the about page).
It will take a miracle for this to change.
The irony is this reflexive tendency to denigrate men comes not from a sincere fear of a shortage of good men, but from a sense of extreme and everlasting abundance. It wouldn’t take a miracle to change this attitude, it would take an actual fear of a shortage of good men.
What is confusing is the words people are using all denote a fear of a shortage of good men. But if you look at the attitude that accompanies these missives, you will see that the overwhelming sentiment is one of abundance, of being in a position to nitpick, and select the very cream of the crop. Take for example the fathers who responded on Instapundit to Tony Katz’s claim that there is a severe shortage of real men. Commenter President Friedman concurred with Katz’s assessment, based on his own observation of the men in his teenage daughter’s cohort:
Out of the entire group her age, there are a few young men I’d be proud to call son-in-laws: Athletic, smart, industrious, curious about how things work, courteous, a little mischievous, but with a good moral compass. Maybe 5% of the boys in her age group fit this description.
…
So I don’t find very many young men suitable for my daughter…
…which I supposed puts my sentiments about the current crop of young men in the exact same ballpark as every father-of-a-daughter who ever lived.
Commenter Scottie agreed with this sentiment, replying:
Yep, as a father myself, I share your sentiment. Just be sure to raise a daughter worthy of one of those top five percent, dad. I think that’s the key. I know any man my daughter chooses has run a much harder gauntlet than any I would offer him.
The words are complaining about an acute shortage of suitable husbands for their daughters, but the sentiment is that only the very best of the top 5% can hope to win their daughters’ hands in marriage. Part of the reason we don’t notice this mismatch is we struggle to conceive of a situation where there really is a shortage of good men. In such a scenario, we would be focused on helping young women out compete their peers to be worthy of the very few good men available. We also wouldn’t be focused on the best of the top 5%, worrying if they would be able to win our daughter’s hearts. We would be encouraging our daughters to be realistic about their own MMV positions, and focusing on the true bare bones list of must have qualities in a future son in law. But we know we don’t have to do this, because good men are plentiful. They may represent a smaller percentage of young men today than in the past, but whatever shrinkage this might represent isn’t enough to cause us any true alarm.
We can see the same pattern in Dr. John Piper’s recent post Why Are Women More Eager Missionaries?* Piper explains that missionary work has become a pink ghetto:
…the actual situation among most evangelical faith missions is that between 80–85% of all single missionaries are women. It is a rare thing, like two out of every ten, for a single man to make missions his life’s vocation, which results in the overall statistics being that one-third of those in evangelical world missions are married men, one-third are married women, and 80 percent of the last third are single women. Which means that something just less than two-thirds of the total missionary force are women.
Piper’s main concern with the post however is not that there aren’t enough single men doing missionary work, but that women who choose this field aren’t marrying as they would like. Piper complains that the problem for husband hunting missionary women is really an exacerbated version of the same problem all Christian women have, and that is an overall lack of marriageable Christian men:
Among Christian men who do not get married, say, in their 20s and 30s, they are probably held back from that relationship of marriage by — here are my opinions — a sense of inadequacy that they could be a spiritual leader or a fear that they might be rejected as they pursue a relationship or a lack of purpose in life that would give support and meaning in a marriage relationship. Any of those hindrances to forming a long-term commitment of marriage would also explain why he may have a sense of inadequacy about missions or a fear about missions or a lack of purpose about missions.
In other words, the very things that keep a man single in his late 20s and 30s are probably the same kind of things that would keep him from pursuing a life in missions. On the other hand, single women may not feel any of those hindrances. They would happily marry a godly, mature, purposeful, mission-directed man if he came along. But they can’t make that happen without men doing their part.
But if Piper actually believed this, if he believed that there was a severe shortage of husband material men, he would focus his attention on helping the women reading navigate this incredibly difficult situation. Overseas mission work may feel empowering for young women, but (according to Piper) single women going into the mission field are greatly handicapping their prospects in an already bleak field. His advice to young women would be to choose which was truly more important to them, being a missionary or finding a husband.
Piper even tells a story which would be a perfect way to teach this lesson. He describes a single woman named Gladys Aylward who went to a place where she found no marriageable men, and then blamed single men for not following her and proposing marriage:
“Miss Aylward talked to the Lord about her singleness. She was a no-nonsense woman in very direct and straightforward ways and she asked God to call a man from England, send him straight out to China, straight to where she was, and have him propose to me.” I can’t forget the next line. Elisabeth Elliot said, “With a look of even deeper intensity, she shook her little bony finger in my face and said, ‘Elisabeth, I believe God answers prayer. And he called him.’” And here there was a brief pause of intense whisper. She said, “‘He called him, and he never came.’”
Now, that experience, I would guess, is not unique to Gladys Aylward.
If Piper really believed that Christian husbands were scarce, he would be sharing this anecdote to warn young women of the foolishness of moving away from the pool of men they hope to choose a husband from and then expecting God to send the man of their choosing across the world to propose. If we were in a culture of scarcity of good men, this would be the obvious lesson from this story. But we live in an age with unshakable confidence that good men are not only available all around us, but will always be abundant. If Piper believed that the husband Miss Aylward was praying for was surrounded by real life English women eager to win him as a husband, this story wouldn’t be complaining about why he didn’t drop everything, fly to China, and propose to a woman he had never met. If Piper believed that the man was sought after as a husband in England, he would be pointing out the foolishness of Miss Aylward flying off to China and then wondering why a man she had never met didn’t show up to propose once she decided she wanted to marry.
We can see another, perhaps more subtle example of this sense of abundance in the recent Dennis Prager/Jim Geraghty video The Sexiest Man Alive**. The video is an expression of the theme of Geraghty’s book Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Start a Family, and Other Manly Advice. The book’s description on Amazon reads:
What has happened to men in America? Once upon a time, men in their twenties looked forward to settling down and having children. Today, most young men seem infected by a widespread Peter Pan syndrome. Unwilling to give up the freedom to sleep late, play video games, dress like a slob, and play the field, today’s men wallow in an extended adolescence, ostensibly unaware that they’re setting themselves up for a depressing, lonely existence.
In this hilarious ode to male adulthood, Jim Geraghty and Cam Edwards—two happily married, 40-year-old men—have a simple message for their younger peers: Grow up!
Again, if you simply read the words, Geraghty is telling us that there is a terrible man shortage. And yet, this isn’t the real message of the book. The message of the book, and of the Prager video, is that young men shouldn’t be discouraged by the fact that women their age aren’t interested in good men and instead are chasing after bad boys. The message is that if the good men reading/watching remain good long enough, eventually women will want to hop off the exciting bad boy carousel and marry boring nice guys like themselves. Keep being good men for long enough, and eventually women will tire of the bad boys and find your nice guy qualities irresistible, even sexy! This is both the premise and the promise of the book, which is why Good Reads titles the book:
Ward Cleaver Is a Stud
Likewise, the description of the Prager video is:
What makes a man sexy? What makes a man…a man? Is there something about being the “bad boy”? Or is it more about predictability and reliability? Jim Geraghty of National Review explains.
The words say there is a terrible shortage of good men, but the message of the book is that good men shouldn’t be discouraged by the fact that women aren’t interested in them.
*HT Wood Chipper
**HT Trust
Posts like this is why I love this blog. For the last 10 years something has felt totally off about evangelical Christian perspectives on sex roles and marriage, and then I read this and it all just makes sense. The internalized, subconscious (although sometimes conscious) feminist world-view has infiltrated the church, leading to a culture that promotes the protection of female self-interest at all costs (whether that be sexual “freedom,” wifely rebellion, biblical relativism, etc.). Very frustrating.
On the plus side, understanding these things clearly helps us to know where to take the fight. Christian leaders need to be rebuked, women need discipline, correction, and hard-truths, and our children need to be raised with truthful expectations and knowledge of human nature.
Thanks Dalrock.
“The message is that if the good men reading/watching remain good long enough, eventually women will want to hop off the exciting bad boy carousel and marry boring nice guys like themselves. Keep being good men for long enough, and eventually women will tire of the bad boys and find your nice guy qualities irresistible, even sexy!”
Like you (Dalrock) once said (IIRC): eventually, their future wives will tire of having sex with other men.
Also, while I can’t blame dads for wanting the best man possible for their daughters, they need to be realistic and not fall into the hypergamy trap, whose path dead ends at the carousel.
Pingback: An attitude of abundance. | @the_arv
Well done, Dalrock. I’ve been observing this since I was younger and actually asked this question to others: If there are no good men left, why are we encouraging young women to postpone marriage as long as possible? Why are we telling them they need to get a college degree, get a full time job, and date around first as if there is no hurry? Why is it only at around 27-29 a sense of urgency occurs? Shouldn’t they prioritize marriage above everything else to ensure they lock in a good man?
To paraphrase Rollo Tomassi, this is all about conditioning beta men to fulfill their assigned role in modern Western women’s sexual strategy which has stripped nearly if not all incentives for men to prepare for marriage in their early 20s. It is why “man up!” always involves getting married, not accomplishing something distinctly unrelated to the FI.
It’s also why the “man up!” campaign is utterly silent on how to properly vet a prospective wife and possible mother to your kids.
Rollo wrote a post a while back on the kind of beta man both women and man uppers are terrified of, one who isn’t preparing to make the big bucks and assume the provisioning role he’s been expected to fill.
https://therationalmale.com/2016/07/18/are-you-experienced/
“What worries women is that all the Blue Pill conditioning men have endured for the past several decades might be undone if men were to actually make themselves their mental point of origin. What worries the representatives of the Feminine Imperative is that Betas might see the pragmatism in following the example of men who put themselves first and eschew the trappings of building their lives around the materialism women seek when their looks fade and their need for men’s resource security is a better prospect than having to compete for men with their sisters. When marriage is an easily recognizable sucker’s bet to the point that even Betas can see the sense in avoiding it, that’s when the Feminine Imperative must shift to a new tactic.”
My observation is that these daughters have “acceptable”, and they also have “must haves”, which when we look more closely are really “nice to haves”.
When you combine these two categories, as marry-minded women frequently will, I’m sorry but you probably will find that 2 out of every 10 dudes out there can even hope to comply.
If we are talking about “acceptable men” for marriage, namely well-educated, gainfully employed, solid work ethic, stable career and financially secure, then this is a short list anyway. Add in some of the “nice to haves” like high male social status, physical fitness (six pack), “good with kids”, romantic, sensitive (a.k.a. not too demanding of sex), etc., then the list of men is weaned down even further by her. Let’s face it, colleges and universities are only churning out 39% male graduates right now, and this is only going to get worse.
Female own group social pressures, female competition and hypergamy all combine to work against the daughters’ favor. A female business administration major grad, or an MBA, is simply not going to marry “down” to a factory worker/machinist or to sanitation worker or to a plumber, no matter how many of the acceptable and must haves he possesses. This fact is frequently dismissed or ignored.
But she won’t do it. It’s not going to happen, even if he has a valuable trade skills and gainfully employed for sufficient provisioning of her reality, his education level and social status are “OMG, like, yuck!” in her eyes.
This is fundamental flaw among females living in a very abundant, fem-centric society.
It’s still remains the daughters’ prerogative who they choose to marry. But I have to laugh out loud whenever I read that we should pretend that so many fathers have not stood there for years and done nothing while their wives raised a bunch of solipsistic, self-centered narcissists who bring little to nothing of value to the man’s table, and are in no universe considered acceptable wife and mother material.
Piper is off base as it relates to the purpose of men and women. Women’s purpose is not to go into the world and proclaim the Gospel –they save no one because all people are elect or not before creation. Women’s purpose is to help men. Men glorify God and proclaim His Gospel; women glorify men and proclaim His gospel by obeying, submitting to, respecting, and glorifying men. We save no one with our sacrifices of missionary work; we only proclaim the truth of the gospel by acting — doing — the will of God in the relationships of men and women. The rest of the gospel is a joke without it.
And, it is no coincidence that single women started going into all the world in the 19th century when women were taking control of the church at home. We are so far of knowing the roles of men and women it is a shock to all to start mentioning God’s way.
Food for thought: One wonders if some day the modern Christian church might return to polygamy as a way to deal with the impending flood of unmarried women unwilling to marry men who lack the “appropriate” levels of provisioning and whom the men also don’t want to marry because they’ve been conditioned to see marriage as a fool’s errand.
I could see it happening where these 30 somethings become the modern day “concubines” (rest assured, they’ll come up with an Orwellian term for it) of rich men who can afford to have several wives, and the pastor justifies it by citing all the instances of polygamy in the Old Testament and glossing over anything in the New Testament. These men will then be praised for doubly “manning up” and assuming the responsibility of another man who wasn’t willing to fulfill his duty.
“My observation is that these daughters have ‘acceptable’, and they also have ‘must haves’, which when we look more closely are really ‘nice to haves’.”
The bullet point lists are ultimately a shit test.
A fat man thinks only 5% of the apples in the barrel are good enough for him. A starving man will happily eat the last one.
…
RPC @ 11:25 am:
“Posts like this is why I love this blog.”
+1! You’re a treasure, Dalrock.
…
The Question @ 11:48 am:
“One wonders if some day the modern Christian church might return to polygamy as a way to deal with the impending flood of unmarried women unwilling to marry…”
Emotionally, they’re already there. This is why megacurches have boy bands and sermons emphasizing wellness and emotional support. “God didn’t make trash! Watch Fuckbuddy praise Jesus! You are forgiven (for last night)!”
I can look back at how feminism infected the church I grew up in. Male choir, coed choir, replace hymnals with overhead projector, guitarists instead of choir, modern 7-11 songs over traditional songs, trendy young worship directors, ugly women dancing on stage.
“Pay attention to what they do, not what they say” is standard advice for men who want to deal with women as they really ar – the men who wear The Glasses, who are Red Pill. The realists. Once a man really begins to Just Get It with regard to women, it’s not that difficult to extend that mindset.
Notice how often Piper, Geraghty, Prager, etc. communicate like women. There’s a surface sheen of reason, but what really they are pushing is emotion, emotion, emotionalism and emotion. At best these men are heavily Betaized, trapped in a box of Blue Pill thinking. Notice also the age group – this is a classic case of older men, over 40 (well over 40 in the case of Prager and Piper) talking down to men under 30. The condescending attitude is so thick you can cut it with a chainsaw.
These men frankly don’t know diddly squat about the issue. Their underlying premise is that nothing has really changed in the last 20 or 30 years except men have become irresponsible. Given that premise, that unconscious premise, it makes sense to double down on shaming men.
They are like a bunch of World War One generals sending cavalry charges against entrenched machineguns, because Napoleon. So long as these Deep Thinkers can’t bring themselves to look at reality as it is, rather than as they think it ought to be, they’ll just keep on failing loudly.
Free clue for tradcons: screaming the same shaming language LOUDER and LOUDER doesn’t work. All it does is teach younger men to tune you out, completely and utterly ignore you.
While young men need to grow up, get a job, etc and find their life mission this does not necessarily make you sexy. It is necessary for a certain kind of appeal for marriage, but not sufficient for sexiness. The man also needs to know how to respond to women, be sociable, and maintain his frame.
However, if he wants to get married in this culture, having all these things might only ensure some washed up 30 year old looks around at him as he is hitting his stride.
The men saying only 5% of boys could marry their daughter have no idea how badly the fathers are judging their modern daughters for my sons. She needs to a Christian virgin who put marriage and family ahead of short sighted impulse. 5%? No, that’s 0.1% of modern women. My boys are in trouble, and that is a REAL shortage, not an imagined one. Sure, if they want a driven, “tough” girl seeking her career who is independent, strong and good looking – thats not hard. But that is not a recipe for a good life.
RPC and Gunner Q,
Thank you for the too kind words.
Ok, @Dalrock, lest this place become an echo chamber…
Are the single women missionaries riding the CC out in the mission field? Or are they likely well-trained as regards chastity, but foolish? Or maybe they got off the CC to missionize?
Btw, one of my daughters married a good man recently. I tried to dissuade him and feed him the Red Pill, but he was set on marriage. At least I tried.
OT, but fun. Remember, Babylon Bee is a parody site.
http://babylonbee.com/news/woman-unsure-needs-jesus-preacher-spends-30-minutes-telling-amazing/
@Dalrock
The message of the book, and of the Prager video, is that young men shouldn’t be discouraged by the fact that women their age aren’t interested in good men and instead are chasing after bad boys.
So these men are really aware that young women are riding the CC and still chide men for not marrying?
As a father of a daughter in her early 20s, I was more than happy to bless her wedding to her boyfriend last year. I paid for the whole shebang and happily walked her down the aisle even though neither one has graduated from college. I absolutely reject the notion that waiting until her late 20s to get married was ever a great idea. Her husband has been crazy about her since they were in Junior High school. Better to marry than to burn. Now I have a son in college and I am trying to get him to take advantage of the situation by dating around until he finds someone marriage-worthy. No pressure, though, just encouragement. He is an awesome guy and way to good for 95% of the women out there, but I still like his chances.
Theasdgamer:
I actually tried to explore that in my critique of the video.
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/how-the-dennis-prager-video-hurts-regular-guys/
@ASDGamer
You are missing my point regarding Piper entirely. Piper told an anecdote about a woman who traveled to Maoist China and then prayed for God to send a man from England to propose marriage to her. When the man she ordered didn’t appear, she blamed the (unknown) man who didn’t show, because she was sure God had done her bidding.
Piper shared this example (speculating that it was a common occurrence) as an indictment against Christian men. He did this because in his mind, despite his claims to the contrary, he thinks good Christian men are abundant. They are so abundant they need to chase Christian women to the ends of the earth to find one who will agree to marry them. Piper might be right in this sense of abundance, or he might be wrong. But the point is that his claims of a man shortage are belied by his very framing of the issue.
Solid GOLD, this is striking the biggest hypocrisy in church culture. If they talk about how men are so valuable why do they treat men so poorly?
That list of “must haves” for the modern girl means that a man already will be at the destination for his life before he can marry.
It used to be that you married and built a life together.
A man who has built a life – has the home, career, education, and everything sorted out – why does he need wife? He has done without for a good while and prospered; he has learned she is not necessary.
theasdgamer,
“Are the single women missionaries riding the CC out in the mission field? Or are they likely well-trained as regards chastity, but foolish? Or maybe they got off the CC to missionize?”
My experience, though take it with a grain of salt as it’s quite a few years out of date, is: none of the above. They were there to missionize, plain and simple. But today’s crop, especially those who attend an outpost of the Sunday Morning Night Club… yeah they might indeed fit your last category.
“Are the single women missionaries riding the CC out in the mission field? Or are they likely well-trained as regards chastity, but foolish? Or maybe they got off the CC to missionize?”
The ones I have known who did this as single girls tended to be really nice and caring and wanted to do things to help children, which is a roundabout way of acknowledging that they were usually not able to get married here because they were very heavy. The preachers don’t preach against overeating.
Nathan,
Again my experience is a bit out of date, but back then the vast majority–no, actually, the virtual monopoly (I can think of only a single exception, and she would only be barely overweight by current standards) were of decent proportionality.
The words are complaining about an acute shortage of suitable husbands for their daughters, but the sentiment is that only the very best of the top 5% can hope to win their daughters’ hands in marriage
I think of all the Hollywood A-listers loudly complaining about/berating us commoners about ‘climate change,’ then seeing no issue in constantly flying all over the world to pick up ‘environmental award’ trophies, living in multiple mansions, etc.
Instapundit said it best: “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who SAY it’s a crisis ACT like it’s a crisis.”
Gotta admit I don’t follow Dalrock’s main point — the disconnect of implied scarcity vs. implied abundance. Not trying to be snarky or know-it-all; honestly, I don’t follow.
From a relatively early age (7-ish), I have trained my daughters to be wives in the sense that God originally intended (husband’s helper, not desiring control, not his conscience). And I have succeeded. As teens, they are now developing into excellent wife material in skills, atittudes, and appearance. So my daughters are among a tiny minority of young women.
Included in their education is the belief that because their husbands will have control over them (e.g., Abraham / Sarah), they’d best be careful who they choose to cede control to. That doesn’t mean choosing from among the top 5% of hot, successful alphas. It means choosing a man who truly fears God (just as my daughters do).
What percentage of people (men or women) fear God? It is not a slam on either sex to acknowledge that very few of either sex fear God. It is simply a fact that has been true since Eden.
So, am I among those whose sentiments express belief in abundance of good men? If not, what separates me from the examples Dalrock gave?
Ward Cleaver Is a Stud
June Cleaver didn’t ride the carousel until it was ‘hot dog down a hallway,’ either.
“Food for thought: One wonders if some day the modern Christian church might return to polygamy as a way to deal with the impending flood of unmarried women unwilling to marry men who lack the “appropriate” levels of provisioning”
What percentage of men have the means to support more than one family? It has to be in the low single digits, and most of those men probably have no desire whatsoever to have more than one wife, or maybe not even one.
“Gotta admit I don’t follow Dalrock’s main point — the disconnect of implied scarcity vs. implied abundance. Not trying to be snarky or know-it-all; honestly, I don’t follow.”
It’s hypergamy. There are plenty of good, decent men who would make fine husbands. But they either aren’t:
Tall (6’3″+)
Have very above average looks
Have a very above average income
Aren’t athletic
etc
The bulk of women chase after this minority of 2nd or 3rd sigma men (they are on the far right of the bell curve), even when said women are very 50th percentile (or less) themselves. Hence they whine about “where have all the good men gone?” while they are surrounded by good men.
“Again my experience is a bit out of date, but back then the vast majority–no, actually, the virtual monopoly (I can think of only a single exception, and she would only be barely overweight by current standards) were of decent proportionality.”
Like you said, “current standards”.
I visited central Europe last summer and it was striking by the absence of fatties. The American obesity epidemic is very real.
Splashman, Frank K.
Yes, I follow you Splashman. I have done this same math in my head (I have one daughter).
But I do think Frank K’s description does account for the discrepancy. Here’s where you may be off track a bit (I’m not sure, just spitballing).
Do you think you have trained your daughter(s) to be attracted to and aroused by the men Frank K is talking about? The ones who are invisible to 80% (plus) of women?
“A man who has built a life – has the home, career, education, and everything sorted out – why does he need wife? He has done without for a good while and prospered; he has learned she is not necessary.”
I think that a lot of people just don’t understand what you just said. And not only has he built his life, but now that he is in his mid to late 30’s his hormones are losing their grip on him. Sure, he still craves sex, but not the way he did when he was in his early 20’s. That, juxtaposed with years of experience with the “modern woman” and he might very well decide that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. And if he’s not a Christian man, he will be content to pump and dump, especially now that he is considered desirable.
There is nothing to worry about because the fix is so EASY.
Similar to Prager’s first video insinuating that marriage makes men responsible and wealthy, I think that they view everyone as being only a single life-altering decision away from transforming into Ward and June Cleaver.
Fathers think their daughters deserve the top 5%, but they’ll settle for someone the daughters can nag into that top 5% after he puts a ring on it.
And at worst, all the man-boys are just one shaming speech away from throwing down the video game controllers and conquering the world.
An interesting post.
Point One I think is that fathers almost universally adopt hypergamy as a strategy for their daughters, and in a way that in many cases even eclipses the natural hypergamy of their daughters. This stems from a combination of natural paternal protectiveness and natural male competitiveness (he has to be at least as good as me to have her whom I made).
Point Two I think is that the guys you are talking about do not view this in economic/market terms. So while it is correct to say that, in market terms, what they write assumes an abundance of good men (otherwise why would someone isolated in China expect to have a good man fly to her there from England and so on), they are not looking at it in market terms. They are looking at it in magical terms. So, from the magic perspective, it is to be expected that God has lined up one man for every woman, and if he doesn’t answer the call, that’s on him. It’s a one on one issue, not a market issue where there is price discovery (attraction discovery). It’s a magically planned issue where there is one for one, and in a planned sense, so if the one that was planned for the girl in China doesn’t answer the call, that’s on him. That’s the way they view this — it’s magic. And Men are not cooperating with the magic, they are resisting the magic, and therefore they are to blame as the magic-resisters.
Read the biography of Gladys. She nearly froze to death and was almost raped on her way to China as a late 20s Spinster. And sometimes Yahweh says no to a prayer. Funny she did not just marry a Chinaman.
2. Elizabeth Elliot rambles alot, likes to use a lot of the Bible out of context and use unattributed random quotes as if they were from the Bible. Plus her relationship with her first husband was strange.
3. Piper is super creepy.
4. Tailor the bait to the fish. My whole family is the bait, we are looking for “fish” just like my husband and I. And you got to know when to cut bait. Google the Botkin Sisters and Sarah Mally for examples of girls whose Daddys taught them no one was good enough for their princess but God would drop off super christian prince charming one day.
5.I would say the shortage is of marriage worthy women and Piper and his ilk need that to increase because it is good for business.
6. Where in the Bible are women susposed to be missionaries? It says get married, have children and guide the home. But you can’t get an all expenses paid vacation for that.
“The men saying only 5% of boys could marry their daughter have no idea how badly the fathers are judging their modern daughters for my sons. She needs to a Christian virgin who put marriage and family ahead of short sighted impulse. 5%? No, that’s 0.1% of modern women. My boys are in trouble, and that is a REAL shortage, not an imagined one.”
Yes, it’s even worse for young men. I would think that the modern dad, while relieved to marry off his daughters to decent men, might tell his sons to bide their time and keep their standards high, knowing that unless they are “studs” that the best they can hope for is a fat, bitchy, post wall, woman who was thrown off the carousel and who grudgingly recognizes that she’s going to have to settle for a yucky beta. And then there is the whole issue of divorce court and how men are generally the losers there. I for one won’t be heart broken if my son never marries. The odds of going through the divorce meat grinder are just too high.
@Frank K
“What percentage of men have the means to support more than one family? It has to be in the low single digits, and most of those men probably have no desire whatsoever to have more than one wife, or maybe not even one.”
Think of it more like traditional British or French mistresses rather than wives. A 30 something gal may be financially self-sufficient, but she still desires male commitment and resources. So she trades sex with a married man with limited access to his resources that supplement her own income. Because they’re not legally married, she has no threatpoint and so she has to be agreeable and meet her end of the bargain.
The church won’t proactively promote or push this, but they will rationalize it just as they have our current sexual marketplace.
Frank K,
“The American obesity epidemic is very real”
I am back in the states now, have been for quite a while, and believe me I see this every day. I do wonder if the ones who opt for a perhaps-single missionary life are representative of this or not.
” So while it is correct to say that, in market terms, what they write assumes an abundance of good men (otherwise why would someone isolated in China expect to have a good man fly to her there from England and so on), .”
I guess if she’s a Calvinist she probably does believe there is a man destined to be her husband and he will be drawn to her as if she was magnet, unless he resists.
“I guess if she’s a Calvinist she probably does believe there is a man destined to be her husband”
OMG will this heresy never die???
“Think of it more like traditional British or French mistresses rather than wives. A 30 something gal may be financially self-sufficient, but she still desires male commitment and resources. So she trades sex with a married man with limited access to his resources that supplement her own income. Because they’re not legally married, she has no threatpoint and so she has to be agreeable and meet her end of the bargain.”
There still is the issue of court ordered child support. It’s one thing to have a mistress to bang occasionally, it’s quite another to have kids with her. In that case that “limited access to his resources” would not be so limited.
“ It’s one thing to have a mistress to bang occasionally, it’s quite another to have kids with her.”
Your friendly neighborhood urologist is your friend here.
It’s still remains the daughters’ prerogative who they choose to marry. But I have to laugh out loud whenever I read that we should pretend that so many fathers have not stood there for years and done nothing while their wives raised a bunch of solipsistic, self-centered narcissists who bring little to nothing of value to the man’s table, and are in no universe considered acceptable wife and mother material.
Any woman who is an only child should be considered radioactive and avoided at all costs. I have never encountered one who wasn’t a princess bitch. I have also never encountered the father of such a woman who wasn’t a castrato white knight, the prospect of whom having as a father-in-law would make a life sentence in a Stalinist Gulag appealing by comparison.
Also, it is simply a no-brainer that any woman who grew up in a home in which Daddy was Mommy’s doormat/kitchen bitch is going to be a carbon copy of her mother.
“I am back in the states now, have been for quite a while, and believe me I see this every day”
I have a little anecdote that I like to share regarding the obesity epidemic.
I was a child in the 1960’s and once in a blue moon my mother would take us to McDonalds. Back in those days there were no Big Macs, Quarter Pounders, jumbo sized fries or bottomless sodas. I distinctly recall adults eating what today would be considered a child’s meal (AKA a Happy Meal). A small, single patty burger, a small bag of fries and a tiny coke. Even the shakes were tiny back then (and were considered a special treat.
I also distinctly recall that at the supermarket there wasn’t an entire aisle dedicated to soft drinks or potato chips. A coke was a treat, not something you consumed on a daily basis.
Miss Aylward for all her fame was – let’s face it – NUTS. Had Miss Aylward really wanted a husband then how come that age thirty – and still single – and without a job to go to and being functionally illiterate in English and of course in Mandarin that she takes the train to China. It might be objected that in the 1920s by reason of the deaths of so many men in The Great War that a plain girl was under some considerable pressure to acquire a man. It is of course my view that all missionaries have an ulterior motive namely to shag the natives and although history has not recorded Miss Aylward so acting she did become romantically linked to a Chinaman who she announced she was to marry, but didn’t.
Fathers do have a tendency to see their Princess as too good for any man – quite understandably really – and some of course push that incest-like possessiveness further than they should, but the likelihood that an ordinary woman is too good for an ordinary man – what we might dub ‘corporate cubicle syndrome’ – is not plausible.
I have never much warmed to Ingrid Bergman. As Swedes go I somewhat prefer Anna-Frid and Agnetha – que culo.
Miss Aylward talked to the Lord about her singleness. She was a no-nonsense woman in very direct and straightforward ways and she asked God to call a man from England, send him straight out to China, straight to where she was, and have him propose to me.” I can’t forget the next line. Elisabeth Elliot said, “With a look of even deeper intensity, she shook her little bony finger in my face and said, ‘Elisabeth, I believe God answers prayer. And he called him.’” And here there was a brief pause of intense whisper. She said, “‘He called him, and he never came.
No doubt I’ve probably overlooked it, but I find it interesting that no one has commented on the arrogance of a woman (or anyone of either sex) who assumes that anything she asks of God, He will interpret as an ORDER and that He WILL comply with it. In Gladys Aylward’s case, if she was like most women of the English UMC/UC at the time, some lucky Englishman was very blessed to have dodged a bullet. It probably also never occurred to a solipsistic woman like Gladys that the fact that a husband never came her way was God’s way of telling her “I have a job for you to do here, and having a husband to distract you from it is NOT part of my plan.”
It might be objected that in the 1920s by reason of the deaths of so many men in The Great War that a plain [English] girl was under some considerable pressure to acquire a man.
I remember reading a history article a few years back in which the lives of a random sampling of ancient English spinsters were detailed, the common thread among them being that, in the wake of “The Great War” that decimated the population of young English men, eligible men were so rare that the women soon gave up altogether on the idea of marriage within a few years of the war’s end. My lingering question became: if these women were truly desperate for husbands, why did they not emigrate to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.S. where there were abundant populations of marriageable men who would have no doubt been more than happy to wife them up? It seems to me that many of these women were the nurturers of their own lifelong misery, and needlessly so.
A man who has built a life – has the home, career, education, and everything sorted out – why does he need wife? He has done without for a good while and prospered; he has learned she is not necessary.
Yep. We’re back to Rollo’s chart again. Just as these guys are coming into their own in terms of resources and confidence, the women their age are starting to look more like a liability than an asset.
One thing I have noticed, too – middle-aged women seem to have a much greater need for the companionship marriage provide than middle-aged men.
@Splashman
I would say you are trying to solve a fundamentally different problem than Katz, the fathers on Instapundit, and Prager/Geraghty are trying to solve. Your primary focus is finding a man who fears God. None of the above even mention God. And even for Piper, the assumption is that Christian women are godly just because, and Christian men need to follow the leadership of Christian women (literally to the ends of the earth).
Splashman @ 2:15 pm:
“Gotta admit I don’t follow Dalrock’s main point — the disconnect of implied scarcity vs. implied abundance. Not trying to be snarky or know-it-all; honestly, I don’t follow.”
If Piper & friends believed good men were scarce then they wouldn’t complain about men not showing up where the girls are. They’d tell the girls to actively look for a man. The former is an extra demand on men–it isn’t enough to be a good man, you have to also show up on time. The latter is a demand on women–if you want a man, better stop what you’re doing and find one quickly.
When a good man is hard to find, you don’t make as many demands of him as when you take his existence for granted. Chicks these days, finding an acceptable man is how they know their standards are too low.
…
Frank K @ 3:08 pm:
“I also distinctly recall that at the supermarket there wasn’t an entire aisle dedicated to soft drinks or potato chips.”
Last I checked, my supermarket had 500 linear feet of shelf space for ice cream alone.
…
feeriker @ 3:25 pm:
“No doubt I’ve probably overlooked it…”
I mocked her with style in “Merry Christmas”. Hmm, that sounds bad.
@Opus
Thanks. I stand corrected. I assumed in my reply upthread to ASDGamer that this was during Mao’s reign, since Piper says she died in 1970. But China pre WW II was at any rate incredibly remote, and Miss Aylward’s expectations (and Piper’s affirmation of them) are either way truly bizarre.
Gladys Aylward is a legend in Evangelical circles. She has a YWAM biography, and had at least one FotF show dedicated to her. She claimed to hear God’s voice, and I won’t doubt her. Good for her for obeying.
However, I also think that’s she now serves to stoke the idolatry that is Evangelicalism. Piper nor many other pastors bother to tell this 80% of the 1/3 that the Bible explicitly says in 1 Tim 2:15 ( Gen 2:18 and many others) Forsaking the commands of God for your own preferences is the definition of idolatry.
A few years ago at a church we were trying, they brought a young single woman up front b/c she was going to be a missionary nurse in Haiti. I had no interest in going back to that church, and read the scriptures to my son and pointed out their blatant disregard for them. I’m pretty sure he gets it, to the point that he’s tired of me saying it.
Apparently there really is a shortage of men:
http://www.wisn.com/article/theres-a-reason-why-so-many-millennial-women-are-single/8566463
There’s not enough men
“For the past 15 years, we’ve had four women graduate from college in the US for every three men, and this gender imbalance is spilling over into the post-college dating market,” Jon Birger, author of DATE-ONOMICS and Fortune magazine contributor told us Thursday. “There are now 5.5 million women in the US versus only 4.1 million men. That’s 33 percent more women than men. No wonder women find dating difficult!”
Seems that if single, marry-minded women would just uncheck the “college degree” requirements box, there problems finding a man would be instantly solved.
Pay no attention the 70% of all divorces filed by wives.
Once again I find myself in an airport typing on my phone…
Christians often speak of “choosing” to go into certain ministries. It occurs to me that it doesn’t work like that: God calls and we answer (or don’t). I’ve seen more than my share of people who went into various ministries in the absence of a Divine call, and it doesn’t go well. I can’t speak for who God calls into the mission field, but I know a healthy number of them come home before their tours are over, which can mean either that they failed in their calling OR that they weren’t really called. I suspect there are plenty of examples of both.
As for the “ManUp” stuff… Here we go again. If young men are to required to be Wards, then young women need to become Junes – and that is not negotiable. These guys just have no idea how rare such women are… they listen to what wall-crashers SAY rather than watch what cc-riders DO. And to take Rollo’s analysis one step more: they’re telling guy to prepare for a lifetime of servitude until such time as their future ex-wives tire of having sex with other men
— break —
Short field report
My first plane ride this morning started out well. The door closed and I was in the “comfort” section with an empty seat next to me. The door closed and nobody was coming after the avalanche of adipose had trundled down the aisle as is typical of [the current year] America. Then it happened: a woman came up from the back and started for the seat next to me. She had an enormous purse and she smelled of stale cigarettes. Sigh: at least it was a short flight. But then we got delayed and she simply Would. Not. Shut. Up.. Blathering on about nothing while I gave monosyllabic responses while trying not to be overtly rude and keeping my nose in my book. Nope: still yapping. We ended up stuck on the tarmac for over three hours. She spilled a cup of coffee all over herself on the flight, too… Sigh again. Once we landed I bolted off the plane without a backwards glance and went about my day (long layover). About 20 minutes later I saw her sitting at a food court… she actually tried to flag me down. I don’t wear my wedding ring, but c’mon, lady… really?
I looked right at her, turned toward the escalators, and walked away briskly.
It’s clear that society will spare nothing to drag men out into the street on any perceived wrongdoing (however misplaced the accusation may be).
“Today, most young men seem infected by a widespread Peter Pan syndrome. Unwilling to give up the freedom to sleep late, play video games, dress like a slob, and play the field, today’s men wallow in an extended adolescence, ostensibly unaware that they’re setting themselves up for a depressing, lonely existence.”
Replace the word ‘men’ with ‘women’, and ‘Peter Pan’ with ‘Sex in the City’, and ‘play video games’ with ‘watch Oprah Winfrey’ in the above quote and you’ve got a much more accurate version of events.
The delay in marriage is not because men are creating it……….it’s because women are demanding it. They’ve filled their heads full of all kinds of feminist bullshit.
“6. Where in the Bible are women susposed to be missionaries? It says get married, have children and guide the home. But you can’t get an all expenses paid vacation for that.”
I am quite convinced that most people who go on missions, especially college students who go on short term “missions” during summer break, are really just going on junkets.
What the Piper article tells me is that female missionaries believe their “jobs” as missionaries are more important than finding good men to be married to.
It also tells me that women working as missionaries are even more delusional than carousel riders. Carousel riders believe that when they’re done riding the carousel, a good man will be there ready to marry her. Missionaries believe that a good man will follow her in her mission to marry her while she is working as a missionary.
@ConstrainedLocus
“For the past 15 years, we’ve had four women graduate from college in the US for every three men, and this gender imbalance is spilling over into the post-college dating market,” Jon Birger, author of DATE-ONOMICS and Fortune magazine contributor told us Thursday. “There are now 5.5 million women in the US versus only 4.1 million men. That’s 33 percent more women than men. No wonder women find dating difficult!”
And this is the direct fallout to post-secondary institutions creating fluff degrees, government backing of student loans, and the quota requirements of college/university admissions boards.
Of course there are more women getting degrees…….you can get a useless degree in watching grass grow; or a number of other useless vocations (just about anything ending in ‘-ology’.
Higher education is anything but higher minded. It’s a reflection of the rabid mediocrity of modern society, and the feminization thereof.
What I want is a hard look at economically viable degrees, and put the remaining useless degrees in a flaming dumpster fire.
I don’t wear my wedding ring, but c’mon, lady… really?
Professional reason? I mean, people of both sexes view that as a marker.
@Frank K
Ha. Although if the force is resistable I would say you are talking about Arminians not Calvinists (and of course neither is referring to whom you marry).
Pingback: An attitude of abundance. | Reaction Times
“For the past 15 years, we’ve had four women graduate from college in the US for every three men, ….”
Clearly if quotas were being applied fairly for gender neutrality, men would be given preference for induction into higher education.
But wait…………..SEXISM !!!
For fuck’s sake. This is all clearly fixable if women would stop trying to ‘have it all’ on every one else’s dime.
“Ha. Although if the force is resistable I would say you are talking about Arminians not Calvinists (and of course neither is referring to whom you marry).”
LOL, Forgive me, I couldn’t resist.
God, am I sick of that big fat feminized Prager preaching about this stuff. Not everyone is lucky enough to make money by blabbing on the radio so they can marry blonde shiksas. It’s long past time for him, Medved, Hewitt, Levin and all the rest of the old guard (who guarded nothing except themselves) to step aside or be pushed aside from the new conservative movement which is anti-feminist and anti-multiculti.
The formative years of most men are absolutely brutally demoralizing. Raging hormones starting at 12, and most don’t get female attention until *much* later if at all, really. They have to watch the few precocious top dogs take all the talent while they *maybe* get something later if they have the fortitude to establish a career after all these disincentives.
The majority of men have psychologically disfiguring formative years, whether they know it or not.
Dalrock, thanks for the explanation. I think I get it now.
@Scott,
Frank is talking about “good men”, which he says “surround” us. As I wrote above, my daughters will be choosing a man who fears God. They (and I) will determine whether a man fears God by examining his choices. They expect a potential husband will be wise enough to similarly examine his potential wife.
I don’t think Frank and I are talking about the same cohort of men, because while I am more-or-less surrounded by what most people would call “good men” (some church-going, some not), I am acquainted with few who fear God. (Try confronting someone about a sin issue, and you’ll find out how much they fear God. E.g., Saul/Samuel vs. David/Nathan.)
You seem to be endorsing Frank’s criteria (or at least his estimation of the percentage who meet it), but I’ll respond to your question anyway.
Here’s what they have learned from me re: attraction/arousal:
——————————-
God wants us to make decisions soberly, with careful consideration. The more important the decision, the more careful and rational we should force ourselves to be. If one makes a decision on who to marry, primarily based on what most people think of as “attraction” or “arousal” or tingles or whatever, they will regret it.
While men and women have built-in instincts re: attraction, they can lead us to destruction, so it would be foolish to trust them, especially re: choosing a husband, whom a wife is commanded to obey the rest of her life. Instead, she should choose a man whose choices demonstrate that he fears God. What does that look like?
Among other things,
1. A man who fears God is constantly learning more about God and what He wants from us.
2. A man who fears God, fears man less than God.
3. A man who fears God has a mature purpose for his life.
4. A man who fears God is a diligent worker.
5. A man who fears God admits his mistakes and repents.
6. A man who fears God respects and cares for his parents.
Once married, a wife cannot pretend to be attracted to a fat slob, but she can choose to overlook the less appealing aspects of her husband’s character or physique, and choose to focus on the best aspects of his character & physique — all to support her higher purpose of being his helper, and thus obeying God’s will for her life. A wife who cannot command herself enough to do that, does not fear God.
—————————–
I should add that I have also taught my daughters to respect my judgment more than their own (and they do.) When they marry, their husbands will become the beneficiaries of that respect.
Nova,
It’s kind of a long story and it’s fairly dull and not worth the telling. Let’s just say that I’m a bit of a weirdo, and my wife doesn’t care that I don’t wear my wedding ring. I have one, as it’s hanging on my dog-tags, but I don’t wear my dog-tags now that I’m out of uniform.
@Splashman
One other thing I would think you will have to offer is a willingness to respectfully mentor such a young man. This is something I am very grateful to my own father in law for, and it is the opposite of the attitude I’m writing about.
One other thing I would think you will have to offer is a willingness to respectfully mentor such a young man. This is something I am very grateful to my own father in law for, and it is the opposite of the attitude I’m writing about.
Yes. I have also made a committmeht that when it comes to it (years from now) they can stay on my land until they are on their feet.
Dalrock,
My parents were “good Christians”, but mostly uninvolved in training me. Perhaps I was also predisposed to idiocy. Anyway, I reached the age of 30 still spectacularly immature and ignorant. Occasionally I think back and wonder how things would have turned out if I’d had an older man to mentor me. *sigh*
I have high hopes that I may fulfill such a role for my sons-in-law. I practice a bit on some of the younger men I work with — giving a tidbit every now and then for them to chew on.
@Scott,
I’ve had similar thoughts. Tough for young couples to get started these days. I live on acreage, so plenty of space.
I found the part about missionary women interesting.
Before we were married, my wife was “called” to the overseas mission field. I was not. I asked her to marry me and she wanted to say yes, but her “calling” made her say no. Well, she did say yes and then turned it around and said no. She turned me down several times until I said there was no future for us and moved across the country.
Within a few weeks she flew out to visit me and was still conflicted. We met a missionary and she poured out her conflicted ideas. The missionary basically told her to stop being stupid. You marry a man, not a mission. Even if I was gung-ho to be a missionary, I could get some disease that required for me to come back to the states and then her dreams to be involved with missions would be over. Besides, he said, when you’re a wife your primary ministry is to your husband and children and that’s going to take a great deal of your time. So, a question regarding marriage is whether you’re committed to being a wife or not. If you’re not committed to being a wife and following your husband where he leads, you shouldn’t get married at all. The other question is whether the person you want to marry is godly.
At that, my wife’s “calling” to missions vanished and we were married six months later. Six months after that we were on the mission field. Funny that.
It also reminds me of a family friend who met her husband in college where he was undergoing training with the goal of becoming a pastor. He worked in ministry for a few years and bowed out, pursuing various business ventures that make him happy but don’t really provide for his large family. His wife is miserable and really resents him. She married a pastor and got something entirely different.
Not posting under the name I usually use, as I try to avoid posting too much personal info online.
[D: FYI, I added a “2” just before the @ symbol in your email address so the gravatar won’t give you away.]
The mental rot in Christian women is deep today. A woman can even stay reasonably thin, such as my wife, but still have no desire to be a true helpmeet. I have not seen much teaching aimed at women being helpmeets to their husbands, but I have heard lots of off hand comments in sermons about how unreasonable it is for a husband to expect or even strongly desire that.
Churches are doing their part to undermine marriages, even those that claim to strongly support it.
My own experience has made me see how selfish my wife has been in our multi-decade marriage. A coworker noted that he saw that when I first started working here. That should not be said of a Christian woman, but such behavior is not really confronted in church services and preaching. Thus women rarely change their behaviors or recognize that behavior and attitude (of being a non-helpmeet) may be the cause of the problems that woman claims in her marriage.
I will soon face the challenge of finding one of these rare older unicorns. I recall someone else here saying they had done so, but I can see that it is not worth seeking the restoration of my marriage at all, letting things take their course now. I will be in a bit of bondage for a few years paying to support a wife who left, but that too will end. I have no idea how I can find an older woman who would be a true helpmeet, especially at an older age with too many of the desperate ones, such as the lady Lyn87 noted.
How sad that even Christian culture doesn’t support God’s ideals in marriage….
The Jim Geraghty cuckservative video is beyond parody. It is far worse than even the previous PragerU one from Brad Wilcucks.
Geraghty :
i) Assumes millenials even know or care who Ward Cleaver is. Not a big deal, but reveals how out of touch the cuckservative is.
ii) Is pathologically unaware of AF/BB. When women have squeezed every last bang out of the carousel, they want BB. These cucks are stupid enough to think they are landing a ‘catch’ at that point.
iii) A high N is no longer a negative in cuckservative minds. Note how they unquestioningly accept every lowering of value that women bring.
iv) He assumes every woman is June Cleaver. Note how nowhere at all does he require women to be June Cleaver. But men have to be Ward Cleaver.
v) He holds himself out as the epitome of male attractiveness. Being doughy is a least of his sins, given that The Onion could scarcely parody a cuckservative any better than what Jim Geraghty has written here.
vi) He asserts that he knows what women want. How? Women told him! (again, zero clue about how AF/BB works, and his lowly role in that system.
vii) Worst of all Jim Geraghty married a single mother. and brags about how much of a catch she is.
Cuckservatives are the worst. The good news is that they have volunteered to pick up the tab in the form of BB, so AF guys are free to be PUAs and pass the cost onto the willing cuckservatives. Everybody wins!
“How sad that even Christian culture doesn’t support God’s ideals in marriage….”
Which means that it isn’t Christian culture, but rather it is a counterfeit, or as some here like to call it: churchianity.
By their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom.
So there is no shortage of good men, only a shortage of men willing to play by their rules. Two different things, and may the latter category prevail.
I know some of these women from the Piper link. As indicated by others in this thread the ones I know are sincere in the belief that they are doing what they ought to be doing, but they are confused that there is no man to be their helper. There are subtexts. These women are often the “top man” in the area where they work. The young and old, men, women and children gather under her auspices to receive assistance and/or instruction. She is normally supported financially by people (men) elsewhere. When she returns on a break she is praised, and given speaking engagements where she exhorts others about the need. As time goes by some of them become increasingly brassy. Men avoid them. What they all need is the person from @She Chose Me Over Missions post, that will tell them the cold hard facts of life, that they think they already know because – I work in the mission field.
Seeing Dalrock’s perspective that the old China hand was blaming the man for not answering God’s call made me think. Along with feeriker I thought the woman was blaming God for not coming through. She probably was blaming the man for not answering the call to come and be her helpmeet.
“I don’t think Frank and I are talking about the same cohort of men”
I don’t think we are. I was referring to the culture in general, while you are talking about your faith community. Of course the general culture does include many God fearing men, and many of those end up being rejected by allegedly Christian (most likely churchian) women, who find those to be “unattractive”.
Nathan Bruno said
>It used to be that you married and built a life together.
>
>A man who has built a life – has the home, career, education, and everything
>sorted out – why does he need wife? He has done without for a good while and
>prospered; he has learned she is not necessary.
+1
A wife is not necessary in this economical environment, other than for children and emotional/sexual fulfillment. None of those are essential to having a healthy, purposeful life.
A good wife can be a great benefit to a man (I think; no personal experience), but she should grab him while she still has youth, prime fertility and virginity to offer. Otherwise, she is of much smaller value to a healthy, self-respecting man.
I have the life experience to know that I can have a life with low(er) stress, more than adequate resources*, and contentment without a wife.
I acknowledge that the skills, great jobs, health and abundant wealth I have are a blessing from God. God is great and loving 🙂
I would like a wife, very much, but will not degrade or debase myself to get one.
@KP
>Your friendly neighborhood urologist is your friend here.
Given that the urologist would be taking a knife to my private parts, I am not sure I would describe him as “friendly” 🙂
@fakeemail
>The formative years of most men are absolutely brutally demoralizing.
I remember sitting in a Grade 10 class, so about age 15, wondering how many times I had already heard the message that I was unacceptable. My guess was about a thousand. I wish I could say that was an obvious exaggeration.
@Frank K
“There still is the issue of court ordered child support. It’s one thing to have a mistress to bang occasionally, it’s quite another to have kids with her. In that case that “limited access to his resources” would not be so limited.”
The man could pay for an artificial insemination, or she could pay for it herself. Then the guy on the hook would be the man who donated his sperm.
The thing is, women don’t need men, though they still want them. There are a few men that can use that to their advantage. There would not be a lot of these men, but it would be enough for the church to feel the need to justify it officially or not – just as it has female carousal riding.
It truly is a generational thing. Jim Geraghty and Cam Edwards belong to the last group of Gen Xers that was offering commitments to women with the backdrop of a dating world that was akin to flailing around and feeling “lucky” when you hit the pinata.
The younger conservative men raised on Heartiste have a completely different mindset – far more confident and at ease with dating.
So single women missionaries are having a hard time finding a helpmeet to be their husband? Maybe it is because the woman is created to be the helper not the head. The real scarcity is men who will marry in order to make his wife all she can be and yet retain just enough headship to take the fall and suffer the consequences for all the failing of his wife. Why would any man marry to be the helper of a woman, especially when he had learned to thrive without her help? It is all cost with no benefit where are the incentives?
Pingback: Where have all the good men gone? | Reinvention Diary
“The man could pay for an artificial insemination, or she could pay for it herself. Then the guy on the hook would be the man who donated his sperm.”
Perhaps you misunderstood me. My point was that having a child with a mistress is financially hazardous. I would like to believe that most men who have one just want to have sex with her and not actually start a second family with her, regardless of how “self sufficient” she is.
And while having one wife is financially perilous, having more than one seems suicidal.
“The thing is, women don’t need men, though they still want them. There are a few men that can use that to their advantage. There would not be a lot of these men, but it would be enough for the church to feel the need to justify it officially or not – just as it has female carousal riding.”
When you say “the church”, I presume you mean the cucked evangelical church, I don’t include the “mainline” Protestant denominations as I believe they are apostates and hence not part of the church. The universal church most certainly does not justify carousel riding. Only churchian groups (I hesitate to call them churches) lead by heretics like Mark Driscoll advocate such rubbish.
Some of you guys new to the Red Pill may not know this, but some here have alluded to it…once you get past your anger phase after swallowing the pill, you will want to get on a path of self-improvement like Dalrock did (and I did and likely others).
@Frank,
Yup.
constrainedlocus: If we are talking about “acceptable men” for marriage, namely well-educated, gainfully employed, solid work ethic, stable career and financially secure, then this is a short list anyway. Add in some of the “nice to haves” like high male social status, physical fitness (six pack), “good with kids”, romantic, sensitive (a.k.a. not too demanding of sex), etc., then the list of men is weaned down even further by her.
Height is also a “must have” for many women. From reading the personals, it seems most women want 6′ as their minimum height for a man, though they all prefer at least 6’2″.
Google informs me that about 14.5% of American men are 6′ or taller. Only 3.9% of American men are 6’2″ or taller.
Assuming women want height in addition to success, status, romantic, sensitive, good with kids, athletic, etc., we’re talking about a very small pool of eligible men indeed.
Just a thought:
If height (or any other particular physical attribute) is a “must have” for a particular woman, stay clear of her.
Damn. I’m only 6’1″
Lyn87 @ 3:58 pm:
“I looked right at her, turned toward the escalators, and walked away briskly.”
Raaape! But after three hours in a confined space, justifiable raaape. Just trade your right to a jury for the smallest, most confined room in the courthouse and the judge will soon agree.
…
Dalrock @ 4:27 pm:
“One other thing I would think you will have to offer is a willingness to respectfully mentor such a young man. This is something I am very grateful to my own father in law for, and it is the opposite of the attitude I’m writing about.”
You could do an entire series of posts on how the Baby Boomers/Elites hoarded power so tightly that they refused to train the next generation of men. I look forward to having apprentices all the more for not having kids of my own but God only knows when I’ll be able to manage that.
America is childless in the workplace as well as the home. How can they STILL be sending our industry overseas despite record unemployment here?
“If height (or any other particular physical attribute) is a “must have” for a particular woman, stay clear of her.”
If you do that, not only will you find slim pickings, you might find yourself accused of being a MGTOW.
“How can they STILL be sending our industry overseas despite record unemployment here?”
For much lower wages and less regulation?
How can they STILL be sending our industry overseas despite record unemployment here?
Do you know how much a country saves by not having ‘feminism’?
China is not a democracy, so it wastes no money on ‘feminism’, and thus is so much cheaper. Even a wealthy country without ‘feminism’ will manage to outcompete a country that is required by law to waste money on ‘feminism’.
Height is the absolute #1 requirement for white women. More than anything else other than Game, that is what a white woman is least likely to compromise on. A white woman will forgo money, facial quality, career status, and every other non-game attribute in a man before height.
Asian women are much less fixated on height. This is not only due to their own smaller stature, but note that their father may have been only 5’5″. So a sub-6′ man is better off focusing exclusively on Asian women.
@Frank K
Yes. A junket indeed. Even stranger is when, like the missionary couple the Dillards (Of Jill Duggar fame) they leave a well paying job to pay to preach the Gospel in another country while not working a job and asking others to financially support them. Especially when they barely speak the language and there is already Christians there. That is an all expense paid vacation, a bad one, and the mission is making out like bandid charging do gooders to stay. SMH
Pingback: Why men aren’t eager missionaries | Christianity and masculinity
The vast majority of men are good men. I say that without a hint of doubt. The vast majority of men in the Western world get the best education they can, better themselves through apprenticeships, businesses or trades, and generally prepare for life.
The vast majority of men are ignored by women of marriageable age. As study after study has pointed out, these women are competing for the top 10-20% of men. These men HAVE abundance, and act accordingly. So these women get pumped and dumped and end up bitterly declaring, “There are no good men”!
Either that, or these same women will take up with a Stoner, a Warlock, a violent UFC wannabe or some other male thing that looks like he’s missing a chromosome, and attempt to change him, because you know, that’s what love does…” – and she ends up with the same conclusion.
“On the other hand, single women may not feel any of those hindrances. They would happily marry a godly, mature, purposeful, mission-directed man if he came along. But they can’t make that happen without men doing their part.”
I call “Bullshit”, Dr Piper. First, Mission is a Man’s job. The New Testament was written by men for men. It’s a woman’s job to help the man with his mission – whatever that is. It has been the practice of several churches I’ve attended to lay hands on missionaries when they are commissioned. I don’t do it when it comes to women, because they shouldn’t be doing that. It’s a man’s job, and they are in rebellion against God in doing that. Also, this blog, others like it and indeed the whole manosphere is full of the men (godly, mature, purposeful, mission-directed) Piper describes. Christian women run full tilt away from them. The reason? They might actually have.to do what God wants them to do – live in godly submission to a husband, and they can’t have that!
Height is the absolute #1 requirement for white women. More than anything else other than Game, that is what a white woman is least likely to compromise on. A white woman will forgo money, facial quality, career status, and every other non-game attribute in a man before height.
I’d love to see the day come when America’s most eligible bachelor is a billionaire Asian midget with six-pack abs and a 10-inch d**k.
Especially when they barely speak the language and there is already Christians there.
True story, I kid you not:
A Baptist church I attended for a few months several years ago (I guess we all do stupid things at least once in our lives) sponsored an American missionary family in Honduras whose biggest, most nagging, most intractable problem was –get this– teaching English to the natives so that they could “receive the Word.”
I remember asking the pastor to ask this family why they didn’t deign to –*GASP! GAG!*– learn to speak Spanish. *
The pastor looked at me as if I was asking why this family didn’t start eating their own feces. I have to imagine that the mission ultimately was spectacularly unsuccessful.
(* Being American Baptists, the dumbasses were probably searching in vain for someone who could teach them “Honduran.”)
Slightly off topic, but some of you may like.
https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2017/01/06/a-challenge-to-christian-traditionalist-women/
Height is the absolute #1 requirement for white women. More than anything else other than Game, that is what a white woman is least likely to compromise on. A white woman will forgo money, facial quality, career status, and every other non-game attribute in a man before height.
Asian women are much less fixated on height. This is not only due to their own smaller stature, but note that their father may have been only 5’5″. So a sub-6′ man is better off focusing exclusively on Asian women.
This is true. It has to do with the model of manhood they have. In white culture, that’s at least 6, preferably 6’1 or better. That this is a very small percentage of white men is irrelevant — it’s, in fact, the point. It’s one of the more visceral ways that white hypergamy plays itself out, and it’s immutable among white women who are in any way attractive.
There are fewer single male missionaries because the church is for women. Women are viewed as more virtuous than men. When men sin they are told to joint accountability groups and be restored into fellowship. Men have promise keepers and Sampson society.
What equivalent exists for women? Who preaches on the common sins of women and holds them accountable.
Pastors are full of hooyah, machismo and bravado in their seminaries, sessions and men’s groups but the minute they get a crying woman in the office they fold and blame the man for everything likewise woman’s female friends do the same. likewise the woman’s female friends do the same
I have a Facebook Friend, a conservative Catholic with three teenage daughters. Yet even here I constantly see her post messages about how parents of young men must raise them to know how to treat a girl like a lady. Never ever how parents of young girls must raise them to be deserving of being treated like a lady.
Modern young women wildly over estimate the quality of the man they think they are entitled to. The suggestion that they must bring anything to the table is absolutely heretical in the modern era.
I will soon face the challenge of finding one of these rare older unicorns. I recall someone else here saying they had done so, but I can see that it is not worth seeking the restoration of my marriage at all, letting things take their course now. I will be in a bit of bondage for a few years paying to support a wife who left, but that too will end. I have no idea how I can find an older woman who would be a true helpmeet, especially at an older age with too many of the desperate ones, such as the lady Lyn87 noted.
You can find them. It is hit and miss, to say the least. It can be quite random, because basically in this situation you’re looking for God to point two people together in a small pool. That is what He will do, but sometimes it can be hard to see it, or hard to be in the pool when it happens.
In any case, you shouldn’t be thinking about that seriously until at least 12, maybe 24, months after your sep (and of course only once you are divorced finally). Before that, you’re not suitable, really, and if you find someone suitable it will likely go south, unfortunately, because of that.
Good luck and be patient.
By the way, it should be noted that flipping the title of this post (“The Abundance of Attitude”) points to something quite germane to the topic at hand.
Hey Dalrock,
George Will said it best.
You are right. Good men ARE scarce. They are not plentiful. And no one is talking about why. Instead, everyone is just trying to shame men into being better.
feeriker,
I remember asking the pastor to ask this family why they didn’t deign to –*GASP! GAG!*– learn to speak Spanish. *
Are they aware that the original Bible was written not in English, but in Hebrew?
“They would happily marry a godly, mature, purposeful, mission-directed man if he came along. But they can’t make that happen without men doing their part.”
Since turning 40, most of the fiction I read are the classics. I recently read Jane Eyre, and I’m still seeing new Red Pill truths in this novel, written by a woman from a woman’s perspective.
Toward the novel’s end, Jane receives a marriage proposal from St. John Rivers, a godly, mature, purposeful young man, who intends to do missionary work in India. Jane declines, choosing instead to pursue Mr. Rochester, an older Bad Boy who’s already married. (Happily for Jane, Rochester’s wife burns down their house and commits suicide, thus leaving Rochester free to marry Jane.)
Rochester is variously described as tall, dark, and hideous. Also very wealthy. An ugly, brooding, rich Bad Boy, who’s already claimed by another woman. Naturally, Jane passionately loves him.
St. John (the missionary’s first name) is fair and handsome, godly, pious, honest, and sincere. He’s also single, thus available. But he’s so straight, he’s rather a bore. Jane loves him, but as a friend.
Are they aware that the original Bible was written not in English, but in Hebrew?
“If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas.” ~ Attributed to Miriam Alicia “Ma” Freguson, Governor of Texas, 1925-27; 1933-35
@RPL,
I’ve never read Jane Eyre, so it’s interesting to hear your summary.
I immediately compare it to some of Jane Austen’s novels, like Pride & Prejudice and Sense & Sensibility. In both, the heroine initially falls for the charming bad boy, but after realizing his true nature, happily chooses instead the boring yet moral man she initially rejected.
FYI, Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, New Testament in Greek.
Well, it’s late, 12:30 am, and this is probably the wrong thread, but I thought I would throw this out there. Iv’e been married for 30 plus years. Prior to being married I’ve had plenty i.e., many, many women and I’m not that old (teenager in So Cal in the 70’s should explain a little). Since I was in elementary school girls would run to stand in line to get me ice cream… My wife is easy on the eyes… I have given her every opportunity to leave including giving her large amounts of money in bank accounts in her name so she could cut and run. She won’t leave. She loves her children and grandchildren which is a godly women trait. She has almost always backed me, mostly rightly, yet sometimes I could have used some push back, she pushes back usually wrong hence the bank accounts. Iv’e been broke a couple of times but she wouldn’t leave. She has a house to big to clean and a pretty big swimming pool and has for years. I’m biblically sound and have been for a long time but like everyone I’m still learning, I need to remember stuff I have forgotten and have more to learn.
Anyway, I love her very much. I’ll try to get rid of her again tomorrow, I can’t, she loves me no matter what I do, but yeah she’s trouble, she’s a woman.
Not the best comment but I had a couple snorts of bourbon…
It’s interesting that Jane Eyre doesn’t mind that Rochester is ugly. It’s enough that he’s tall, rich, and bad (i.e., he has game).
In fact, his rough facial features likely offsets his potentially beta aspects. Rochester is an English gentleman, refined and cultivated. That’s potentially too beta to be attractive. But he has the face of a brute. That, and his tall height and arrogance, casts him as a high-status nobleman with the soul of an alpha brute.
That seems to be a female ideal. A wealthy, educated gentleman carrying “a beast within.” Like those GQ cover models. Dressed very refined, but with a five-o’clock shadow, or gold chains, or hairy chest — something to suggest an alpha thug within the gentleman. Waiting to burst out like a werewolf or a vampire. Otherwise, it’s just a boring beta gentleman.
I should clarify, by “broke” I mean we have had to use laundry mats, Iv’e changed my oil, antifreeze, water pumps, starters, rear axle, etc,. in vehicles… I didn’t mean bankruptcy s**t or never paid our bills.
St John is, I assume, not a name common in America and so I mention that it is not to be pronounced as it is spelled but so as to rhyme with injun: thus sinjun as in Norman St John Stevens who was a member of Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet.
I observe that a wedding-band is irresistible to women for it demonstrates that its wearer has been vetted positively by a member of the superior sex: in light of Lyn 87’s airplane rape experience when not wearing his ring I have to conclude that it was his military bearing and presumably clipped military accent (of which he is unaware) combined with monosyllabic replies that far from damping the ardour of the talkative woman was in fact her cat-nip.
Height is important: short people so as to compensate are often very pushy and worse still to compensate further, indulge in delusions of their attractiveness to the opposite sex: Austin Powers (in addition to laughing at his own dreadful jokes and being the bearer of goofy teeth and wearer of spectacles) is not tall and these disabilities are matched by his delusions – I have an acquaintance who was mistaken whilst in America’s fly-over-country for Mike Myers and he (my acquaintance) has the same delusions of desirability to all women especially to super-models.
The mention of Aylward gives me the opportunity to observe that she played some part in helping to end the Chinese practice of foot binding but like so many do-gooders and neo-colonialists the unintended consequences may have been worse than the supposed evil the termination was sought to prevent. I rely on both of Steve Moxon’s books on sex and from them I learned that foot binding was practiced by upper class women. The idea was that with crippled feet the women would be able to demonstrate to up-market men that as traveling on foot was largely beyond them they were not merely chaste but likely to remain that way and thus worth marrying. Foot binding was thus an escalation of sexual competitiveness between women albeit (as always) enforced by men at the request of the women. The Muslim veil performs the same function. For ourselves I posit that the SAH sinlgeton (there were still a few as late as the 1970s) signalled to men that the woman was unlikely to have had access to lotsa cocksa, and the SAHM likewise was more likely to be chaste. Early marriage reinforced that probability. Happily such restrictions on female promiscuity have been cast aside so that we may now all surfeit on the female smorgasbord.
Hollywood I notice has a schizo attitude towards the Chinese. In films like the 1938 Marco Polo the women are chaste and decorous as I suppose also in the Inn of the Sixth Happiness, yet within a year or two of that latter movie there was The World of Suzie Wong and Countess from Hong Kong where the females are prostitutes, but don’t worry a rich beta male (William Holden, Marlon Brando) is going to take them back to America and turn them into real Americans. Neither Nancy Kwan nor Sophia Loren or Sigrid Gurie look especially Chinese and should thus fit in effortlessly.
Red Pill Latecomer:
You are absolutely right about Jane Eyre’s hots for the bad boy Rochester but something else was left out. Jane ultimately rejects St. John’s offer of marriage not only because of her love for Rochester, but also because she knows St. John does not love her – he is in love with Rosamund. St. John struggles with his passion for the beautiful Rosamund because he believes that is not proper for a Godly man and tries to suppress that. To St. John, Rosamund represents all the temptations of the flesh he is trying hard to avoid. Jane knows St. John only sees her as useful for a missionary wife because he lacks that passion for her. So that is another aspect that you left out. It certainly connects to what was being discussed here before Christmas about how marriage is thought of as romantic, passionate love.
I loved reading both Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights as a teenager but as I matured and married (and matured by getting married) I see them so differently. Wuthering Heights also has bad boy feels but is a bit more complex than Jane Eyre.
Also, forgot to add that another reason St. John (pronounced sin-jin) does not think Rosamund would be a good wife is because she is very vain and superficial – an example of how not to be good wife material.
I observe that a wedding-band is irresistible to women
I have heard this countless times, yet observe precisely the opposite. I am over 6 feet tall and have been wearing a wedding ring for 9 years now, and not once do I ever recall it earning me any especial female attention. In fact I often wonder if I would garner more attention without it, as Lyn did.
I have noticed that whenever I was with a beautiful woman, other women — clerks, waitresses, etc. — were more friendly to me, beaming bigger smiles at me, then when I was alone or with the guys.
Women are attracted to men who already have women. And the more beautiful that woman, the more other women want that man.
So much for “God writing a marriage manual on the heart of every woman.”
@Red Pill Latecomer
“Height is also a “must have” for many women. From reading the personals, it seems most women want 6′ as their minimum height for a man, though they all prefer at least 6’2″. Google informs me that about 14.5% of American men are 6′ or taller. Only 3.9% of American men are 6’2″ or taller.”
Agreed.
I think men have a preference on the female hip-to-waist ratio, but I’m actually terrified to Google any US results for that one. You go on ahead. 🙂
However, I would say that if these same 5′ foot 7″ to 5′ 11″ American men would suddenly find themselves in Asia or Latin America, then they might be giants. In the Netherlands they’d be Lilliputians. In the US, they are ordinary and average once again. But below average in the eyes of marry-minded women. Very interesting.
European male friends of mine have made it clear their shock as to the notable obesity among Americans in general. But the obesity among women, particularly married women, is striking to them. For most American guys to witness morbidly fat married women is “no big deal”. I think that’s because American men are now numb to it.
@ SJ, Esquire,
It isn’t just you. I’m the magic 6’3″ tall and have always been invisible. My own best guess is women are most sexually attracted to prison tattoos. Found this on statisticsbrain.com:
Total percentage of people with tattoos who say their tattoo makes them feel rebellious 29 %
Percentage of people with a tattoo that say it makes them feel more sexy 31 %
Percentage of people with tattoos who say their tattoo makes them feel more intelligent 5 %
Wait, whaaat…
Record for most body piercing’s – Elaine Davidson of Scotland 6,005
Not an African??? *check* Brazilian. Okay, but still not a credit to the Old Country.
Just be sure to raise a daughter worthy of one of those top five percent, dad.
That’s an eyebrow-raising red pill comment on a mainstream blog, from someone who’s probably as blue pill as they come. I doubt he thought it through, though. How can a girl even enter the competition for the top 5% of men AS WIVES? That sounds pretty cut-throat. Most girls aren’t even born with the looks necessary to compete.
I would like to suggest an alternate hypothesis to an “attitude of abundance” to explain the pattern of behavior that Dalrock notes: the “Perfect Princess” hypothesis. All women are Perfect Princesses in our culture. It’s not just that no-one is allowed to tell a Perfect Princess that she is wrong or her goals may be misguided. No, it’s much deeper than that. It’s simply inconceivable that the Perfect Princess is wrong or misguided. Therefore the alternative advice that Dalrock suggests simply cannot be conceived of, let alone spoken, and anyone speaking such words is clearly insane and must be banished.
The ones I have known who did this as single girls tended to be really nice and caring and wanted to do things to help children, which is a roundabout way of acknowledging that they were usually not able to get married here because they were very heavy.
So we send our fatties to the Third World to feed starving emaciated children… not that there’s anything wrong with that.
No doubt I’ve probably overlooked it, but I find it interesting that no one has commented on the arrogance of a woman (or anyone of either sex) who assumes that anything she asks of God, He will interpret as an ORDER and that He WILL comply with it.
Aylward was shit-testing God, but of course He didn’t break frame.
Check out this column from a man who was negatively impacted by younger women’s “fascination with bad boys,” and how he coped with and ultimately responded to it:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/eric-campbell/2014/05/i-cant-wait-until-the-women-who-turned-me-down-get-old-and-come-crawling-back-so-i-can-reject-them/
Read the comments from those men who then shared their similar experiences — and from the women who are disgusted by what they view as misogyny on display.
EXCERPT (addressing the women who rejected him in favor of “bad boys”):
“What I learned was with every lie, with every lame excuse, with every outright rejection was to harden my heart just a little. One day, I realized that it had become easier to disregard your texts. It was easy to make excuses. It was easy to show up when I felt like it. Now, I no longer wait around on women like you. If you’re not interested, that’s fine. I’ll find someone who is. I wasn’t born this way – I am the monster of your own creation.
“Now you say you’re ready for a Nice Guy. Your looks are starting to fade and those jerks left you with one or two kids who need a dad. You say that you’ve learned your lesson. Well, learn this: You had your chance.
“You see, I took the lessons you taught me and became a jerk myself. To be brutally honest, women who are younger and more attractive – like you once were – now provide me with endless entertainment. I use them for sex until I am bored with them then I move on to the next one.
“I owe you a debt of gratitude, however. If not for you, I might not only still be a Nice Guy, but I might still be dumb enough to settle for someone like you. Because of you I know my worth. I know to not open my heart to anyone until she proves her worth. Deep down inside, I am still a Nice Guy, but only for those who deserve it.
“But please don’t think that I hate you, because I don’t. In fact, I pity you. I pity you because I know what you could have had, what you settled for and what you will end up with. That is, however, not my problem anymore.”
What sayeth the free market on this matter? In Africa, the man or his family pays a “bride price”. Everywhere else a woman needed a dowry to get married.
This makes sense, because pretty much every young, healthy maiden is qualified for marriage, whereas a man must first secure a good job.
I teach my daughter that marriageable men have always been scarce, and feminism has made them even scarcer, so we must start looking for one at age 16, before she loses her natural assets or gives them away to Skittles Man.
No doubt I’ve probably overlooked it, but I find it interesting that no one has commented on the arrogance of a woman (or anyone of either sex) who assumes that anything she asks of God, He will interpret as an ORDER and that He WILL comply with it.
I’ve met “Christian” women who believe that, now that they’re saved, and love God, and love Jesus, that God wants them to be happy. It’s in God’s loving plan that these “Christian” women have anything they want here on Earth.
It’s odd, this unexamined belief among so many Christian women, Because God loves me, he wants me to happy, and wants me to have whatever I want.”
I guess it’s one step from that to, Any man who refuses to give me what I want is ungodly, and abusive, and a sinner who’s opposing God’s desire for my happiness.
Seems none of these “Bible-believing” women ever read Job. Or the Acts of the Apostles. Or any of the other parts about God’s suffering prophets.
@ Spike: “First, Mission is a Man’s job. It’s a woman’s job to help the man with his mission – whatever that is. I don’t do it [lay on hands] when it comes to women, because they shouldn’t be doing that. It’s a man’s job, and they are in rebellion against God in doing that.”
If you read the Creation story carefully, you will discover that God did not create all women to be a proper and fitting help for all men. He created a wife to be a proper and fitting help for her husband. Until such husband becomes her husband, the Bible actually constrains women’s “work” very little. The rules are aimed only at those who have joined themselves together with God in a covenant. Then, it becomes – not an issue of who is smarter or more qualified in the relationship – but an issue of whose vision / mission should be followed. The wife is to help the husband in following HIS vision / mission (not hers) – even if that comes down to the wife helping her husband define what her husband’s vision / mission is. And note I said helping, not taking charge of.
Rebellion can only occur when there is a rule and the rule is ignored. There are few if any rules given by God in the Bible about what unmarried men and women can / should do as their life’s work.
“How can a girl even enter the competition for the top 5% of men AS WIVES? That sounds pretty cut-throat. Most girls aren’t even born with the looks necessary to compete.”
They think that their “success” on the carousel will translate into success at the altar. When that time arrives they find that they are alpha widows and have to settle for a yucky beta (most likely a nerdy STEM major with a decent paycheck), and the eventual divorce follows all too predictably.
“It’s odd, this unexamined belief among so many Christian women, Because God loves me, he wants me to happy, and wants me to have whatever I want.”
I’ve meet a few men who believes this as well. “Name it and claim it”, “Prosperity Gospel” and my personal favorite: “Whole Gospel” are some of the names for this materialistic and very popular heresy.
“The ones I have known who did this as single girls tended to be really nice and caring and wanted to do things to help children, which is a roundabout way of acknowledging that they were usually not able to get married here because they were very heavy.”
FWIW, I’ve seen many fit, good looking young men, with good jobs who date “very heavy” girls. I suspect they do so because girls who have a healthy weight are becoming as rare as a girl with a low notch count. Notice that I didn’t say notch count of zero, because those are almost non existent, even in church pews.
Frank K: Notice that I didn’t say notch count of zero, because those are almost non existent, even in church pews.
I’m guessing that many Christian fathers would be outraged if some suitor were so judgemental as to hold his little princess’s high notch count against her.
I’ve seen many fit, good looking young men, with good jobs who date “very heavy” girls. I suspect they do so because girls who have a healthy weight are becoming as rare as a girl with a low notch count.
In part, yes. What is happening is that girls who are not overweight, because so many are, are able to punch well, well above their weight in the dating/mating market — they have their pick of the men, because they are relatively scarce today, which means you have more than a few guys who are on the better side of average with schlubby girls as their GFs or wives.
feeriker said:
I remember reading a history article a few years back in which the lives of a random sampling of ancient English spinsters were detailed, the common thread among them being that, in the wake of “The Great War” that decimated the population of young English men, eligible men were so rare that the women soon gave up altogether on the idea of marriage within a few years of the war’s end. My lingering question became: if these women were truly desperate for husbands, why did they not emigrate to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.S. where there were abundant populations of marriageable men who would have no doubt been more than happy to wife them up? It seems to me that many of these women were the nurturers of their own lifelong misery, and needlessly so.
Many of these women could not find men because when they were found to be White Feather women, most men would not want anything to do with them. One author wrote a book which came out in 1968 about White Feather women, and I believe could only find one woman who would admit to being one.
As for women wanting a man 6″1, athletic, etc. How many of these woman are not tall, and are not exactly slim or pleasant to be around?
“In the end, people ultimately decide for themselves. Therefore, education must be directed toward the ability to decide.” Don’t have the source handy at the moment.
Re. the men who have expressed interest in becoming mentors: Learn to ask leading questions that cause the young men to stop and think. Lectures won’t be heard. But leading questions will get inside the young man’s head and bounce around. Because everyman ultimately decides for themselves, your goal should be to get them to think, and then lead that thinking (through the use of more leading questions) to the insight of what the better choices are, and why.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/socratic-teaching/606
Search Wikipedia on “socratice method” for more if interested.
From Wikipedia: “Socrates generally applied his method of examination to concepts that seem to lack any concrete definition; e.g., the key moral concepts at the time, the virtues of piety, wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. Such an examination challenged the implicit moral beliefs of the interlocutors, bringing out inadequacies and inconsistencies in their beliefs, and usually resulting in aporia. In view of such inadequacies, Socrates himself professed his ignorance, but others still claimed to have knowledge. Socrates believed that his awareness of his ignorance made him wiser than those who, though ignorant, still claimed knowledge. While this belief seems paradoxical at first glance, it in fact allowed Socrates to discover his own errors where others might assume they were correct.”
The day before yesterday I asked:
Applying those same questions to Piper, I know that Piper wants young women to have no external expectations put upon them. He prefers foolish and feral missionaries to civilized wives. That’s not Biblical. Worse: The phenomenon can’t be contained to wanna-be missionaries. There is no objective difference between a desire to be a missionary from a desire to Eat, Pray, Love.
Many Christians talk of being specifically themselves (as opposed to the whole group of Christians) to this or that mission work, or this or that service. However, the Bible shows that when specific people are called to a specific work, they actually hear a voice; a voice that could not be distinguished from the speech of a material person. Then there is visual, supernatural verification, or verification from an established authority. We are given no other example of individual “call” to specific works which are not calls to all of us, or to all of us who are of a kind; calls to Christians, calls to fathers, calls to mothers, calls to children, etc.
We can see the same pattern in Dr. John Piper’s recent post Why Are Women More Eager Missionaries?* Piper explains that missionary work has become a pink ghetto
I know nothing about these churches, and I don’t really want to, so I’m just making assumptions here. Husband-hunting as an explanation is probably valid, but I think many of these women just want to mingle with exotic nonwhite alphas, in an environment beyond the attention of their social circle, i.e. in plausibly deniable fashion. Another aspect is that single Christian men are viewed with suspicion by their social circle if they express interest in missionary work. People will ask, why does this dude really want to go to some faraway land? Why does he want to be outside our supervision?
“Another aspect is that single Christian men are viewed with suspicion by their social circle if they express interest in missionary work. People will ask, why does this dude really want to go to some faraway land? Why does he want to be outside our supervision?”
This goes hand in hand with the universal suspicion against men, especially single men. Men are presumed to always being up to no good. This is why I seldom volunteer for anything anymore. If you do you have to pass a background check. If I’m presumed to be a pederast until it is proven that I am not, then I can’t be bothered to help out. I suppose that this is done to keep pesky men out of the way,
But as others have mentioned in this thread, pastors are clueless when it comes to the women sitting in their pews … well, except for the ones who have affairs with them.
“There is no objective difference between a desire to be a missionary from a desire to Eat, Pray, Love.”
Cane, I think you hit the nail right on the head.
feeriker @ January 5, 2017 at 3:35 pm:
“if these women were truly desperate for husbands, why did they not emigrate to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.S. where there were abundant populations of marriageable men who would have no doubt been more than happy to wife them up?”
Because financial issues and social circles tie women down even more than men. The Manosphere is far too cavalier with “just leave already” advice. If their position was any similar to me being told “you don’t have to be incel, there are lots of gorgeous, eager virgins in Kiev right now, just don’t ever return to America” then for once, I sympathize with spinsters.
Nobody with common sense pays much attention to “throw away your entire life as you’ve ever known it to solve this one issue” advice. Life will never be optimal.
“Many of these women could not find men because when they were found to be White Feather women, most men would not want anything to do with them.”
Good.
“As for women wanting a man 6″1, athletic, etc. How many of these woman are not tall, and are not exactly slim or pleasant to be around?”
Don’t bring logic into this, lest you be accused of mansplaining or misogyny. Every precious snowflake, regardless of how short, plain (if not outright ugly), fat or nasty she might be is deserving of nothing less than a Brad Pitt look alike (and preferably one with with a very well padded wallet)
“Because financial issues and social circles tie women down even more than men. The Manosphere is far too cavalier with “just leave already” advice. If their position was any similar to me being told “you don’t have to be incel, there are lots of gorgeous, eager virgins in Kiev right now, just don’t ever return to America”
I think most Americans have no clue as to how hard (as in next to impossible) it is to get papers to immigrate to another country. While the Ukrainians would love your tourist dollars they don’t want you to move there (unless you are bringing a king’s ransom to invest).
This is why I advocate obtaining foreign citizenship, if you can, say through ancestry. If your parents or grand parents came from somewhere else you might have options.
More feminism: https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/2ff8fe80-6a93-3b64-83f2-737454a5531c/mom-gets-30-years-for.html
“In part, yes. What is happening is that girls who are not overweight, because so many are, are able to punch well, well above their weight in the dating/mating market”
Especially in the “mating market”. Slender girls can definitely punch well above their weight on the carousel. What they don’t realize at the time is that later being an alpha widow isn’t all that. I’ve met a few who complain that “all the good men are taken!”, to which I always reply: you should have been looking for a good man when you were young, instead of “having your bad boy fun before settling down”
Cane said: However, the Bible shows that when specific people are called to a specific work, they actually hear a voice; a voice that could not be distinguished from the speech of a material person. Then there is visual, supernatural verification, or verification from an established authority. We are given no other example of individual “call” to specific works which are not calls to all of us, or to all of us who are of a kind; calls to Christians, calls to fathers, calls to mothers, calls to children, etc.
This is very astute and very well-said. I’m tired of people adding to the scriptures, and this is just one example. There is no biblical example of someone getting a “feeling” from God about a course of action. Women, who are much more emotional and gullible by nature, should be particularly cautious about mistaking “feelings” for “calling” (although I have heard this nonsense from many men as well).
My experience has been that often times (although not always) when people say God “called” them to this or that, they are really just trying to avoid some unpleasant responsibility or difficult (but likely fruitful) path set before them, i.e., “calling” = “I’m going to indulge this whim because it just feels right.” My suspicion is that many women in “missions” either are shirking their responsibility to marry and bare children, or for some extraneous reason believe that can’t get the husband they want (read: too fat, too old).
The other thing I don’t get is that if people really cared about evangelism, there are plenty of missionary opportunities right here in the US. Funny how you don’t see many of the middle-class single gals you see in most churches signing up to evangelize in the inner city, or on the local university campus for that matter. Could it be those locales aren’t as exotic?
I don’t think it is a sense of abundance I think it is an absolute fear of the need to teach women anything. No where any where would anyone dare try to “teach” any female how to be worthy of and attract a 5 percenter
I’ve met a few who complain that “all the good men are taken!”, to which I always reply: you should have been looking for a good man when you were young, instead of “having your bad boy fun before settling down”
Frank K,
What sort of reactions do you get from throwing this grenade?
“What sort of reactions do you get from throwing this grenade?”
It varies. Some stamp their feet and say it’s not fair. This is the most common. They complain that guys get to “mess around, so why can’t we?”. I calmly tell them that I didn’t mess around and carefully chose my bride, and that most men who are worth marrying do the same.
Others recognize that their friends who didn’t ride the carousel and who married young have a spouse, a home and a family and appear to be very happy. Though sometimes I have to guide them to that conclusion:
She: Most of my friends are happily married. Why can’t I find some one?
Me: Uh … when did your friends marry?
She: Well … most of them were pretty young … to be honest I thought they were crazy. I mean, everyone know that marrying young is a huge mistake, right? Plus they didn’t get to have any fun.
Me; Seems to me that they made the right choice.
She: Maybe you’re right. But it’s not fair! I’m a nice girl, why can’t I find a great guy?
Me: Life isn’t always fair and our choices do matter and have consequences.
Some call me a misogynistic pig. When they do that I just laugh.
@RPC
Yes, and we shouldn’t put men in parentheses because they must be solved first. We can’t address Mary the Missionary until we address John the Preacher. Here is something from Piper’s four points on “the call to ministry”
Get that? If people like what you have to say, then you’re called to ministry. If they don’t, then you’re not. It is almost the exact inverse of St. Paul’s advice to Timothy:
What a difference! Timothy’s authority to preach came from Paul (I charge you…). His preaching was to be 1/3’s testing, 1/3’s correction, and 1/3’s encouragement. The first two make preachers unpopular. Paul does not avoid that truth. He acknowledges it head-on: won’t endure sound teaching, itching ears, myths…
Speaking of which… Here’s Piper’s fourth point for how to know if you’re called to ministry:
What a crock of shit. That aroma is the suiting of passions and the direction is towards myth. John Piper and those who agree with him won’t dare tell women that missionary work is not a flight of fancy, or to be subject to their fathers and husbands because ultimately doing so would undermine the mythology of his own “call to ministry”.
Again I want to point out that the subjective and internal “call to ministry” is indistinguishable from Eat, Pray, Love. So enabling pastors to spout this nonsense and follow this crap in their own lives makes it impossible for them to reprove, rebuke, or exhort women to pursue Godly lives as women.
Thanks Frank K.
I throw red pill type grenades into a room of men once in awhile, test the waters, see who looks at me aghast and who knowingly. I’ve never tried it with women singly or in groups. I truly fear setting off some kind of uncontrollable toxic spill that ends up killing thousands, but your way seems to make the point without undue drama.
Naturally only a misogynist would point out that a happily married young woman with her own husband and family might be worthy of emulation or respect. What else could they call you?
A brilliant post Dalrock. This has been my experience trying to date thus far. I’m just hitting my stride in life. Only debt is my house payment, good car, good career, I work out and I’m Christian. When I attended churches, it was like I was a dime a dozen, and just soooo boooring. The church was never helpful, just a constant drain on my wallet to pay for someone else’s daughter to go on a vacation disguised as a mission trip.
I never aspired to become a multibillionaire actor travelling to Fiji, I just wanted a good middle class lifestyle for myself and my future family. But since I can’t find a woman who’s not a horrible, catty, lardbag I’ve adjusted my future plans. I still hope I can marry a good woman, but I have stopped building my life on that assumption. What’s the point of building a home and avoiding going interesting places to save money if I don’t have the respect of fatherhood? I may as well see the world and spend money on hobbies I enjoy.
@ Cane
Great analysis and points.
Soak your life in prayer, immerse yourself in the word, and stir. And the aroma that comes out of the pot will blow in a direction and you follow it.
Ugh. I can’t believe this foolishness comes from the same mouth of a man who appears to be quite brilliant and an excellent exegete in other areas. It’s basically new-age garbage. You’d find the same crap in any book by Wayne Dyer or Deepak Chopra.
However, it’s important to note the feminine imperative again at work. Piper’s advice works for a lot of married women with feminist leanings. Their married husbands are doing their duty, working, supporting the family, with no time or energy to “stir the pot and follow the aroma.” Meanwhile, their wives, instead of focusing on homemaking and wifery, “soak themselves in prayer” and decide they want to go on a mission, or worse go back to college and gets some useless degree, because it’s “God’s calling.” This is on their hard-working husband’s dime, although husbands get ego gratification as the white knight and pats on the back from fellow pedestalizing church-goers.
I know many couples like this, where the husband works has ass off and the wife follows her “calling.” The same pattern plays out when the daughters of these white-knighters reach early adulthood and want to eat, pray, love, instead of following God’s calling clearly stated in scripture.
Our experience has been that doing missions work is actually very good for young women, from a very early age in fact. The difference is that in our family they have served the less fortunate and downtrodden alongside their father and me in our hometown. They have never expressed a desire to go on a missions trip.
There is nothing like regular visits to local homeless shelters (particularly where children are in a less abundant state) and passing out food bags to needy families every month to help nip materialism and entitlement in the bud. They also gain understanding of the myriad ways people can end up on hard times. as we have heard lots of stories in over a decade of serving.
We have witnessed is that many mission trips serve as little more than college application padding, with little in the way of real understanding of how to serve your fellowman right where you are.
So it’s not mission work per se that is the problem, as a virtuous woman is supposed to extend her hands to the poor and the needy. The problem is when it’s not about the poor and needy, but done for show and resume padding.
That said, I firmly believe that Mother Teresa was truly used by God to serve the people of Calcutta, and there are probably other more obscure, equally exceptional women who were called to a life of service. But they are no doubt the exception, not the rule.
But they can’t make that happen without men doing their part
ANNNNND just like that, we get the same old shopworn “women are innately awesome and anything wrong in the world is the result of the weakness of men.”
Keep being good men for long enough, and eventually women will tire of the bad boys and find your nice guy qualities irresistible, even sexy!
I hope that “even sexy!” tag means you are not endorsing this asinine “Alpha fux Beta bux” idiocy. Even ‘just be yourself” sounds like Mensa-level insight compared to this.
RPC @ 3:59 pm:
“The other thing I don’t get is that if people really cared about evangelism, there are plenty of missionary opportunities right here in the US. Funny how you don’t see many of the middle-class single gals you see in most churches signing up to evangelize in the inner city, or on the local university campus for that matter. Could it be those locales aren’t as exotic?”
I was once invited to go on an African short-term missions trip to ‘help’ build a hospital my church was funding there (half a day of shoveling dirt so the hired laborers wouldn’t have to). When I asked how that counted as evangelism, particularly when the entire trip would be escorted by armed guards, the answer was something something encouragement.
Another time, the pastor bragged about the tricked-out SUV we’d purchased for a poor African village. When I asked how a place without electricity could benefit from such a complex piece of equipment, he replied that we also provided the infrastructure. Which only raised my next question: why were we apparently building a gas station in an unstable nation to support an SUV to support evangelism? Were we trying to bribe people into Heaven? (I kept that last thought to myself, sadly.)
Virtue-signaling is a female dog.
Meanwhile, I tried my own, local evangelism efforts and got an earful. Guys were very happy to explain to me why they were NO LONGER a Christian, often with accusations against the Church generally and specifically that were hard to refute and I increasingly agreed with. “Jesus loves you” rings very hollow to the frivorced father, chronically unemployed young man and sexually frustrated males everywhere.
About the last straw was when I turned out for an evangelism trip to a local hospital and was pointed to respiratory care. I couldn’t bring myself to “present the Gospel” to people who were not only captive audiences but half of whom were entubated and therefore mute. I stood in the hall by
myself the entire time and tried to not feel ashamed of what we were doing. From then until I discovered the Christian Manosphere, I didn’t even know how to present the Gospel.
And now I do. Champion the innocent, accuse the guilty, stop worrying about popularity and start worrying about Truth. The Churchians do none of this. They want their one-way sermons and shows of piety that don’t anger their Progressive handlers.
Frank K,
Some call me a misogynistic pig. When they do that I just laugh.
From a Game perspective, a man who is occasionally called a ‘misogynistic pig’ gets laid far more than a man who takes great care to never be called that (i.e. a mangina or a cuckservative).
“The church was never helpful, just a constant drain on my wallet to pay for someone else’s daughter to go on a vacation disguised as a mission trip.”
Ugh! I have relatives at those sorts of churches and I get constantly hit up for such “donations”, even though I never set foot in those churches. Usually the request comes in the form of an email, though sometimes it comes in the form of snail mail. Needless to say, I ignore those requests to fund their junkets, which are in no way a mission.
From then until I discovered the Christian Manosphere, I didn’t even know how to present the Gospel.
“Evangelical” churches are allergic to Apologetics. They then wonder why their outreach efforts, on those rare occasions when they even bother with them at all, yield nada. Actually, scratch that … most of the time they’re utterly unconcerned with any “fruits” (that would require followup, which is *SHUDDER* work). Just going through the motions every six months or so is considered sufficient to score heavenly “brownie points.”
@GunnerQ
That’s hilarious about the SUV.
“Jesus loves you” rings very hollow to the frivorced father, chronically unemployed young man and sexually frustrated males everywhere.
I think it was Lewis who said the reason to be a Christian is because the scriptures are true, not because Christianity offers comfort, security, or even love from some supernatural being (although it does offer that). This is precisely why churchianity rings so hollow for many perceptive men. They sense an unwillingness from pastors to assert the truth of what they are preaching, versus the comforts it supposedly offers. Christianity does not offer comfort, and men who’ve had a tough go with the culture, work, women, etc. know they’re being sold a bill of goods when promised such (which they ARE).
The irony is that the truths in the scriptures are red-pill to the core. But, most men will miss it because churchian leaders won’t preach the truth. It’s a travesty.
Gunner Q
Guys were very happy to explain to me why they were NO LONGER a Christian, often with accusations against the Church generally and specifically that were hard to refute and I increasingly agreed with.
Jesus of Nazareth, who is called The Christ, was both Son of God and Son of Man. There is a palpable masculinity about Him – power, charisma, magnetism, nobility – that is ignored these days in favor of the “meek and mild” Jesus, which He also was. He moved effortlessly between these natures while on the earth, but only the meek and mild version gets any press in churches. I’ve commented before about how men are missing out because modern church ignores the powerful leadership qualities, moral and physical courage, and overall manly toughness of the Son of Man. Others have said it better than I. Naturally younger guys find little affinity with an exclusively meek and mild Jesus, they have not been introduced to the aspects of His character that most appeal to young men looking for a decent role model.
And now I do. Champion the innocent, accuse the guilty, stop worrying about popularity and start worrying about Truth.
Hey! There were men exactly like this once. And it seems as though a handful are still around. Keep the faith brother.
ultimately, more male disposability.
no one cares if a few million men are destroyed or never procreate. there will always be more to take their place, always more grist for the mill. right up until there isn’t. then, suddenly, the lights go out, the water stops running, the gas stations are empty, and no one has an answer as to how this happened.
Elisabeth Elliot said, “With a look of even deeper intensity, she shook her little bony finger in my face and said, ‘Elisabeth, I believe God answers prayer. And he called him.’” And here there was a brief pause of intense whisper. She said, “‘He called him, and he never came.’”
The gall of people! The problem with some of the newer religious denominations in this country is that they seem to funciton on this idea that God is a cosmic vending machine; prayer coins go in, goodies come out. It’s really paganism, in a way, where when you bargain with the gods they will give you what you want, but at least the pagans had the good grace to not feel entitled to everything they asked for.
Honestly, who is this woman to speak with such certainty about God’s plan for her? She asked for a man to be sent to her, in China, from Britain? Did she pay attention to the nice Aussie ex-pat who ran the English-language bookstore in her neighborhood? Did she notice the American man who was working on his degree at the local university? Did she listen to the whispers in the back of her mind that perhaps it was time to go home? Did she not see that maybe something else was sent that she wasn’t expecting? Was she open to the possibility that perhaps God’s plan for her was not her plan for herself? What if she was the one who was supposed to go, and didn’t answer?
I don’t understand women like this. I’ve been praying for the right man for years, but I’ve been working at giving myself the best chance for dating in the process. It’s not God’s responsibility to save me from my own bad choices if I don’t try to reposition and overcome them myself. I hope the man I’m currently dating proposes to me, because I’d dearly like to spend the rest of my life as his wife, but God’s already done his part in things, I would imagine. It’s up to us now. (Although I don’t know how to ask for that from him, which is no doubt part of the problem.)
From a Game perspective, a man who is occasionally called a ‘misogynistic pig’ gets laid far more
A man who is occasionally slapped does better still.
@Lost Patrol
An excerpt from a good article that demonstrates of the masculinity of Jesus:
” Jesus always gets the last word. Not just that he is good at repartee, topping everyone else; he doesn’t play verbal games, but converses on the most serious level. What it means to win the argument is evident to all, for audience and interlocutor are amazed, astounded, astonished: they cannot say another word.
He takes control of the conversational rhythm. For a micro-sociologist, this is no minor thing; it is in the rhythms of conversation that solidarity is manifested, or alienation, or anger. Conversations with Jesus end in full stop: wordless submission.”
Another:
” The priests send spies, hoping to catch Jesus in saying something so that they might hand him over to the Roman governor. So they asked: “Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
Jesus knowing their evil intent, said to them, “Show me the coin used to pay taxes.” When they brought it, he said, “Whose image is on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” And they were astonished by his answer, and were silent. (Luke 20: 19-26; Matthew 22: 15-22)
As with the woman taken in adultery, again there is an attempted trap; a turning of attention while everyone waits; and a question-and-reply sequence that silences everyone. Jesus does not just preach. It is at moments like this, drawing the interlocutor into his rhythm, that he takes charge.”
http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/jesus-in-interaction-micro-sociology-of.html
I think it can also be said that Jesus was quite muscular owing to the physical labor that is necessary for stonemasonry and given the composition of the housing its more likely that he is a stonemason than a carpenter:
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4896/what-evidence-is-there-that-jesus-was-a-carpenter
There there is a physical aspect to him as well.
It is likely that given Jesus occupation as “Tekton” or builder and the fact that Israel’s houses are made of stones and rocks. Then Jesus was likely a stonemason and quite a muscular one at that.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4896/what-evidence-is-there-that-jesus-was-a-carpenter
Are my comments being fed into spam?
[D: I just found and retrieved them. Hopefully askimet gets the message.]
Would just like to say that you should all read Dr Torch’s linked article.
Such lovely gems.
“Wiltsey wrote that his son would still be alive if he had been raised in Iowa.”
“She said Timothy was a burden to the life that Lodzinski, a single mother, wanted to live.”
‘”She brought him into this world I’m sure to move away from her parents and she took him out when he was no longer needed. Timothy William Wiltsey was a pawn in Michelle Lodzinski’s life,” Bevacqua said’
‘At the Edna Mahan facility, Lodzinski will join convicted killer Melanie McGuire, who was sentenced in 2007 to life in prison for the death of her husband, William McGuire, after dismembering his body, packing it in suitcases and tossing it off a bridge in Virginia in a case known as the “suitcase murder.”‘
Would just like to say that you should all read Dr Torch’s linked article.
Such lovely gems.
I’m amazed that she got any prison time at all.
RichardP says:
January 6, 2017 at 12:04 pm
@ Spike: “First, Mission is a Man’s job. It’s a woman’s job to help the man with his mission – whatever that is. I don’t do it [lay on hands] when it comes to women, because they shouldn’t be doing that. It’s a man’s job, and they are in rebellion against God in doing that.”
If you read the Creation story carefully, you will discover that God did not create all women to be a proper and fitting help for all men. He created a wife to be a proper and fitting help for her husband. Until such husband becomes her husband, the Bible actually constrains women’s “work” very little. The rules are aimed only at those who have joined themselves together with God in a covenant. Then, it becomes – not an issue of who is smarter or more qualified in the relationship – but an issue of whose vision / mission should be followed. The wife is to help the husband in following HIS vision / mission (not hers) – even if that comes down to the wife helping her husband define what her husband’s vision / mission is. And note I said helping, not taking charge of.
Rebellion can only occur when there is a rule and the rule is ignored. There are few if any rules given by God in the Bible about what unmarried men and women can / should do as their life’s work.
You make a good point, RP. What I think, very strongly, is that Christian women sanctimoniously use “Mission” in two ways The first is to avoid having to deal with the serious intentions of (“there are no good”) Christian men. The second is that they get to do what every young woman wants these days. it goes like this :
“Blah blah blah… and I’ll finish college /university….. blah blah blah blah…. and I’ll live in another country….. blah blah blah blah blah blah …and when I’m thirty, I’ll get married and blah blah blah blah…”.
Both the secular and the Christian woman are doing the same thing here. they really want their independence to spend up big, see the world (ahem – have casual sex) and generally “enjoy their freedom”, expecting Christian men to be waiting for them. Often Christian women either end up single, frustrated in the mission field, or they end up choosing a non-Christian man because there aren’t any others and “they can witness to them”. Neither takes marriage -ordained by God – seriously. It’s just that the secular woman is far less hypocritical and sanctimonious about it.
As a Catholic, this blog has been eye-opening with all its info about church missions. It seems that every little church wants to do mission work overseas.
The Catholic Church has organizations specifically tasked with mission work. These missions are embedded in the local country. The priests and lay people who serve in them do so for years, often decades. It is their life. They learn the language, become part of the community, are known and trusted by locals. I regularly donate to the Columban Missions: http://columban.org/
By contrast, it seems that every little evangelical church — and every missionary woman — wants to reinvent her own wheel and start from scratch. Spend a few months in a country whose language they don’t know. Then return to the U.S. before they’ve trained well enough to be useful.
By contrast, it seems that every little evangelical church — and every missionary woman — wants to reinvent her own wheel and start from scratch. Spend a few months in a country whose language they don’t know. Then return to the U.S. before they’ve trained well enough to be useful.
The wretched little Baptist church that I attended for a few months several years ago that I mentioned upthread had all of MAYBE 40 regular members –including small children– and didn’t even have a regular budget. And yet it sponsored (or rather, tried to) FOUR missionary families, including the Honduras fiasco I mentioned.
Pure madness.
“She was a no-nonsense woman in very direct and straightforward ways and she asked God to call a man from England, send him straight out to China, straight to where she was, and have him propose to me.”
It seems that hundreds of million of Chinamen were completely inadequate to marry Miss Missionary Princess.
She was willing to spend her life doing missionary work to these inferior human beings that were graced by her superior wisdom and help.
But marry one of them? Unthinkable. It’s better to die alone. Hypergamy is a bitch.
@RPC,
Excellent points. I copied your entire comment in the hope that people will read it twice.
@infowarrior1
That linked article contains precisely some of the concepts that are getting no “press coverage” in church. People were responding to a man that became the de facto leader wherever He showed up. He was not understood in that time to be divine, but His qualities as an extraordinary man were evident and irresistible. He was a model of masculinity and controlled power. Plenty of men would follow His lead if they were properly introduced to Him, and not fed only the Fem-friendly version that widely misses the mark but must seem to pastors to be less threatening to the “ladies”. Or maybe those pastors don’t know Him either.
@RPL
These missions are embedded in the local country. The priests and lay people who serve in them do so for years, often decades. It is their life. They learn the language, become part of the community, are known and trusted by locals.
To be fair, protestants also operate this way. I personally know many families that fit this bill, and have lived in their local communities overseas for more than 30 years. It does happen. What also happens though is what is being described in the Piper link and comments about it here. Young women show up, are given some temporary task by the real missionaries until they go back home. No doubt their individual motivations vary considerably.
Red Pill Latecomer @ 1:44 am:
“As a Catholic, this blog has been eye-opening with all its info about church missions. It seems that every little church wants to do mission work overseas.”
Most small churches contribute to parachurch organizations that specialize in large projects like overseas missions and helping the homeless rather than go it alone. The net effect is no different than the Catholic method you described except that in traditional Prot style, accountability is upon the sponsor not the hierarchy. This is more effective–I’m a better judge of what a good missionary is than a bureaucrat–but virtue-signaling Cucks aren’t interested in quality control. Which was a big reason for Prots to retain professional clergy in the first place, somebody with the time and skill to check up on how tithe money was being spent. I suppose nothing causes butthurt feelz like an audit.
These newfangled “short-term missions” are obvious chick crack. No local connections, no followup or accountability, just a couple weeks in Thailand under the non-supervision of Pastor Strangelove. Mattell should release a Missionary Position Barbie.
“I think it can also be said that Jesus was quite muscular owing to the physical labor that is necessary for stonemasonry”
Given that there were no power tools of any kind back then, it’s pretty safe to assume that the average joe back then was quite muscular. Just seeing ancient swords in museums one can tell that the typical man today would have a hard time picking one up, never mind wielding it.
@Frank K, the weight of a Roman Gladius is approximately 1.5# I’d hardly say that a modern man would have trouble picking it up.
The hand an a half swords might have gotten to 4.5#.
However, I tend to agree with your general sentiment that most men in antiquity were likely fit and trim, but looking more like Bruce Lee than Hugh Jackman.
I suppose there were lighter swords. I did see some ancient swords in England that were simply huge and weighed a lot more than 5#. If I had to guess, they probably weighed 30-40#. I can’t imagine how even burly, muscular men could have wielded those things.
I do suppose that a man’s build back then was probably tied to his trade, and that most probably were lean and muscular and not Ahnold like in their builds. I also expect that lifespans were shorter with an average lifespan being in to 40’s. I often wonder why the scriptures are silent regarding St. Joseph’s fate. Tradition states that he died before Jesus began his ministry, but that is at best an educated guess.
Have to agree 100%. It’s so ironic that while the church and the media gripes there are no good men left, they feel 0% urge to tell women to work on being catches themselves. Church will rant at men they need to marry and commit and work harder, but will they tell women to grow their hair long or get their asses in shape? Hell no.
Case in point–the girl I’m seeing now is very blunt that she wants to be having kids in 3 years if we are a couple. She’s 23 now, so reasonable. But while she is up front that she wants a lifelong commitment and me to quickly go from being lover to parent, she is offended that I want her to grow her hair long and work out. (No, I don’t expect a bikini model, but I do expect decent shape.)
I think the church and women saw 300 and took Leonida’s words to heart. “GIVE THEM NOTHING! TAKE FROM THEM, EVERYTHING!”
Archer, a line from a certain film comes to mind: “Run, Forrest. Run!”
@Frank K
Functional swords look heavier than they are. Even the largest two-handed swords (for chopping the heads off pole-arms) were under 10 lbs.
Modern nutrition and health makes for larger and stronger men, but modern comforts and expectations steal their fortitude.
The concept of “average lifespans” can be confusing. The ancients lived as long as us unless injury or disease got them. A peek into their marketplaces would reveal the same breadth and distribution of ages as would a glimpse into ours. It’s just that a lot more of them died along the way at every age; not only those over 40. If a man made it out of the single digit years, there was a good chance he’d live into his 60s or 70s.
Genesis 6:3 says: Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, afor he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”
So even back then, there were people living up to 120. Which seems to be the maximum age these days (although a few people manage a few years beyond that).
John, the Apostle, lived into his 90s. Paul and Peter lived into their 60s (and would have lived longer, had they not been executed).
” It’s just that a lot more of them died along the way at every age; not only those over 40. ”
Well, that was kind of my point. Today, unless we have a serious health issue, most of us expect to live to 70 or beyond. Like you said, back then people died along the way of all kinds of things that would be easily treatable today. But it does seem that many maladies (like hypertension) begin to rear their ugly heads at the age of 40. My appendix jumped the shark at 43 and had to be removed. Untreated, it would have burst, and even though I was otherwise perfectly healthy, I would have died.
If you made it to a ripe old age it meant you were blessed with some very good genes.
I am fairly sure the 120 years spoken of there was that the Great Flood would come 120 years later, not some estimate of their lifespan. The Patriarchs continued living far over that for some time. Abraham was about 200 IIRC, and he was many generations later.
Man started living much shorter lifespans after the Flood, indicating something changed. I believe it was the atmosphere and such, but nothing is clearly noted in the Scriptures.
Moses is a bit more in line here:
Thus 70 to 80 years was the expectation for most. Deaths in childbirth or as a youth, are a strong reason the average number is much lower.
The average age of 4 people, one dying as a young child (less than 1) and the others living to 80 would be 60 years. Make that 8 people, with 4 dying at or near birth and you get the 40 year old average.
I am not certain what the exact numbers are, but I doubt they are all that far off.
I have no desire to make it to a “ripe old age” at this point, but hopefully the challenges in my mind will change when my divorce is final soon and I can truly get on with the rest of my life, though “spousal support” will linger on for a while most likely.
I wonder how many really want a “long life” these days.
We tend to take old “life expectancy” calculations as “most were dead by that age!”, when it really means that’s the Median Expectancy due to a larger portion dying by age 5. If you make age 6, you’re normally looking at a fairly long days. Minus War or the Plague.
Reading up, it would seem most Roman Gladius were around 2 lbs (1 kg). The style of sword has probably close to a 1000 year history of active use. Pretty impressive, if we’re honest. “Fullers” don’t seem to have come into common use until the move to longswords starting in the middle ages, which is why the swords could add extra length without too much extra weight. Even an 8 lb blade is supremely hard to wield. (Spears are much more practical.)
As for the ancient days, lots of endurance strength, but not a lot of shoulders. Modern aesthetics put a large emphasis on the shoulders in Men (v-taper), but it’s only because of the much higher access to protein that those muscles can be held. Though there was clearly a Greek Bodybuilding culture in various parts of history. Oh, and northerners would favor being fat as well. Need that body fat for winter.
Bubble boys.
Really, that’s what we should start calling people like Dennis Prager and Jim Geraghty–bubble boys.
The last election cycle exposed to the world that these two (and their ilk) live in a bubble; unable to relate to or even comprehend society outside their bubble. This video just cements it.
Ward Cleaver was last on TV 50 years ago, when America was at its economic and military peak. Those social and economic conditions haven’t existed for half a century, and they aren’t returning any time soon.
Video games? They are this generations golf and bowling. The only reason “slackers” are playing them in their mom’s basement is because THEY CAN’T FIND A JOB. What do they think guys that can’t find a job do with their free time?
Of course, these are the same guys that couldn’t under stand why an unemployed union member in Michigan, who had watched factory after factory close, would vote for Trump.
They are bubble boys. They live in a fantasy world, and think if men would just adopt their fantasy and join them in their fantasy bubble everything would be alright.
Sean Hannity is another bubble boy. I think it was Hannity (or Bill O’Reilly?) who had a radio promo running over a decade ago. A clip of him saying, “If you get an education, if you work hard, you will get ahead in this country.”
I’ve been fortunate and done well. I’m a tail end Boomer who got an education and worked hard. But I also realize that I was born at a fortunate time and place in history, with good health and an intact family, that enabled me to get ahead.
Hannity is wrong. An education and hard work is no guarantee of success, or even a living wage, not these days. That’s why Trump won. All these bubble conservatives with their incessant drumbeat, blaming the unemployed and underemployed for “not working hard enough” and “not believing in the American dream.”
I voted for Reagan. But those old conservative, free market cliches from Rush Limbaugh don’t cut it anymore. Professional conservatives have gotten rich and fat, while their rank & file supporters have had it ever harder.
Professional conservatives have gotten rich and fat, while their rank & file supporters have had it ever harder.
Within both the tradcuck and libertarian movements there is an “Ivory Tower” cohort consisting of academics and pundits, most of whom have never done an honest day’s work in their lives and who wouldn’t know what it means to be constantly struggling to stay employed and survive in their beloved “global economy.” These are the people who scribble and bleat endlessly about how everything would be just fine and dandy if everyone could just be a carbon copy of them. This explains why both of these movements, after bumping up against the real world, have largely been relegated to the fringes.
Delayed carnage from events, so it’s hard for people to associate the cause & effect. NAFTA really is the lynchpin for most of the problems. Specifically between the USA & Mexico. Since Canada has been, functionally, America North for a couple of centuries, the trade actually didn’t change much between the two places. Except in the Timber industry. (Though it should be noted that parts of NAFTA have never been fully implemented. There’s still USA-Canada legal battles over soft-timber.)
But what changed is that after a Boom, the recession previously ended and jobs came back. But post-2000, that’s not been true. The companies didn’t rehire; they moved. All of those laws passed in the “good times” are suddenly really stupid in the “bad times”. So the jobs don’t come back. The government has made most of the playing fields such that a lot were forced to move, as their competitors could undercut them so badly. This also was exacerbated by the “too many MBAs” problem where the idiots can’t understand the concept of Externality.
So the old “work hard, learn skills & you’ll get ahead” still worked right up until Alan Greenspan cut the interest rates to the bone. People forget 6% interest rates. Dropping from 6% to 3% generally means a $125,000 home will rise to about $200,000 in value because the financing has dropped so radically. (Since people focus mostly on Monthly Payment.) This is simply Forward-Shifted Money Printed with Back-Shifted Inflation. Pure Houdini that trick. But the piper has to be paid and we’re living in it now. This is why vast majority of economic growth post-1998 comes from debt spending.
Dalrock, you tracking the shift in focus here which has to do with our, um, aardvark in the room? I’m not going to go tangential or anything that serves as a redirect. I will send you a note about my vague reference just to try and be clear.
In lieu of commenting further, its best I take my grievances out on the birds in February (sadly Dove are safe after January) and feel much better thereafter. At daily limits of course.
Don’t be all self-immolation-on-the-courthouse-steps dramatic. You’ve got kids right? I know life sucks right now, but this is just a brief moment in the grand span of your life.
As for your wife, to hell with that cunt. Pay her off and get rid of her. Happy days are ahead, and they’ll be much better than they would have been, had you stayed shackled to that bitch. You’ll see.
Boxer
Boxer says:
January 7, 2017 at 7:09 pm
Heartily co-signed, from direct personal experience.
I went to college in the 70’s and the Christian women there wanted the sexy guys, most of the Christian women wpould nto go on a second date with a sexy guy if they did not have sex on the first date. So the sexy guys did a lot of pump and dump (how many women were you ready to marry after the first date?). Of course, some of the sexy guys were like me, and kept getting turned down, and came to believe we were not sexy and thus did not become bad boys (just good guys for theolder women to grab.) I found out I was sexy when a 26 year old 9 invited me back to her room for a ONS when I was almost sixty, and have since come to understand what could have been.
@RPC
In truth what Christianity promises is not only suffering and death. But Glory and Authority as well a the ultimate reward which is God himself(Romans 8:18)(Revelation 3:21)(1 Peter 5:4) as well as many more examples.
@RPC
Not only in what is given to us with the return to paradise. But what we shall become receiving glorified bodies imperishable and participating in the divine nature which is also called Theosis.
cynthia
@Although I don’t know how to ask for that from him, which is no doubt part of the problem.
I’m not sure, but if you meant to ask how to indicate to him that you want him to offer to take you as wife:
1) Be submissive. And verbalize it, so that it is obvious. (Some) Men are not as subtle, so verbalizing can be important. Col 3:18-21. If you are acting as a submissive wife, it shows you are ready for the role.
In my life, I can only think of one time that happened. We were playing as a team in a game. I asked her about her opinion, to get a consensus for our team direction, and she said, “You’re the man. You decide.” I thought she was unsuitable for marriage for another reason, but in spite of that, I was thinking about her for the rest of the evening. For me at least, having a woman invite and accept my leadership is very noticeable.
2) Be attractive by being the kind of woman God asks. God is not stupid. His ways are best. He also designed men, so he might have some good ideas about what a man would desire. Deut 22:5, 1 Cor 11. Similarly, do you train yourself for a career outside the home, or to be a woman busy on the homestead? Titus 2:3-5.
3) Once you think you are already doing the above, ask him to go through those verses with you, and ask how you could better show obedience to God by becoming a godly woman. His answer may surprise you, but will be helpful for learning how to make yourself appealing specifically to that man.
4) After the above, read the book of Ruth, then ask him to cover you with the corner of his cloak. (Or something to that effect; read the book and you’ll find it.) If he is a Christian that reads the Bible, he’ll know what you are offering.
BillyS
>though “spousal support” will linger on for a while most likely.
Sorry to hear that. I wish I could offer something better than pointing out that this evil will be temporary, which you already know. God loves you, despite the hardships we encounter.
This abundance mentality is also why so many women initiate divorce. Even if they aren’t cheating on their husband at the time, they are still absolutely convinced they can find a new husband, the same or better quality, fairly quickly.
Thanks everyone. Texas allows up to 7 years of spousal support, given how long we have been married, but odds are against it being that long, hopefully. It is a very fuzzy area of the law and several things that my wife has done (or not done in this case) will hurt her case. It should be well shorter than the maximum, but we are at the mediator stage this coming week, not the judge ordered phase. I could gamble on better from the judge, but hopefully we work something tolerable out from the mediator and we can finalize it all soon.
I still don’t want to go this route, but I also want to get it done.
I would definitely be looking for a unicorn if I find someone after this, so I am not worrying about that too much. I won’t refuse a really good unicorn, but I do expect that if I accept anyone new.
I figure I will likely just stay single if no unicorn comes along in the next couple of years, the most likely outcome.
I do have children, but not a great connection with most (they were adopted and are more in with their birth family now), though my oldest son has definitely come to my side. (I don’t want to put him in the middle, but he sees that his mom (my wife) is acting very poorly.
I had a coworker note, without any prompting, that he always thought my wife was lazy. Too bad she never grasped that aspect to her character.
CSI,
I don’t think my wife will find a new husband. She wants to be like her mother and one of her sisters and be the sole determiner of what she does in life, with my money for at least a while supporting that of course.
I wish at this point she would hook up with someone quickly so the spousal support would not be needed! I expect her to remain single unless she finds a beta schlub with things like a lake house as an older friend of hers did. That friend did not marry until her later 40s. I am still not sure if my wife would connect even with that, but I can’t see anything else making her give up here “freedom” to do what she wants, at least until the reality of her financial situation hits when any spousal support runs out.
Things like this do make me glad I did not lay up as much money as I probably should have. I may have to work the rest of my life, but at least a big chunk of what I have did not get stolen.
“I had a coworker note, without any prompting, that he always thought my wife was lazy.”
That he could notice that before she did – if she ever did – is rather revealing. Praying for you, bro.
A 5’9″ clean-cut American, beta accountant, age 30 who stays in shape is actually in the top 1% internationally in terms of SMV but no one seems to know this, manosphere-wide.
The 5″6″ 170 pound, growling slut who vomits when that accountant asks her out is in the bottom 5% internationally.
Some of you guys are mentioning the obesity epidemic like it’s some kind of hot take.
American males SMV as a group is in the top ten internationally, of 230 countries. Finances alone have them there.
American women as a group come in at about 219th place. Obesity alone keeps them out of the top 200.
American women complaining about American men is hilarious. Their choosiness proves it. It’s the irony of ironies. Imagine how choosy Lena Dunham could be if she were the last women on an earth with 6 billion men. Tom Brady wouldn’t even be good enough for her. That’s how the dynamic operates; the less attractive gender becomes the choosier gender. In America, the men blow out the women so severely in terms of SMV that it has led to insane levels of choosiness. Imagine being the only man on an earth of 6 billion women who all wanted a man. Your flaws don’t even enter the discussion.
American women as a group come in at about 219th place. Obesity alone keeps them out of the top 200.
That figure of 219 still sounds too high, considering that there are, IIRC, 251 sovereign nations on the planet. Add the bitchiness factor to the obesity factor and AWs probably rank something closer to 245, if not lower.
Thanks Chris and anyone else. I will make it, just quite bumpy along the way.
@BillyS:
Judge phase is a complete crapshoot; it’s all about the Judge you get. Which is normally not a good thing in the “family court” field. And God Bless the great State of Texas. Divorce laws could be massively better, but you’re in one of the States where your life isn’t screwed.
May you rest within the Lord’s peace in this time. God Bless.
British headline celebrates the “First Women U.S. Marines in History”: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/three-women-infantry-marines-us-army-defense-secretary-ash-carter-camp-lejeune-north-carolina-a7512236.html
Just when you think the height of Evangelical women’s hubris was set, we get this. Essentially, this is a plea to the creator of the universe to miraculously, literally, drop a husband on her doorstep in China. The hubris is amazing, but lets just dissect this for a minute. Not just any husband will do; he must be English (from England), he must somehow magically know of this woman and her requisitioning of him via God, he must have his shit together financially, maturity, a good spiritual leader and he must have a ‘heart for God’. He must also fly himself to her location and propose to a woman he’s never seen and will somehow know on sight that she’s preordained to be his wife.
This is the degree of feminine solipsism in the church – that this doesn’t so much as raise an eyebrow for anyone she relates this to. In fact, we get an even more solipsistic reflex to it; it’s the man’s fault for not showing up. Because God is infallible, it MUST be that some man was somehow called to show up for her, but he flaked. This is exactly the way a church that’s been ensaturated by the Feminine Imperative conducts itself. It’s a potent combination: the Feminine Imperative replaces the Holy Spirit and in its place is substituted women’s solipsism and a penchant for superstition and metaphysics.
That no one bats an eye at this, that their first response is to concur with her pretentiousness is an indictment and a confirmation of the Feminine Imperative directing both church culture and doctrine. That 85% of missionaries are women is not at all shocking considering that there is nothing in church culture that is in any way attractive to even churched men, much less the unchurched. In fact it is actively hostile to men – just in this response and shaming men for not growing up, the answer to their problem stares them right in the face. But the church has so invested feminine-primacy that considering why men wouldn’t want to sign up for their definition of marriage never enters the train of thought. They are so accustomed to blaming and shaming men that considering anything more isn’t even an afterthought.
And why would it be? When you can sell cutesy books that paint christian men as ‘kidults’ the sales are all the confirmation you need. And sell they will, even the ministry series’, any time a pastor can tap into the innate need for indignation that women have. Especially so when it offers the hope of reigning men into absolving Christian women of the responsibility of own indiscretions. Write a short book about how it’s men’s fault they wont man up and sign on for a wedding (not a marriage) to a christian woman who believes it’s his fault for her condition, yeah, will buy that. It’s easy money. It’s low-hanging fruit.
She was a no-nonsense woman in very direct and straightforward ways and she asked God to call a man from England, send him straight out to China, straight to where she was, and have him propose to me.
I’d be much more fitting to call her a nonsense woman.
BillyS @ 3:18 pm:
“I have no desire to make it to a “ripe old age” at this point, but hopefully the challenges in my mind will change when my divorce is final soon and I can truly get on with the rest of my life, though “spousal support” will linger on for a while most likely.”
You’re at a low point is all. Listening to lawyers bicker about what future you should be allowed to have would turn Gandhi into a cannibal.
…
Otto Lamp @ January 7, 2017 at 3:46 pm:
“Bubble boys. Really, that’s what we should start calling people like Dennis Prager and Jim Geraghty–bubble boys.”
‘Judas goat’ fits better. They are active, knowing participants with the Liberal slaughterhouse.
…
Kaminsky @ January 7, 2017 at 11:24 pm:
“A 5’9″ clean-cut American, beta accountant, age 30 who stays in shape is actually in the top 1% internationally in terms of SMV but no one seems to know this, manosphere-wide.”
The Manosphere knows exactly how sexy he is. Green Card+Deep Pockets+Trained 15 years to endure sexual rejection=Internationally desirable husband. Most Lootable Bachelor!
Out of the entire group her age, there are a few young men I’d be proud to call son-in-laws: Athletic, smart, industrious, curious about how things work, courteous, a little mischievous, but with a good moral compass. Maybe 5% of the boys in her age group fit this description.
I’m pretty sure his idea of the eligible 5% is somewhat different from her daughter’s idea of the eligible 5%.
“A 5’9″ clean-cut American, beta accountant, age 30 who stays in shape is actually in the top 1% internationally in terms of SMV”
Look at the “Grimes Test” on feminist dating advice site DoctorNerdlove.com. This is one those cutesy cartoons feminists love when they are preaching about something.
So anyhow the character in question has “a cheery desposition, a good job, a place of his own. He’s never hit a woman, harassed a woman, etc.” But Grimes isn’t entitled to any romantic success. Because he’s boring. Having your own job, place and being emotionally and physically healthy isn’t enough to gain any success whatsoever with American women.
According to the site you need to differentiate yourself from all the boring “Grimes” by making yourself exciting, scintillating, entertaining, exceptional in some way. Only then after all this effort you just might make yourself appealing enough to score a first date with an average American woman. If you’re lucky.
American women are indeed very spoiled.
She was a no-nonsense woman in very direct and straightforward ways and she asked God to call a man from England, send him straight out to China, straight to where she was, and have him propose to me.
Even if a man from England happened to be in China on missionary work and propose, she would reject him because he came from East London and didn’t have a family that owns an estate in Devonshire. I am not from the UK nor have been there. Correct me if needed.
Having your own job, place and being emotionally and physically healthy isn’t enough to gain any success whatsoever with American women.
Which is why American women aren’t worth bothering with. It’s akin to being told that you have to have seven figures in your checking account at all times in order to finance the purchase of a used Yugo or a Volkswagen Beetle when the Mercedes dealership is giving rebates on mew models to the point that you can spend a fraction of your cash for the purchase.
new models…
The last thing Dr. Nerdlove wants his clientele to know is this;
—You have high level skills in the world’s most powerful nation and you like to work out. Good enough dude!
It’s hilarious to me that being ‘non-abusive’ is equated with being ‘boring’ albeit in a roundabout way.
@GunnerQ
“The Manosphere knows exactly how sexy he is. Green Card+Deep Pockets+Trained 15 years to endure sexual rejection=Internationally desirable husband. Most Lootable Bachelor!”
I don’t really know what you mean there. My point is that this accountant (let’s call him ‘Brent’) outclasses 995 out of a 1000 American women on the international scale. If guys knew this, it might change a lot of dynamics. Brent doesn’t have to go out and be ‘looted’ (by a feral, mail-order bride, right?) when he’s a 1% SMV guy internationally.
Which is why American women aren’t worth bothering with. It’s akin to being told that you have to have seven figures in your checking account at all times in order to finance the purchase of a used Yugo or a Volkswagen Beetle when the Mercedes dealership is giving rebates on mew models to the point that you can spend a fraction of your cash for the purchase.
What about the cuckservatives like Jim Geraghty, with their layer upon layer of mangina assumptions :
i) All women automatically become June Cleaver.
ii) BB is the only form of SMP. He has no clue about what women were doing from age 19-35.
iii) An N that rivals her age is acceptable.
iv) A single mother is a ‘catch’ (Geraghty married a single mother).
Since there is NO market distortion that will convince cuckservatives that it is women who are failing society, rather than men, I wonder what happens next.
@Anon
Cuckservatives are really just subversive liberals behind enemy lines.
Cuckservatives are really just subversive liberals behind enemy lines.
It’s tempting to want to think that this is deliberate on their part, but is almost certainly due to abysmal ignorance and a complete lack of awareness, of the “self” kind or otherwise.
@Red Pill Latecome,
Adult Women Have the Physical Strength of a 13 Year Old Boy.
http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.ca/2017/01/adult-women-have-physical-strength-of.html
Otto Lamp,
Alas, that did not save this boy :
Woman drowns 12 year old stepson in bathtub.
She must have hit him with a club beforehand or something.
Note that the reason she killed him, as we in the manosphere know, is that the boy was consuming household resources that the woman felt belonged to her. Women often kill their own biological children, of course, but by being the stepson, he was at even higher risk.
Rollo Tomassi: Just when you think the height of Evangelical women’s hubris was set, we get this. Essentially, this is a plea to the creator of the universe to miraculously, literally, drop a husband on her doorstep in China. The hubris is amazing,
I knew a Christian woman who was certain that God would send a husband her way — the right husband, chosen by God Himself for that woman.
When I suggested that God doesn’t work that way. That we have free will, and it’s up to us to find and choose a spouse, the woman accused me of having “a lack of faith.”
Women see it as a sign of their faith — a sign of their own holiness — that they expect miracles from God.
“Essentially, this is an ORDER to the creator of the universe to miraculously, literally, drop a husband on her doorstep in China. The hubris is amazing,”
Fixed.
Note that the reason she killed him, as we in the manosphere know, is that the boy was consuming household resources that the woman felt belonged to her. Women often kill their own biological children, of course, but by being the stepson, he was at even higher risk.
I wonder what kind of loss or sanction insurance companies would face if they refused to sell life insurance to anyone who was part of a “blended” family. The risk of loss in insuring someone’s life who is at risk of murder by a step-parent/step-child/step-sibling has got to be astronomical.
@RPL,
You are referring to the “decree and declsre” false doctrine that is running rampant in Evangelical circles
[D: Welcome. I removed your email address from your user name before approving. I assume that was a typo.]
I like the articles here, and I also agree with most of them, but not with this.
(Disclaimer: I am Eastern European, the situation described below is not from the States.)
I grew up (I am 30) serving the Lord in the church, and I disagree that most guys are “good”. I am a leader of a Bible study group, and actually – for one reason or other – there is a limited number of men (also women) whom I can trust with any job. If I tell someone to do sg, and he/she does it accordingly – well, that is a big result.
Also, when I was college student, I used to do various (volunteer) jobs in various church camps. THERE WAS ALWAYS SHORTAGE OF ELIGIBLE BOYS WILLING TO DO THE SERVICE FOR THE LORD. (This is a firsthand experience, because the organizers asked me – as a boy – to invite friends.) Almost always had enough girls, but not boys. So I am kinda sceptic with this “plenty of good teen or twentysomething boys around the church” stuff, because I just don’t know where were they (and actually where are they) when services are needed?
[D: Welcome Qoheleth]
The wretched little Baptist church that I attended for a few months several years ago that I mentioned upthread had all of MAYBE 40 regular members –including small children– and didn’t even have a regular budget. And yet it sponsored (or rather, tried to) FOUR missionary families, including the Honduras fiasco I mentioned.
Pure madness.
Might be a variant of The Lift…church psyches are stimulated by the feeling of “doing something,” and, lets face it, briefly working in some Third World hellhole represents much lower-hanging fruit than trying to actually witness in your own American neighborhood.
I can remember being a church member years ago when a missionary couple came to speak, and they were telling us that the toughest place to proselytize was Japan….the insularity, homogeneity, and Shinto traditions makes it all but impenetrable to evangelistic Christianity.
You mischaracterize, being around Church and doing stuff doesn’t make one good. The Church is become a bad place for men to be around. And yet you cannot see that. Their services are needed?! Yet you cannot treat them with respect or give them a reason to come besides belittlement. None of this gets better until you realise, deep down, that you NEED men more than you need women. Still, try and do it with women. You will soon realize your error.
“You mischaracterize, being around Church and doing stuff doesn’t make one good.”
Agreed. But faithfully serving the Lord for a long time is very good indication of your faith. You can say “Most ppl are good without faith.” Yep, they do not qualifies as a christian.
“The Church is become a bad place for men to be around.”
Any alternative? Yo can not be christian alone. I am grateful for my church.
“Their services are needed?!”
You serve the Lord, don’t you? (Please clarify on this. I am not better than anyone else, but when I did various church services, I had the intention of serving the Lord.)
Women are no better, I admit, but we discussed men.
Mega church complains sometimes about not enough teen boys, yet whenever an event is going on the boy get the message of “defer defer defer to girl”. Girls are never told to defer to boys or offer them any respect, that might actually provide an incentive for boys to show up.
Mormons have crap theology but are better at civilization building, the better you serve the hotter wife you get; and you are sealed forever and she can’t divorce and remarry without getting a cancellation of temple sealing.
Never said I didn’t, yet my local Churches were the worst place to do that. They didn’t need me or need my help, they only wanted my money. Which is why I don’t bother anymore. If Churches want the services of men, they better get up and at it, first with apologies for following the absurd liberated culture we have, then by incentivizing male interest, with Bible studies focusing on how to be a Christian leader, not a servant leader. And thirdly, by demoting every women in their congregation to a lowly wife, no Church authority at all and no missionary positions to be held by women. Do that, and you might find Christian men willing to help, do it not, and I just don’t care what happens. Lol!
Bro, Mormons love to divorce each other. We do it almost as much as Christians and Jews and it’s totally cool with all our apostles and prophets. No less an authority than Brigham Young himself was a customer of the divorce courts that he, himself, set up. The rite of dissolvement (sorta like a Jewish get) is something that the innocent party is usually compelled to agree with by his local authorities.
I love my people, and am proud of them, but they are only a short distance behind the rest of society. In some ways Mormons are worse off. Don’t pedestalize us. We set a very bad example.
Qoheleth @ 7:54 am:
“THERE WAS ALWAYS SHORTAGE OF ELIGIBLE BOYS WILLING TO DO THE SERVICE FOR THE LORD.”
What benefit do the boys who serve your church receive?
…
Kaminsky @ January 8, 2017 at 4:29 pm:
“The Manosphere knows exactly how sexy he is. Green Card+Deep Pockets+Trained 15 years to endure sexual rejection=Internationally desirable husband. Most Lootable Bachelor!
“I don’t really know what you mean there.”
I think you do.
Brother Boxer
Aren’t you ready to change your avatar yet? The weak minded may be prone to conflate that image with your otherwise entertaining and informative commentary, thus weakening it. Just saying.
@Qoheleth
I’m not in a position to comment on how true this might be for Eastern Europe. Given the large differences in our recent histories, what I’m describing in the West could well not apply. Can you comment on the way that Christian leaders in Eastern Europe approach the topics we are discussing? Is the attitude of Piper, Prager, etc. common there?
@Qoheleth
This blog post summarizes an interesting article about the increasing number of “dones,” i.e. people who have left the church because they no longer find it doctrinally sound and/or relevant to their lives. It’s fascinating to note that these “dones” tend to be the most committed Christians. From the article:
He explained these de-churched were among the most dedicated and active people in their congregations. To an increasing degree, the church is losing its best.
So, the take-home-point is that the most committed, faithful men are not necessarily found in the church pews. In fact, many of the best men are not on missions, or in church, precisely because they care so much about their faith, and see the emptiness in these endeavors.
Instead of blaming these men for not being around, maybe we should be asking what it is about the church that is pushing them away?
Forgot to link the blog post:
http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2015/05/mgtow-vs-dones.html
@RichardP
If you read the Creation story carefully, you will discover that God did not create all women to be a proper and fitting help for all men. He created a wife to be a proper and fitting help for her husband. Until such husband becomes her husband, the Bible actually constrains women’s “work” very little. The rules are aimed only at those who have joined themselves together with God in a covenant. Then, it becomes – not an issue of who is smarter or more qualified in the relationship – but an issue of whose vision / mission should be followed. The wife is to help the husband in following HIS vision / mission (not hers) – even if that comes down to the wife helping her husband define what her husband’s vision / mission is. And note I said helping, not taking charge of.
I agree but have a different angle on this which I think you didnt address. A woman IS ALWAYS suppose to be subject to man, especially after the fall. You are right about a woman work being constrained by the Bible, because the Bible states that she is to be constrained by her father.
Any father who allows her daughter to do what ever she wants is making a spinster out of her. You dont want to marry a woman who is in the habit of doing anything she wants, she is ruined by then. How is she suppose to flip a switch and all of a sudden be in subject to her husband?
The point, a woman should always be constrained, and its for her own good
Some red-pill wisdom from Doug Wilson:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/fear-woman-bringeth-two-three-snares.html
@Boxer
Ha! I thank you, and my OCD thanks you.
I can remember being a church member years ago when a missionary couple came to speak, and they were telling us that the toughest place to proselytize was Japan….the insularity, homogeneity, and Shinto traditions makes it all but impenetrable to evangelistic Christianity.
I have to ask: did this couple immerse themselves in Japanese culture? Did they become fluent in the Japanese language?
I ask this because, interestingly, a couple who are close friends of my mother spent nearly 30 years in Japan as missionaries and had a great deal of success in spreading the Word (when Dad was still alive, he and Mom spent a couple of summers over there helping the mission with its accounting and finances. They said that the church was huge, and very active with believers). They were both immersed in Japanese culture and were fluent in Japanese, so they knew how to share the Word in a way that got across to the locals.
Japan, I believe, is one of those mission fields that one must dedicate a lfetime to in order to be effective. The culture, particularly where religious faith is concerned, is so radically different from that of western Christianity that it takes a completely different mindset and approach to get inside of it. This is not something that a casual “universal missionary, lite” can pull off even under the best of conditions. American missionaries, by and large, lack the cultural awareness, discipline, or understanding to be effective in missions of these kinds.
@Hmm
Meh. That blog post by Doug Wilson serves up pretty weak sauce by androsphere standards, but I will admit there is a fragment of reality in that posting. Only a fragment, though.
Instead of blaming these men for not being around, maybe we should be asking what it is about the church that is pushing them away?
I often wonder if the Lost 11th Commandment reads “Thou Shalt Not Look Upon Thyself and Thy Ways With Introspection.”
“The point, a woman should always be constrained, and its for her own good.”
+1. Women weren’t designed to live independently of men any more than men were designed to live independently of God. That’s why atheism is the most destructive of all religions. It’s a state of total rebellion masquerading as total independence, exactly like University Barbie.
@AR:
Yeah, kinda weak soup, but what he does say he gets right. I have often seen the totalizing move by women when I have had occasion to try to criticize other women for obvious problems.
There’s blue-pill, purple-pill and red-pill. I think I would classify Doug Wilson as ‘feisty purple-pill.’ But he’ll never be red pill. The homage paid to women and their ‘erotic glory’ almost made me stop reading.
GunnarQ
<<<<<<>>>>>>>
Too cryptic. I wanted you to do a bit of expounding there. You seem to imply the Brent the accountant is just a loser who will always lose. My point is that Brent is a huge winner internationally but isn’t allowed to know it under the FI. Thoughts? American men are winners. Alpha by passport alone.
Hmm
I have often seen the totalizing move by women when I have had occasion to try to criticize other women for obvious problems.
That’s “ingroup preference” at work, it is a known feature of female humans. A tiny bit of research has been done on it, with the result that women prefer other women vs. men by a margin of 4:1. This in my opinion is why we run into NAWALT with monotonous regularity. Also this explains why women tend to hire other women in the work world, although there is always a rationalization to explain how utterly necessary it was. And this provides a science based reason why letting women into any leadership in a church is always a mistake.
@feeriker:
Japanese culture is utterly foreign to Western thought. Having to gotten to know a number of Japanese (and observed them), most of the problem with missions to Japan is pretty structural. The Japanese culture is, to Western thought, something of a paradox, but that’s only if you’re stuck in the blue-pill world.
Japan is an extremely low interpersonal Trust society, but a high societal Trust society. Thus the only truly “safe place” for most Japanese is in their own head. They have to keep up appearances while never being able to be honest about things. It sets the tone for the entire life of the Japanese. It’s the reason so much of Japan seems alien, while they have the exact same view of outsiders.
Then there’s the deeper issues. Japan has the most self-proclaimed “non-religious” people by % of population. Which is true. That’s how people respond on surveys. But it’s in the top 5 for most “religious” countries on the face of the Earth. That isn’t even the Pareto Principle in action. To the Japanese, their actions aren’t religious but cultural & duty based, yet much of them are clearly practicing the de facto religion they follow. Japan is an ancient culture with modern technology.
The last major point is that the “feminists” won in Japan. A 1000 years ago. The women are in de facto control of most of the country and have been for an extremely long time. Their men are so put upon it’s quite sad. It flows together with the low Trust environment. Their women, collectively, generally don’t seek to cut their own throats, which is what Western feminists can’t grok.
It’s a field that can be “cracked”, but it’s going to be a couple of centuries. Blue-pill Churchianity has no prayer of doing it, though. Which is what the real issue is for most when the discussion comes up.
Here you go Dal, you’re welcome:
https://markdriscoll.org/sermons/key-1-becoming-relationally-healthy/
“Japan is an extremely low interpersonal Trust society, but a high societal Trust society..”
I’ve wondered that way myself, if the Japanese might be a low-trust people that successfully achieved a high-trust society through brute cultural force. It would explain the extremes their society can reach. The feminism wrinkle is new, though.
“Thus the only truly “safe place” for most Japanese is in their own head. ”
That’s horrible. Like Communism.
Meh. That blog post by Doug Wilson serves up pretty weak sauce by androsphere standards, but I will admit there is a fragment of reality in that posting. Only a fragment, though.
And you’ll note that the ever-precious IB is there disagreeing with even that small fragment of reality. How she tries to peddle herself as anything other than a “conservative feminist” is simply incredibly shameless. Basically she wants men to be traditional as *she* defines it, period. Very feminist, even if “what she wants” is “manliness” as *she gets to define it*. Total rebellion under the cover of submission. It’s textbook FI. She’s shameless, really.
GunnerQ
I’ve wondered that way myself, if the Japanese might be a low-trust people that successfully achieved a high-trust society through brute cultural force.
IMO the key to understanding Japan is in the land: rice paddies and earthquakes. For centuries Japanese mostly lived in villages surrounded by their rice fields. When it is time to plant rice, everyone has to work, period. There is no place for nonconformists. Everyone works, everyone eats. The nail that sticks up will be hammered down by the entire village, killed if need be.
Earthquakes mean dwellings made out of light materials such as bamboo, with thin walls; everyone can hear everyone else pretty much all the time. It is essential to pretend otherwise – a newlywed couple behind a paper screen have all the privacy they will get from the rest of the family. So there’s a degree of cognitive dissonance built into Japanese culture from get go.
Your description of “high trust society made up of low trust people” is really interesting. I’ll have to think about it for a while, but at first read it explains a lot.
It would explain the extremes their society can reach. The feminism wrinkle is new, though.
New how? I agree that the women won in Japan centuries ago, and have the sense not to kill off the geese too fast. The wheels are coming off now, because the FI has won too much. We’ll see what Japan looks like in a couple more generations. The island chain can probably support 100 million on its own, so when Japan dies off back down to carrying capacity there may be a shift in cultural norms. Maybe.
A thumbnail sketch of Japan from a friend of mine a few years back.
You can be walking down a street in Tokyo or any other city and find a man who is so drunk he’s passed out, lying on the sidewalk / park bench / curb. The cops who patrol the area will probably already know about him. They might have even moved him out of the street. But they won’t take him further, they will just let him lie there – he made his choice, he can lie in it. On the other hand, nobody will rob him, nobody will molest him, no “teens” will set him on fire for entertainment. When he sobers up, gets up and staggers on everyone will just look right through him. Social trust at work.
He also told me that it’s standard for working men, salarymen, to hand over their entire pay packet to their wife, who gives them some kind of allowance. Everyone expects it, below the top echelons.
Novaseeker
And you’ll note that the ever-precious IB is there disagreeing with even that small fragment of reality.
I usually ignore Disqus comments because I have to compromise some security on a browser to read them. She does get around, doesn’t she? Got to spread her feminist churchianity somehow.
“Thus the only truly “safe place” for most Japanese is in their own head. ”
That’s horrible. Like Communism.
I’m not so sure that we’re all that far from that here in the West if present trends continue.
They may be desirable, attractive across the world, etc., but they have won completely nothing. I will never win a race in on Jupiter, since I will never go there. (Except maybe in Destiny I suppose. Though I would still lose that as I suck at racing in the game.)
“Thus the only truly “safe place” for most Japanese is in their own head. ”
That’s horrible. Like Communism.
I’m not so sure that we’re all that far from that here in the West if present trends continue.
I think so too. Most Western men already have to abide by this concept at work and in many other venues. Well – they don’t have to – but if they don’t the ride can get pretty rough. There’s not many “safe places” for example, where a man could air out the kinds of commentary here in Dalrock’s blog without jeopardizing his job, social standing, personal relationships, etcetera.
@Billy S
A guy should at least know who he is. He should also know how ridiculously outclassed the Schumerites are. Then he can travel, expatriate, try an overseas hookup or just leave it all alone. It’s not so much what happens once a guy has that information that I was commenting on. It’s that guys don’t even know who they are and it’s a shame. Then they tremble in the presence of some fat-faced Schumerite when they’re giving away about 97 percentage points in international SMV. But I know what you mean though. If you’re locked down in Dayton then who cares what the Slovakian girls look like?
@Gunner Q & AR:
The main part of Japanese culture extends back to around 300 AD, at least. In that time, they’ve never been successfully invaded. (They surrendered before we landed, as a practical matter.) That’s 1700+ years of continuous culture that weighs on everyone. And those effects are present, even in small details, in everything they do.
When we say “Low Trust”, we need to be a little careful. We tend to think of tribal warfare zones when we talk about it, as it’s mostly a Society-level discussion. For a functioning, stable civilization, they are individually very low-trust. They are a shame-based Culture, so their instinct is to prevent either causing Shame or giving someone blackmail over them. This is why so much is “de facto” rather than “de jure” with the entire society. (Seriously, there’s no law saying “no knives”, but they’ve got a dozen that de facto makes carrying *any* knife a crime.)
Further, we think of Trust in Christian terms. The only functioning, “modern” societies that aren’t from historically Christian cultures are a few Asian countries. And they produced those by copying everything from the West that they could. A key aspect to that is trust in Business Relationships. Economic activities, in a modern economy, are an exercise in Trust activities. But they had core ethno-cultural precepts to starts from. “Keeping one’s word” is a Christian concept. It’s something lost to our modern discussion. (It’s one of the many factors why “modern” economies require Christian theology. The Asians just did what they do best: copy the details but miss the plot.)
At current production levels, they island can support around 75 million people. They have to import about 50% of their calories, though in a “bad” situation, things can be shifted. The 4000+ islands that make up Japan are mostly cliff faces. Only about 18% of the land is usable by Humans. It’s a pretty bad place to put 100+ million people.
Japanese Women are in charge of their homes and run the finances. It’s been that way for a very long time. There is historical and practical reasons why that’s true, but there’s been a clear trend in Japanese writing for the last few hundred years that most Men aren’t too thrilled with their Women. Granted, the existence for all Japanese can be summed up: you’re born, you work and you die. That theology is reflected deeply within their pantheistic culture.
I’ll avoid a discussion of the “Religion of Japan”, as that’s a PhD Thesis-length discussion that I still have a lot more to learn about. But, for the nature of this discussion, do a quick read up on Bushido. Bushido’s systems strike a Westerner and insane & stupid, but to the low-Trust Nobles in Japan’s feudal era, it made perfect sense. Following Orders keeps your Honor. And your Honor & life are one. (It’s probably important to understand that the Clan System in pre-modern Japan was important. Even if the “adopt that son into the clan!” was a big thing. It made “family ties” fairly loose among the rules.)
Dalrock I think you have expressed here the reality of sex ratios and the marriage squeeze for Western men and an over abundance of choice for Western women.
A drop in fertility rates means a skewed top heavy population pyramid with more males than females (particularly given mens propensity to marry equal aged or younger females). Less females at the bottom of the pyramid and more males at the top.
Women are so spoilt for choice and materially comfortable that they can be picky and are falling for the choice paradox trap.
Too bad the ‘choice paradox trap’ doesn’t stymie American women in the ice cream aisle.
So you are covering the man’s value more than his “winning” stance in what you cover. That would have merit, but many who would have value may not be able to transfer that value elsewhere.
If you’re locked down in Dayton then who cares what the Slovakian girls look like?
Which is the case for almost all American men.
I am an international lawyer, travel a lot overseas every year. You’re overstating the case. It has to do with class. Your money and status can buy you a woman overseas. An educated woman of your own class isn’t buyable overseas, so you’re still kind of slumming. That may work for some guys, but while I know a few of our international execs who have married non-American women, it isn’t common — not for blue pill reasons, but because the kinds of women who are readily available (and yes, they are more available than in the US by far) are not the kinds of women they want. It’s a mismatch. Joe Dayton isn’t really available to overseas women who would be the good match for Joe Dayton but not for Mike UpperWestSide.
off topic…. well done Clemson
I agree that if a person cannot go to a place where their SMV is much higher, then it does not matter to them.
The same works for women. Two countries that rank at the very top in female appearance are Ukraine and Venezuela. Both countries are poor and in bad shape. It would be logical for just about every young woman in those countries to leave and come to the Anglosphere, where they have a realistic chance of marrying a millionaire with good character. By staying in their home countries, they will end up marrying a man who makes $6000/year, vs. a man who makes over 100x that if they come to America..
Yet too few do it, so they don’t benefit from it. Some of them just don’t know that they are much more attractive in the outside world than they may think, while others are just too afraid to come to America for grad school (if educated) or as a nurse or au pair (if less educated)…
But yes, there are millions of women across South America and EE/Russia who are 8s and 9s yet will marry a man who makes just $10,000/year….
“Married” lesbian couple to lead Calvary Baptist Church in D.C.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/01/09/married-lesbian-couple-to-lead-prominent-d-c-baptist-church/?utm_term=.9bf289f91000#comments
@Looking Glass
I do have to note that their practices of the adoption adult males as their heir and son quite effectively gets around the problem with mediocre sons or apathetic sons or lack of sons.
A similar practice in Ancient Rome was responsible for the 5 good emperors of Rome.
@ Gunner Q
“What benefit do the boys who serve your church receive?”
You may meet older Christian men, who can serve you as a role model in a faith.
I have a job now (with a very limited paid holiday), but during my college years I spent altogether more than 20 weeks (in summers) in various church camps (mainly looking after children), and in half of the case, girls who were there were absolutely off the hook for me. (They were much older than me, or taken, or I was not interested.) In the other half (also worked for WoL), you might have met girls, but if you want to do your job properly, you do not have time to chase a girl (certanly, you may stay in contact after the camp, but not during the camp.) But when I entered this service I thought that I was supposed to tell the gospel to young guys, because:
1. JC told me so in Matthew 28.
2. Young guys need an elder christian guy to look up;
3. When I became Christian, it may happen because some other guy sacrified his spare time (for free), and told me the gospel, talked with me so on. And I am very thankful to it.
I hope I answered your question.
@Dalrock
“Can you comment on the way that Christian leaders in Eastern Europe approach the topics we are discussing? Is the attitude of Piper, Prager, etc. common there?”
Sure. Please give me 2-3 days for it.
Dalrock, I feel like you have shown modern Christianity is not biblical in the same way that one might show the sea is not above the clouds. Not just in this post, but dozens or scores of times. Your eviscerations are enjoyable to read, but I feel it’s time to move to the next level.
I want to know “What is behind this?” What forces are shaping a world where women are absolved of all agency in attracting a “man” yet feel entitled to the very best of masculinity? Why do so many pastors preach self-serving “Only real man in the room” and belittle men? Who benefits? Who makes money off it? Power?
The forces may be unconscious and spread across millions, but they are there sure as the sea is not above the clouds.
Anyone have ideas on this?
Moses, the fact that the sea isn’t above the clouds is much more obvious and unsubervise than the inconvenient truths that guys like Dalrock help to expose. I recall Barbarossa making a video in which he mentioned how literally thousands of men had written to him explaining about how close they were to committing suicide.
Moses asks,
I want to know “What is behind this?” What forces are shaping a world where women are absolved of all agency in attracting a “man” yet feel entitled to the very best of masculinity? Why do so many pastors preach self-serving “Only real man in the room” and belittle men? Who benefits? Who makes money off it? Power?
It’s simple, really: those things are based on lies.
At the risk of being too-clever-by-half, Who is the Father of lies? (John 8:44)
Every sinful trend is a satanic axis of advance in the spiritual warfare that engulfs our existence, and the enemy knows our weaknesses better than we know them ourselves. There are exactly three enemy Lines of Effort (“LOE” in military parlance): the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16). Everything people do wrong is related to one or more of them.
It is there that the answers lie.
A single instance of wifely rebellion or pastoral AMOGing is a lost skirmish. A major ministry turning itself over to woman-worship is a lost battle. At this point we’re losing ground in entire campaigns.
But the Bible tells us that God’s side won’t lose the war… although there will be casualties. We are soldiers, and we may expect to take fire from the enemy, but what we get for our wounds will be far better than any purple heart medal or any check from the Veteran’s Administration.
@Chris: Agree completely.
The truths that Dalrock exposes are not obvious to the not-yet-unplugged. My point is that Dalrock’s stunning clarity makes the truth as obvious as the fact that the sea is not above the clouds. He’s done this so many time it feels like no further proof is required.
Time to probe deeper to look at the forces driving behind these societal changes. They don’t just “happen.” Someone is benefitting. Incentives matter.
I am not suggesting there is a shadowy cabal pulling the strings. It could be the sum total of millions of separate decisions. But something is driving it. After all, Christianity worked very well for thousands of years. Now it’s being warped beyond recognition? These things don’t just “happen” randomly.
What is it?
“What is it?”
In short, Liberalism and its many offshoots like Feminism and multiculturalism.
Qoheleth,
You only note what such experience should not be. You give very little input on the reasons to do it. A vague “because it is a good thing to do” is not sufficient to motivate many people.
A useful exercise would be to sit down and note reasons so many women participate in the activity. Everyone is getting something out of it. Consistency with one’s beliefs can be a part of that, but it is usually even more connected to reality.
Are young men who participate in such activities complemented on that later? Does it help them in any practical way beyond vague “self improvement”? What long term results do they get to see from their interaction?
This sounds more like a case of you arguing “they should do it because it is good,” rather than anything with true deep merit. Young men can do a lot of different things, many of which can advance the Kingdom of God, so any specific activity will need a reason to take that involvement.
It is also hard to ignore the “Jesus is my boyfriend” approach of much of the modern church out of such involvement. I will never spend my time working for a boyfriend, as even that idea is repulsive to me. I may tolerate some songs in church, but the underlying attitude needs to be flipped to change that.
Giving a summer to “youth camp” would not have done much to help me be in a better place in life now. Nor would it had helped me “score with the chicks” as you note. That is a far more important factor for teen males, even those who are “holy”.
Side note: I played around a bit on Plenty of Fish. What a nasty place. It does show me many different attractive women are out there, but this whole thing is a mess. Where is the godly “matchmaker” for older men and women? I once again see the merit for arranged marriages. (Though that could easily be misdirected to be a “jump off the carousel” provision for women today.)
Lyn87,
The modern structure also reinforces the fact that everyone wants to avoid responsibility, by default – due to sin. Women get away with it and thus are happy to continue the mess. Even ones who oppose parts of the direction want it there when they want to avoid their own responsibility.
When was the last time anyone has heard a church teach (accurately) on I Pet 3:1-6?
@Moses:
I call those that get too deep into the conspiracy theory parts of the Internet as “excitable”. They aren’t wrong about a lot of things, but they lose track of the reality of a lot of things when they let their mind run too far. It’s also how those in charge can make them spin their wheels into areas where they’ll lose themselves.
There truly are “The Powers That Be”, but they don’t actually hide. They have websites. But they’re also not nearly as clever or smart as they think they are. Which is why their true Master is the one to always keep in mind: the Devil. He’s the power of this world, something far too easily forgotten by Christians. (Echo chambers are real.) But he’s the one that tempts people to believe what they want to believe. And one of the deepest, more easily exploitable Christian temptation is that being a Christian should be “easy”.
In the case of what you’re looking for, I can answer that pretty easily. The Western Church has been in a Religious War for nearly 200 years. And no one has actually noticed. Utopian Socialism is a religion and it’s slaughtered 10s of millions in the last 200 years. In all of its various flavors (Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, Feminism, Cultural Marxism, Progressivism or your favorite “ism”), it’s explicitly anti-Christian because it’s designed to respond to Western Christianity.
But, since Socialism is the construction of Enlightenment era Philosophical thinkers, its approach always starts from “Intellectual thinking”, which is an area that Christians approach as a neutral playing field that they can simply “win”. But that’s not the game they’re playing. They don’t think in terms of actual Truth, but in the way they decide what “truth” is. This is how they infected all of the Institutions. A combination of appeals to Vanity and Logic meant that no one really noticed the problem, as the “problem” is the religion of the mid-wit. It’s the “Emperor’s New Clothes” writ large but run by the Devil. Worked pretty brilliantly, if we’re honest.
Everything has been downstream from that. Old compromises become “tradition” and 60 years later everyone just accepts really stupid decisions because someone made it in the past. The most brilliant way to turn culture against itself. (Granted, Chinese culture has been in a rut for a couple of thousand years for this exact same reason, but that’s another discussion.)
You also have to take in that the 1950s weren’t the height of Western Christianity. It was the height of Western Christian Hypocrisy. The devil managed to convince the Church to believe its own hype. *Never* believe your own press releases or your own hype. (Not that Christians should be in the game of “hype” anyway.) 94% of the US population may have claimed to be Christian, but it doesn’t seem to actually be a drop-off in total Chruch attendance, as a % of the population, since that time. (What’s really happened is the 50% that never attends a church has shifted morality from “Christian-lite” to “Socialist-lite”, and the slaughter that goes with it. 25% of the population is more than enough to take down an entire culture.)
There is notable shifts throughout the last 200 years. (Podles would point out a lot of this goes back much, much further.) The problem is that since the big ones actually happened before anyone alive today was born, it’s hard to see what changed. It’s why the Church always seems to be “stuck on stupid”. Because they are.
Dear Looking Glass:
You write interesting stuff, and I definitely don’t want to discourage you, but there’s a problem in the foundations of your thinking.
1. Socialism didn’t originally erupt as a critique of Christianity, nor is it a result of enlightenment thinking. Christian socialists were some of the most successful political socialists (Marx gives credit to the Anabaptists in Capital, for example). Every time the Hutterites tried to found a worker’s state (in Ukraine, Germany, Holland) the local constabulary felt rightly threatened and broke it up.
2. You have a very depressing teleology, e.g.:
This is almost entirely bullshit; and, if I hadn’t seen you quaitypost here before, I’d assume some feminist was in here running black propaganda. Christians can’t win a debate against feminists? Why can a flamboyantly gay dude named Milo who talks about his immoral habits win so easily? There aren’t any Christians who can get up and do what Milo does? Seriously? Wow, just wow!
Quid veritas est? (Incidentally, didn’t Pilate ask Jesus that?) If you don’t want a boring definition from Tarski, I’d argue that “truth” is a description of reality that corresponds. Christians (and Jews, Atheists, etc.) who are morally upright can easily win the debate game. You guys just don’t have many morally upright Christians willing to get up and debate.
Feminists like to tell people like us that we “can’t win” the debate. They’re growing ever more frantic in trying to convince us all of this, because we are winning, and they know it. As a Marxist, I can tell you why we’re winning. It’s because their ideology is so internally conflicted that it’s collapsing without much effort. Debating feminists is like racing the one-legged. We should all be grateful that the feminists are such shoddy planners, because our side really isn’t doing much fighting.
If Christians feel that they aren’t being properly represented (I’d agree with this) then they should quit giving money to feminist shyster priests, quit going to feminist-infused services, and start electing reasonable, stalwart men to represent them. At this point it doesn’t matter though. Our enemies are imploding under the weight of their own stupidity. All we have to do is sit poolside and try and limit the damage to our own families.
Boxer
Qoheleth, BillyS nailed it. Young men will go a long way on duty and procedure but if there’s never a reward they value then eventually, they’ll decide the Church is exploiting them. Young men want sex, respect, sex, money and probably sex. Extra leadership in the form of a new mentor, no.
Even Christ did not work for free. The Cross was not a one-way street. He purchased us for His future pleasure. Don’t make the mistake the Churchians of the West did and assume men will continue showing up because the rules say they should. The worker is worth his wage.
…
Moses @ 9:09 am:
“After all, Christianity worked very well for thousands of years.”
Well, no. Christianity never had what one could call a Golden Age. Even before Christ, Israel wasn’t a hotbed of devotion, peace and prosperity either. Modern troubles are the worst only by degree. God usually prevents matters from getting this out of hand.
Which makes me believe God is setting the stage for something big. I hate when He does that. It’s like we end up being those NPCs in RPGs, waiting to be rescued from centuries of oppression by a hero who doesn’t stick around in town for an hour. But smart people don’t stand between God and His video games.
There are no matchmakers, godly or not. And bro, stay off those pickup sites. They’re full of ho’s and playas. Even I find them tedious, and haven’t bothered with them in over a year.
Practice talking to people (not just women) in the real world. You can read some game books by Roosh, but you should also try ballroom dance lessons or toastmasters. The local community college probably has public speaking courses on the cheap, and at night.
You meet much better single women in meatspace, and decent women tend to steer clear of dating sites, and making friends with some is much easier than you think.
Men who get divorced ought to also consider something like a dating/relationship moratorium for a few months while they’re clearing their heads and learning to live single. There are lots of unscrupulous women in the world who will see you (a newly single guy) as vulnerable, easy prey. Don’t give them the satisfaction. You’ve already been ripped off once. Take it as a lesson.
Boxer
I have to ask: did this couple immerse themselves in Japanese culture? Did they become fluent in the Japanese language?
Well, my memory is not 100% but as I recall, they had been in Japan for about a decade, I don’t remember if they were fluent in the language.
RE: the rest of your post, I don’t discount the possibility that perhaps they were just incompetent missionaries; but they didn’t come across that way, and their reasoning on Japanese culture, particularly religious culture, made a strong case (at least to me). Perhaps an anomaly.
Another aspect is that single Christian men are viewed with suspicion by their social circle if they express interest in missionary work. People will ask, why does this dude really want to go to some faraway land? Why does he want to be outside our supervision?
Agreed…a secular variant is, “Why does this dude really want to be an elementary school teacher?”
@Boxer & @BillyS
I’ve never used any of the dating websites, but my daughter is soon to be married and she met her husband-to-be on eharmony, and says that she knows many great couples who met through eharmony. My future son-in-law said that it was a miracle that they met through eharmony, because he was in the process of switching over to OKCupid, which he says delivers everything that eharmony promises, but does not actually provide.
He said that OKCupid requires hours of question answering before your application or profile is complete, but once you complete it all, it will match you with very similar people. OKCupid also allows you to see exactly how the other person answered questions that are of critical importance to you. For example, he said that some “Christian” women gave very dodgy answers to the abortion question(s), and he was able to eliminate them without bothering to meet them.
Please take Boxer’s advice and take at least a one year breather after your divorce is final before you start dating again. “Rebound marriages” often end up being far worse than the original marriage. When your mind is no longer consumed with the marriage that failed, you will be able to look at potential new partners more objectively.
@Boxer:
I believe you misread my paragraph, though I can also see where I assumed a lot in the usage of the quotes around “win”.
I’m not saying the debate about the topic can’t be won. I have little problem defending Christian Metaphysics and destroying the Socialist variety. The issue, and my point which I wasn’t that clear, is they infected the Church by playing a bait & switch. What’s one of the staples of Blue-pill thinking from otherwise intelligent Men? “If I can just prove X, then clearly they’ll see the error of their ways!”. We both know that never works with the dishonest.
Thus there was never any “debate” with these people. It’s been intra-cultural war for a very long time, it’s just the battlefield wasn’t invaders at the gates but traitors in the midst. So I would reject that our side is “winning the debate”. We’re winning the “war of ideas”: as, make no mistake, this is a war.
The Church, across the board, never got that. The tools used by the Socialists crept into a lot of places, with everyone playing rearguard. Those that didn’t started up counter-actions, but it was all earnestness & tactics but with constant waywardness from any strategy. The Church, speaking in the collective, never seems to have grasp that a war was started. A very small force managed to take over much of the West because no one realized that a long-form coup was at hand.
There is a deep assumption in most Christians, due to traditions of stupidity, to assume honesty in an adversary. The pre-industrial revolution Christians among the ruling class didn’t catch on that rather than have dinner & drink with the “new thinkers”, they need a stake, wood & a torch. It was never a debate; it was always a war, which they never acted accordingly because the “new thinkers” found the ways to fluff the Vanity of the rulers. Add in the “that seems okay” appeals to “minor” changes, and suddenly Christianity is utterly devoid of the Lord.
That was my point.
Moses says:
January 10, 2017 at 8:24 am
Dalrock, I feel like you have shown modern Christianity is not biblical in the same way that one might show the sea is not above the clouds. Not just in this post, but dozens or scores of times. Your eviscerations are enjoyable to read, but I feel it’s time to move to the next level.
I want to know “What is behind this?” What forces are shaping a world where women are absolved of all agency in attracting a “man” yet feel entitled to the very best of masculinity? Why do so many pastors preach self-serving “Only real man in the room” and belittle men? Who benefits? Who makes money off it? Power?
The forces may be unconscious and spread across millions, but they are there sure as the sea is not above the clouds.
Anyone have ideas on this?
Moses: Dalrock has referred to the Elites several times in his posts, and I believe him. Consider “the Elites” – as the holders of the Corporate World. They don’t control everything, just what matters, like Finance, Politics, Law, Courts, Media and Entertainment. Both Red and Blue political parties are beholden to them as they pay both sides of politics to be corrupt. This means that when vote you will be able to change the faces, but not the policies, because the policies suit them. They do so, so that nothing for them changes.
How do they benefit from the Feminist / Sex/ Divorce Revolutions? Simple. As one of their puppets Margaret Thatcher said,, “There is no such thing as Society. Only individuals after economic gain”. Thatcher was not elaborating on her version of conservatism. She was talking about the Elites.
The Elites want a world of individuals with no race, no attachments, no churches, no unions, no associations, no culture, no history, no family and now even, no gender. Think of The Unsullied in Game of Thrones.They want a bunch of brown asexual people that they can slot into the Corporate/ Military Industrial Complex for lower and lower wages. Being individuals with nothing to fight for, they will accept it, especially when fake Bread and Circuses is used to tell them they should be happy – 100% happy, 100% of the time.
Women are “liberated” so that they aren’t beholden to husbands. Then they can work, be taxed more and spend more – for the Elites. Children aren’t raised in families, but in nurseries and schools where they can start absorbing Elite brainwashing sooner, apart from the values of their parents.
Far from Liberalism being the Progressive Agenda to maximize individual freedom, it is rapidly showing itself as a system to enslave us all.
Dear Looking Glass:
It is entirely possible that I misread your paragraph. Let’s see if we can reach some consensus, though.
Either you’re (again) replaying a feminist theme, in advocating a duty to convince feminists, or you’re speaking ironically.
Milo is an example of how feminists are irrelevant. You’re right, they’re dishonest, and they’ll never agree with us no matter how many sound points we make. So what? Feminists and SJW fags are a lost cause, anyway.
Milo wins because he gets feminists into an argument and then appeals to the audience, which does matter, and which knows that feminists are full of beans. He wins his appeal to the audience by spouting truth (or “truth”) — truth being those propositions that correspond to empirical data.
If you’re making your assertion ironically, in an attempt to communicate a certain futility in relying on Christian leaders who appeal to the feminists rather than to the audience (i.e. the general public) then it was indeed my mistake.
I still disagree with your general pessimism. I understand it, but I don’t think it is useful, and it also doesn’t reflect reality. The feminists love it when we are dejected, because they get to run their scam a bit more freely in that environment. We should be cheerful as they continue to self destruct. Better days are indeed on the horizon.
Boxer
I probably should take some time off Laura and Boxer, but I expect I will just remain single if I do that for any traditional time. I want a unicorn (and will wait for one), so that may happen no matter what.
I am not going to rush either though. I am working to make connections and will consider other interesting activities. The problem is that some of the hobbies I have do not have many attractive women in them, sometimes due to their geeky nature. I definitely don’t want to do something I don’t have a draw to already just to meet someone. Staying single is more appealing in that case.
I just realized my church has a singles group, so I will probably check that out when I am truly single, at least for others with similar beliefs.
Slightly off-topic, but… Trump doesn’t win by kissing CNN’s butt.
Pingback: Your daughter probably isn’t that special. – Adam Piggott
There is an interesting channel on YouTube, personally, the most eye opening and gives a perspective on the ignorant or the uneducated across men in the world. Looks matter, everything else are bonuses, especially wealth.
FACEandLMS
https://www.youtube.com/user/FACEandLMS/videos
Pingback: Why the Blame Game Doesn’t Work | Living in Anglo-America
@Dalrock
“I’m not in a position to comment on how true this might be for Eastern Europe. Given the large differences in our recent histories, what I’m describing in the West could well not apply. Can you comment on the way that Christian leaders in Eastern Europe approach the topics we are discussing? Is the attitude of Piper, Prager, etc. common there?”
First, apologies for the late answer, I have been busy recently.
I live in a former communist country, and until the mid 90s, foreign christian books were not available here, and most (more than 95%) of the conservative pastors can not or hardly can read a foreign language – if they are able to do it, their main language is German, not English. Therefore, they know the name of Piper (and other famous Christian authors), but they are mostly ignorant about their teaching.
Also, there is a sort of aversion (openly) against “American” churches that is attributable (1) different roots (German-Dutch) of the local churches and the (2) bad news we receive about the Christianity in America.
About 30 years ago (remember, we had communism, so we were pretty much sealed from the outside Christian word), there was a common, say, misconception said: “You’re not supposed to approach a girl/date with a boy, unless God specifically told you so.” It did no good, and ruined the healthy relationship between the church members of the opposite sexes. Some senior church leader later admitted the mistake, but I belive the negative effects still linger.
Now, I’ll do my best to answer your question:
1. Re: Male missionaries. I’ve heard a complaint from leaders of several of mission organizations that most of the applicants treat mission work as a confortable job without stress, and with a very good and stable salary. (Please note, I make around USD 2000/month, and I am VERY well paid by local standards.) So I see several missionaries here, but seeing most of them I have a feeling that they choose to flee from the stress of the competitve sphere, and I don’t really see any substantial work they do.
2. Re: Attitude of abundance: I belive pastors see that there are a large heap of umarried women in the church, but still can’t see the reason for it. (Remember, when they were young, there was an entirely different attitude between the sexes. They can not understand the new situation. So this problem – I belive – is not substantionally addressed)
Also, I do not know the situation in the States, but I see a sad phenomena here. Churches are great places for idiots, who are not good enough for a success in a nice wordly job, instead they fight for good positions in the church. They are disturbing and pathetic, and I understand that they make ordinary men unconfortable.
Is there a cult for strong single mothers here? I don’t think so. Financial support for them? Not really.
@BillyS and @Gunner Q
Sorry guys, I still do not get you.
1. Do you pay tithe? If yes, it means that you work for free in your job. (Because you won’t be able to spend the money.)
“A useful exercise would be to sit down and note reasons so many women participate in the activity. Everyone is getting something out of it. Consistency with one’s beliefs can be a part of that, but it is usually even more connected to reality.”
I am fully aware that most people do these works for various reasons, and I see it as a huge problem. (This is pretty much red herring here, so I won’t elaborate.)
“Are young men who participate in such activities complemented on that later? Does it help them in any practical way beyond vague “self improvement”? What long term results do they get to see from their interaction?”
Why a christian should serve the Lord? Please tell me.
Thanks Qoheleth
Pingback: Stop telling women that God will give them a husband later if they delay marriage now | WINTERY KNIGHT
Qoheleth,
It would help to have context on your question then. You seem to have a different background than most here, but the principle we are discussing remains the same:
Individuals do things they believe are worthwhile. That may be for a spiritual cause (because it is a good thing to do), but even that has to be tied to some reality in a reasonable time frame or it will not continue.
Too many men today are expected to do things like serve in the church, yet can be maligned, divorced, ignored, etc. for almost any reason. The results are not just missing, they are counterproductive. I do much of what I do because I believe it is what my Lord wants, but much wanted by the modern church has minimal connection to what the Lord of the Church has written.
Does this help?
“Why a christian should serve the Lord? Please tell me.”
I missed your 1/18 post. The young men of your church are not supposed to serve you. YOU are supposed to serve THEM and place their success above your own. This is Christ’s command and example in the Last Supper: the strong help the weak to succeed. “Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.” Luke 22:25-27
So, what reward do the young men in your church receive for trying to be good? If nothing then you punish them for serving God and teach them that God lied in Lev. 19:13, Luke 10:7, 1 Tim. 5:18 and James 5:4.
What are you wasting effort on, if God’s own children are the last to benefit from your leadership? Were the Jews the last to benefit from Jesus?
“Do you pay tithe? If yes, it means that you work for free in your job.”
Wrong. When I tithe, it is my choice not my duty. money, spent as see fit. 2 Cor. 9:7.
Pingback: She doesn’t need a man. Why hasn’t God sent her a husband? | Dalrock
Pingback: Stop telling women that God will give them husbands later if they delay marriage now | WINTERY KNIGHT
Pingback: A shortage doesn’t indicate a buyer’s market. | Dalrock
“Keep being good men for long enough, and eventually women will tire of the bad boys and find your nice guy qualities irresistible, even sexy! ”
Yippie, what a nice program!
Pingback: She did her part, but the man didn’t man up. | Dalrock
Pingback: What it would look like if the Kendrick brothers made razor blade commercials. | Dalrock
Pingback: Are good men hard to find? | Truth and Tolerance