Back in 2009 Dr. Wayne Grudem wrote a piece titled Personal Reflections on the History of CBMW and the State of the Gender Debate*. Grudem first became involved with the topic in 1979 after reading an article in Christianity Today by Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen:
[The] article was titled, “Does male dominance tarnish our translations?” They argued that the Greek word kephalē (literally, “head”) often means “source” but never “authority,” so that “the husband is the head of the wife” (Eph 5:23; cf. also 1 Cor 11:3) means “the husband is the source of the wife” and does not have authority over his wife. I thought the argument was wrong, but I didn’t have the time or material at hand to answer it.
Originally Grudem hoped to enlist another scholar to refute this article, but instead he was encouraged to do so himself.
Six years later, in 1985, I published a twenty one-page article in Trinity Journal, “Does kephalē Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’? An Examination of 2,336 Examples”2—examples which took me some time to look up in ancient Greek literature!
However, even though egalitarians couldn’t point to any examples of the word meaning “source”, and despite Grudem showing that it was regularly used to mean authority, egalitarians continued to question the issue. In response, Grudem wrote an even more thorough refutation of this claim:
There were several responses from egalitarians to that twenty-one-page article. So, five years later, in 1990, I published a seventy-page article in Trinity Journal,3 responding to other studies on the meaning of kephalē and showing that there were now over fifty examples where it meant “someone in authority,” or “a leader,” but never an instance where someone is said to be the “head” of someone else and was not in the position of authority over that person. Never.
This of course still didn’t satisfy the egalitarians, because this was never really about a serious disagreement on what the Bible said. This was about feminist rebellion against Scripture, with a minimal effort made to pretend this was a real theological discussion. Unfortunately Grudem still hadn’t figured this out, so he went back and did even more research on the topic and published a third scholarly article:
But there were still more responses, and more people disagreeing. So eleven years after that, in 2001, I published another article, forty-one pages in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, on “The Meaning of kephalē (“Head”): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged.”4
So that’s 132 pages of lexicographical research published in academic journals on one word in the Bible. And these articles spanned sixteen years of my life.
Note that the egalitarians only had to make an unsubstantiated claim, and continue to make the claim despite irrefutable proof to the contrary. By doing so, they managed to tie a scholar like Grudem up for fifteen years. Even after all of this, the organization Grudem founded (CBMW) presents this totally baseless argument as if it has merit.
Grudem makes a strange defense of his choice to keep researching the issue for an additional decade despite having settled the question in his original paper:
Why did I do this? Because it was a crucial word in a crucial verse in a crucial issue. Destroying the meaning “authority over” for kephalē is crucial to the egalitarian argument. If in fact the Bible says in Eph 5:23 that “the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church,” and if head means, as I am convinced it does, “person in position of authority,” then the egalitarian cause is lost. That is because that verse anchors the husband’s headship in the headship of Christ over the church, which is not something culturally variable (and 1 Cor 11:3 makes it parallel to the eternal headship of the Father with respect to the Son in the Trinity). So the egalitarians cannot lose this argument, because if they lose on the meaning of that word, then they have lost their fundamental argument with regard to manhood and womanhood in marriage.
Grudem is clearly an outstanding biblical scholar, which makes this argument all the more striking. Ephesians 5 isn’t the only part of Scripture covering headship and submission. 1 Pet 3 is if anything even stronger at refuting the egalitarian claim, as it says that wives should submit to their husbands even if their husband fails to obey the word. 1 Pet 3 explains that wives are to do this because it is beautiful to God. Since God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, the rooted in the times argument is out from the beginning. Moreover, 1 Pet 3 says wives should submit to their husbands as the holy women did in the past, again, showing that this is not practical advice related to the times as egalitarians so often claim.
The meaning of head in Ephesians 5 is critical not for egalitarians, nor even for traditionalists. Even if head meant “source” in Ephesians 5, the passage still tells wives to submit to their husbands, and it is merely one of many which does so. Egalitarians are lost even if they win this argument, and traditionalists are largely unfazed even if they somehow lost it. On the other hand, the meaning of the word head is critical for complementarians, because complementarians twist themselves into knots to avoid telling wives to submit to their husbands out of a fear of seeming harsh, demeaning, and male supremacist. The only way complementarians can sound traditional while avoiding preaching submission is to focus all of their energies on the responsibility of the husband to act in such a way that his wife naturally wants to submit. This is not the biblical model of marriage, it is the complementarian model of marriage. The closest to a biblical justification for this invention is the word head in Eph 5. This is true despite the fact that even the word headship is discomforting to complementarians, who have coined the term servant leader and focus on cartoonish chivalry.
Even so, Grudem has done a great service by vigorously refuting the spurious claim about head.
Why did I do this? So that commentaries, Greek lexicons, and Bible translations in future generations will accurately teach and translate a crucial verse in the word of God. If head equals “authority over” as has been shown now in over sixty examples, then the ballgame is over. And even today, twenty-four years after my first article, there are still zero examples where a person is called “head” of someone else and is not in authority over that person. Zero.
But as Grudem notes, despite the original claim being made without evidence, and having been thoroughly debunked, the Bible is not (and never was) the issue:
That kind of evidence would normally settle the debate forever in ordinary exegesis of ordinary verses.
But this is not an ordinary verse. Because the evangelical feminists cannot lose this verse, they continue to ignore or deny the evidence. I think that is very significant.
It now seems to me that, for some people in this dispute who have thought through the issue and are committed to the egalitarian cause and have the academic knowledge to evaluate the evidence for themselves, what the Bible says on this question is not decisive. And, sadly, InterVarsity Press (USA), in spite of being given evidence of multiple factual errors in Catherine Kroeger’s article on “head” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters,5 still continues to refuse to make any changes to the article.
Grudem goes on to recount his recollection of the founding of the CBMW. I won’t summarize it here, but you can read it in the linked piece. After the CBMW was founded, Grudem had his second major learning experience with egalitarians. Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) asked for CBMW leadership to meet with them in an effort to find common ground. At CBE’s urging the CBMW created what they expected would be a joint statement on abuse. The CBMW leadership did not seem to understand that feminists are very open that their focus on abuse is about eradicating headship, not on actual abuse. Even worse, the CBE was merely trying to take the CBMW off message, and had no interest in a mutual statement:
As we talked, there seemed to be agreement that one thing we could do together would be for both organizations to agree publicly that abuse within marriage is wrong. So we agreed to work on a joint statement on abuse. After the meeting, Mary Kassian drafted such a statement, and we got some feedback from the CBE people, and we were going to issue it. But, then on October 10, 1994, we received a letter from them saying that their board had considered it, and they would not join with us in the joint statement opposing abuse. I was shocked and disappointed when the letter came. I wondered then if their highest goal in this issue was to be faithful to Scripture above all and stop the horrors of abuse, or was to promote the egalitarian agenda. We ended up publishing the statement ourselves in CBMW NEWS (later renamed The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).
Even after this, Grudem seems to have still expected good faith from egalitarians. In yet another incident, Grudem and the CBMW were assured that the gender neutral version of the NIV had been scrapped:
But just before the meeting began, the IBS issued a statement saying they had “abandoned all plans” for changes in gender-related language in future editions of the NIV. So we thought the controversy was done and the NIV would remain faithful in its translation of gender-related language in the Bible.
Little did we know, however, that the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV had not “abandoned all plans”! Far from it! Unknown to anyone outside their circles, for the next four years the Committee on Bible Translation, apparently with the quiet cooperation of people at Zondervan and the International Bible Society, continued working to produce a gender-neutral NIV. They had publicly “abandoned all plans,” but privately they were going full-steam ahead. Then suddenly in 2001, they announced unilaterally they were abandoning the agreement not to publish gender related changes in the NIV, and they published the TNIV New Testament in 2001 and the whole Bible in 2005.
In his conclusion Grudem says he originally thought the whole feminist rebellion would blow over once he and others carefully explained the correct meaning of Scripture:
I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80s and early 90s when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years. By force of argument, by use of facts, by careful exegesis, by the power of the clear word of God, by the truth, I expected the entire church would be persuaded, the battle for the purity of the church would be won, and egalitarian advocates would be marginalized and have no significant influence. But it has not completely happened yet!
Unspoken in this (and complementarianism at large) is an attitude that Christian feminists are not rebelling against God in a pattern that dates back to the fall, but are the natural reaction to a suddenly harsh generation of Christian men. This is why Grudem and his colleagues repeatedly fell for the feminist ruses, and why to this day they are most concerned with showing how reasonable they are. Grudem has adopted the feminist sin of a wife “being a doormat”, and teaches that it is a Christian sin! This feminist teaching, along with the statement on abuse the CBE tricked them into, is part of the founding charter of the CBMW.
However, Grudem is slowly starting to realize that at least some egalitarians aren’t arguing in good faith:
After that, in 2006, my book Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?6 solidified a new viewpoint for me—the conviction that many evangelical feminists are not going to change their minds or be convinced because, it seems to me, they have repeatedly adopted principles or chosen exegetical decisions that undermine or deny the authority of Scripture. Once that abandoning of scriptural authority comes about, then a movement will not be persuaded by Scripture, and in that case, when the culture is going the other way, they will not ever be persuaded on this issue. That conclusion has affected a lot of what I think about where this controversy is going.
But despite this, it is men who are too strong in their support of biblical headship and submission that Grudem warns complementarians need to forever be on guard against:
(2) Beware the opposite error of male supremacy and dominance. Whenever you fight against one error, those who hold the opposite error will cheer you on and seek to become your allies—but beware. Some will become harsh and demeaning and argumentative, and they will not truly honor women as equals in the sight of God.
*The original article is no longer on the CBMW site, so I have linked to an archived version. You can also find the article in the Spring 2009 Quarterly Journal.
Pingback: Surely they will be reasonable once they see how reasonable *we* are. | @the_arv
This is precisely why I believe complementarians are worse than egalitarians and their ilk. Their twisted thinking flies under the radar as “Christian” but in reality it deceives many.
They try to marry culture with the Bible and Jesus when Christians are supposed to be set apart — holy — from the world.
You can always tell from their resistance to marriage order such as Eph 5, 1 Pet 3, and other male-female relations like 1 Cor 11 (head coverings), 1 Cor 14 (women speaking during Church), 1 Tim 2 (women teaching. having authority over men). As you noted, all goes back to Gen 3.
This was the hardest lesson for Blue-Pill me, that so many experts would argue in bad faith… indeed, that so many, many people use words as weapons not vehicles for truth.
I understand Evil better now… understand why the personal is the political, why liberals are so rabidly intolerant, why Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia. Like Grudem, I spent my youth talking about right and wrong to people who didn’t acknowledge the concept. They took my arguments as personal attacks because from their perspective, I could have had no other reason to disagree with them. All they see are winners and losers, victory and defeat, strong and weak.
This conflation of truth with victory explains almost everything. Particularly their poor grasp of consequences.
TWENTY ONE YEARS of argument – about one word, that everyone knows means “head”. Consider the medical profession. Pediatricians use the word “microcephaly” to describe the tragic case of a newborn child’s head failing to develop. To suggest medically that “cephaly” in this case is “source” is absurd.
It is almost as if church liberals are too stupid to accept the premise that Scripture is translated from ancient documents, translators are accurate and therefore doing their jobs. If you suggested to these same liberals that they cheated at their jobs, there would be froth-at-the-mouth outrage.
and the New International Version of the Bible? I think it an abomination that goes against the clear teaching of Scripture (Rev 22:18).
Which is why you never argue with a woman. They tied him up for twenty one years, never once providing a clear counter-argument for him to work against, whilst providing them clear proof whilst also proving that their counter claim was baseless. Did it work? No, they merely took up twenty one years of his life and he never moved an inch. You don’t argue with women.
This makes them liars and deceivers. He should have called them on it and made a mockery of them.
Well, gee, how did this happen? Churchgoing feminists don’t reason themselves into their positions, not ever. They emotionally adopt a position, and then sometimes will go digging through the Bible to find some quote that they can use as justification.[*] Once they have something or other that they can bend and twist to “prove” their emotions were correct, that’s it, they are done; then it’s “My mind is made up, don’t try to confuse me with facts”.
Let’s not forget that for some of the churchgoing feminists, their emotional position just happens to line up nicely with their social position in church as some sort of leader, or in a few cases it ties in with their “mission” *cough* Rachel Held Evans *cough*. People whose prestige, or income, depends on a particular understanding of Bible quotes are not very likely to reconsider. It’s not in their emotional or financial interest.
Grudrem’s belief that all the feminists really, really were just waiting for a man to show up and explain the Bible to them, that there was no other agenda, it’s touching. Or maybe it’s tetched. But it for sure assumes good faith where there wasn’t any. He is one slow-learner, that’s for sure; most men would have realized what the feminists were up to after the first fandango.
[*] There’s another form this takes, and that’s “Does the Bible really say that?”, which can be seen at CAF and other online fora pretty much every week.
@Anon Reader
Timeless.
It’s really past time to force these people to admit that they either don’t believe that the Bible is the true Word of God, or that if they do, they don’t like what God as to say and have no intention of obeying Him. Their actions scream it; it’s past time that they stopped wasting everyone’s time and insulting everyone’s intelligence and just flat-out said it.
Sometimes I’d like to be able to post memes here. I have several WH40k memes that speak of heresy.
Because that’s what Egalitarians, and to some degree Complementarians, are. If reason does not work, perhaps shame will.
Anonymous Reader
He is one slow-learner, that’s for sure; most men would have realized what the feminists were up to after the first fandango.
feeriker
It’s really past time to force these people to admit that they either don’t believe that the Bible is the true Word of God, or that if they do, they don’t like what God as to say and have no intention of obeying Him.
It’s complicated – as the ethereal “they” say. I know some of these men, not Grudem but men very like him in philosophy and theology. The ones I know truly believe that they believe that the Bible is the real thing. That it is what God has provided for us to understand His character and how we fit in to His creation. They don’t get that they were brought up within the ‘feminine imperative’, and so they continue to serve it. These are ‘blue pill’ men operating in good faith, and leading other good men to their figurative doom in regards to their relationships with women. They don’t think they are subverting the scriptures, and attempts to point that out are met with confusion, dismay, or annoyance. True enough, some of them just want to be the AMOG guy (these are not the ones I know), but many are simply the blind leading the blind.
To see these men is to see myself before Dalrock and you gentlemen filled in the gaps for me. On the one hand I want to be, and remain, angry with them for the damage they are doing. On the other hand I understand why they “don’t get it”, having lived so long like that myself.
Reblogged this on Afro Futurism.
Feminists play out their fantasies on a Trump statue.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/17/topless-sextremist-feminists-grab-trump-model
@ FeministHater “Which is why you never argue with a woman.”
Proverbs 27:15-16 A continual dripping on a very rainy day And a contentious woman are alike; Whoever restrains her restrains the wind, And grasps oil with his right hand.
The christian-feminist is not submissive to the Word of God, she sits as a judge over the Word and so blasphemes the Word (Titus 2:5). You cannot reason with those who have abandoned reason, and you cannot assume good will from those who think that they are the source of good not God.
The complementarians also are loath to use the Word of God when it does not feel right to them. Rather than attack the Word like the egalitarians, they simply gerrymander the verses they don’t like and keep adding to the Word their own viewpoint. That is how a man acting as the head is likely to be accused of abuse, that is why there is such a thing in the church as marital rape, and it is why divorce is acceptable but looking at girly pictures is akin to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and worthy of discipline and of course divorce.
Pingback: Surely they will be reasonable once they see how reasonable *we* are. | Reaction Times
@Anonymous Reader
Grudem’s belief that all the feminists really, really were just waiting for a man to show up and explain the Bible to them, that there was no other agenda, it’s touching. Or maybe it’s tetched. But it for sure assumes good faith where there wasn’t any.
Great analysis. In a roundabout way, I think you can also connect this to something else that caught a lot of “evangelical leaders” off-guard: How many in their congregations (and in particular, the men) turned out to be big supporters of Donald Trump. A lot of professional churchians spent a long time wailing about vulgar and brash the man was. But when leftist agitators crashed his rallies only to have Trump supporters beat them up in response, and the press then called on him to disavow his supporters for their “violence” . . . . well, a lot of us couldn’t help but grin when he responded by saying, “Maybe they should have been roughed up,” before offering to pay the legal defense for his supporters that did the alleged roughing. A leader who’s not afraid to call out his enemies and back his troops as they take the fight to them? How about that!
Contrast that with how you see the so-called “Conservative Christian leaders” behave when confronted with the harpy brigade of angry “evangelical feminists.” These shrews care nothing for Biblical scripture or doctrine, and seek to subvert and corrupt it for their own ends at any opportunity — but you’ll never find any mainstream leader willing to even say this in public. They’ll even go so far as to sound a warning against any who might push back against them and thus cause offense to a “sister in Christ” (yeah, right). Dalrock showed a great example of this with Grudem’s groveling attempt to appeal to the enemies of his faith by preemptively condemning the men who might take headship “into male supremacy.” And here’s a similar demonstration from Russell Moore, who sees the crowd at Jezebel slur one of his supposed “brothers in Christ” as a misogynist . . . . and responds with an appeal to “our feminist friends” about how his religion is really about how men should be serving women. (Link here: http://www.russellmoore.com/2012/09/22/is-tim-tebow-a-chauvinist/ )
The leaders of the modern church can (on occasion) stand up for the right thing, but as of yet they’re completely inept at standing against the wrong thing, and especially against the wrong people. That’s not a problem our opposition has, and if our leaders keep ignoring how many men are completely disgusted by this, they may end up setting the stage for a future that features a lot more leaders like Donald Trump. And maybe this time . . . . in the leadership of the church too.
I hope.
Grudem never learned the utility of burning heretics. For as much of the Christian Wars among Europe were driven by stupidity, it’s hard to now look back and not realize that violently removing heretics is the only actual way to deal with them. Though I can’t fault him too much. We’re all creatures of our environments, and his environment is one that’s both deeply protected and massively influenced by outside forces to the point that seeing the issue is quite difficult.
Through all of this, I’ve come to appreciate the Apostle Paul more and more. The insanity, evil & stupidity we have to deal with is the same now as then.
Contrast that with how you see the so-called “Conservative Christian leaders” behave when confronted with the harpy brigade of angry “evangelical feminists.”
Looks a lot like this. Cast your fave preacher as the Scarecrow (If he only had a brain…).
Am I comparing feminists to flying monkies?
Yes. Yes, I am.
I can’t work up much admiration or sympathy for Grudem spending so much time repeatedly refuting the
egalitarianfeminist take on “head”. Jesus didn’t spend his (very limited) time on Earth arguing with people who weren’t open to the truth.And …. here is what “conservative feminism” looks like: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/opinions/prolife-and-feminist-under-trump-bachiochi-opinion/index.html
Textbook case of being right (in this case about abortion) for very wrong reasons (desire to control male sexuality, control men, and empower women vis-a-vis men — the FI, writ large, in other words, just from the “conservative feminist” perspective).
Of course she’s outnumbered hugely by leftist feminists, but the key is that these exist on a continuum. That continuum includes egalitarian Christians, in many cases, and, in some cases, complementarian Christians as well. It’s all of a cloth, and many of the same ideas percolate around, especially among Christian women.
Head in another word means Master, (Verses: Mat_19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mar_10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
Luk_18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?) as Christ was called Master 3 times and is the Head of the Church, and Husbands are the Head of the Wife and the Master of the Household, thereby further proving that the Master-servant relationship is the foundation of Biblical Christianity, plus what do you call a marriage where both are equally regarded as the head?
A two headed beast, or in classical terms a Polycephaly “Two-headed animals (called bicephalic or dicephalic) and three-headed (tricephalic) animals are the only type of multi-headed creatures seen in the real world, and form by the same process as conjoined twins from monozygotic twin embryos.” Which two headed creatures as an unnatural deviation within the biological realm, how much more so in the theological realm and between the sexes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycephaly (I am well aware Wikipedia is a liberal cesspit)
Nature itself testifies to the fact that two headed creatures cannot survive and the survival of those who are is in now wise a testament to them being normal and natural but the exception from the norm (as most 2 headed creatures die young).
I too admire Gruden for his long-suffering towards those contentious shrews known as feminists and their patsies egalitarians.
My take on the matter, wrote it a long time ago and I think the Master of this blog would like it,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzu614mzeg3ocoo/A%20Doctrinal%20Dissertation%20and%20Refutation%20of%20a%20Modern%20Idiom.pdf?dl=0
I know this isn’t the main thrust of the post, but at the very end Grudem says something that I hear from a lot of complimentarians:
Some will become harsh and demeaning and argumentative, and they will not truly honor women as equals in the sight of God.
My focus is the phrase “equals in the sight of God.” The word “equal” is used too carelessly. I can buy-in to God loving male and female believers equally, but I get the feeling this is not what the complimentarians mean. I think they mean equal in privilege, freedom, and authority. The vagueness also might suggest equality in other areas, which is just another way to throw the feminists a bone.
Telling the truth doesn’t always feel good. But, where does the bible say God views men and women as equals? On the other hand, what about those verses about women being the “weaker vessel” and “made in the glory of man?” Might women be inferior to men in a wordly sense? Is it possible God made them that way? These are rhetorical questions.
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” — Mark Twain
Johann Bachmeer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycephaly (I am well aware Wikipedia is a liberal cesspit)
There is an alternative. It improves every day.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Polycephaly
Novaseeker,
Textbook case of being right (in this case about abortion) for very wrong reasons (desire to control male sexuality, control men, and empower women vis-a-vis men — the FI, writ large, in other words, just from the “conservative feminist” perspective).
That is why the people who think they oppose ‘feminism’, even many men in the ‘sphere, have no idea how innate the FI is hardwired into the human mind, due to the primacy given to the scarcer reproductive resource.
Morons who obsess over the difference between different ‘waves’ of feminism, or who think ‘feminism’ only began in 1858 in Seneca Falls, or who think there would be no ‘feminism’ if not for an ethno-religious group that is just 2% of the population, commit the sins of :
i) Being US-centric
ii) Being ignorant of biology and evo-psych
iii) Being ignorant of history, mythology, and how war casualties tallied up by gender.
The FI is older than humans itself. The brains of both men and women are hardwired to place female well-being above male well-being. This is true even under Islam. This human trait is only now beginning to be obsolete.
Slightly off-topic, but I was reading my Bible today and came across more proof that a woman’s sexual sin is entirely her own fault. Apologies if this passage has already been posted by others.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers+5%3A12-31&version=KJV
Numbers 5:12-31 (just verses 12, 13a and 31 abridged):
“If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled… Then shall the man [husband] be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.”
@Pariah,
Oh, but that’s Old Testament, dontcha know. We’re not under the old law any more — we’re under the law of love! Which means that whatever happens, it’s all the man’s fault!
Yes, that’s sarcasm. But since feminists (both male and female) have no problem interpreting “head” to mean “not head”, you can be certain that any appeal to OT scripture will be summarily dismissed.
“Feminists play out their fantasies on a Trump statue”
Two thoughts:
1) Why are these topless protesters always fat and ugly?
2) Why are they protesting? I mean, no one would ever grope them.
1) Why are these topless protesters always fat and ugly?
2) Why are they protesting? I mean, no one would ever grope them.
These questions have been addressed countless times in the ‘sphere. Read up, and the answers will be found..
@ Splashman
“Oh, but that’s Old Testament, dontcha know. We’re not under the old law any more — we’re under the law of love! Which means that whatever happens, it’s all the man’s fault!
Yes, that’s sarcasm. But since feminists (both male and female) have no problem interpreting “head” to mean “not head”, you can be certain that any appeal to OT scripture will be summarily dismissed.”
Indeed.
I’ve already reached the point where I’ve mostly stopped caring about people who twist the straight-forward meaning of scriptures. If they want to reject the truth, then so be it. We all have to stand before God and give an account of what we did with the life we were given.
An awesome but also disturbing post, thank you. Great for the work and insight Dalrock did, but disturbing for the content and exposure of Grudem. Its a post that stuck with me after a night of sleep because something about Grudem’s response is very twisted. My church teaches me to exalt middle class values and so a bible academic is at the top of the esteem-pole, but it seems like a string of actions that should end in a statement of repentance, not an explanation. He could have written that he is resigning because he is too dense to be in authority, and that would have been less disturbing than what he did write. It is as if he is a Trojan horse, coming to a city full of soft Christians saying that he has a great gift. We ask what, and he replies he is bringing the defeat of hateful anti Christian usurpers. We say great, come in, but he ends up slaying the men and binding up the ones he doesn’t kill. Just like his Trump denunciation, Christian leaders only have one fight in them, and that is against Christian husbands exercising authority over their families in a way that conflicts with the politeness of middle class values. Praise be to Mr. Rogers, our model Christian (from the PBS TV show).
This is fantastic bit of work, D.
During those years I was immersed in the “fight” you write about here, but never once heard of these people. What you are describing, however, explains a lot about what was going on in protestant circles re: headship at the time and why those of us who wanted to just get on with obeying the plain language could never get out in front of this.
The scholars were doing their best to argue for the truth, and were completely unprepared for the fact that their opponents were not operating in good faith.
That’s why it felt like the ground was shaking beneath our feet but we couldn’t see who was doing the shaking. Most rank and file protestants (and even those of us who were studying in seminaries) don’t always pay attention to this stuff.
The Christian wife is told to REVERENCE her husband.
Bruce, the word “reverence” should be translated “fear.” The same Greek word is used for “fear the Lord.”
@ Frank K says:
January 18, 2017 at 12:16 am
“Two thoughts:
1) Why are these topless protesters always fat and ugly?
2) Why are they protesting? I mean, no one would ever grope them.”
I’ll answer the second question. Like I said, they’re playing out their fantasies. They WANT to be desirable enough to a high-status, male authority figure like Donald Trump that he would “grab them by the pussy”. They also WANT to grab back because they find high-status, male authority figures irresistible.
But they know (instinctively, not consciously) that they aren’t, and therefore they can’t. They also can’t admit to their desire because that would mean admitting that they aren’t desirable. So, they act out their fantasies on a statue (the closest thing they’ll ever get to real life), while protesting too much that what they want ins’t what they really want.
Have you ever had an angry toddler ask you for something, then pretend they don’t want what they asked for? It’s kind of like that, except that it’s understandable in a 2-year-old, not so much in an adult.
I’ll let someone else handle the first question.
Sarah, in her heart, called her husband “master.” This is the same Hebrew used of Abraham’s servant when we spoke of “my master Abraham.”
WRT Frank K on January 18, 2017 at 12:16 am, and Oscar on January 18, 2017 at 8:15 am — you have to remember the adage that women (particularly those who are raised in a permissive or feminist environment without any restrictions) are very much like children, particularly in the manner that what they both vociferously want most, are those things that they cannot have (or should not have), for the simple reason that those things are ultimately unhealthy for or harmful to them, or dangerous to others.
For the proof of this, we only have to see the behavior of feminism-influenced women in Western societies for the last fifty years, and especially the results of that behavior.
Attractive women don’t need to spend time as protesters since they are busy with real life?
Frank K @ 12:16 am:
“1) Why are these topless protesters always fat and ugly?”
Most people look fat and ugly without clothes. I knew a freshman in college who couldn’t hit the local nude beach fast enough. Came back quiet and pale. He was expecting foxy chicks and found vacationing European old farts.
Pingback: An educated guess. | Dalrock
I guess what we learn is that even the Word of God is not immune from O’Sullivan’s Law:
“All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”
Every Jewish prophet warns against this movement of history.
@ Damn Crackers
Entropy is not just a property of the physical universe. In fact, God gave us the properties of the natural universe to help us understand the properties of the spiritual universe.
Why would we ever expect mere arguments to overcome Satan? He never quits and he wants to pervert and destroy any Christian faith and teaching. Satan is overcome by the power of Christ, not by lexicons and exegesis.
“Beware the opposite error of male supremacy and dominance. Whenever you fight against one error, those who hold the opposite error will cheer you on and seek to become your allies—but beware. Some will become harsh and demeaning and argumentative, and they will not truly honor women as equals in the sight of God.”
So is this talking about – the Christian manosphere? Dalrock? Who are they afraid of exactly? Other Bible translators who have Ephesians 5:22 read “Wives, kneel and grovel before your superior masters.”? Total straw man argument.
Once upon a time there was an “Alpha pope” like Pius XI
He was the first man to climb Mont Blanc’s Italian side (along with a friend of his’, when he as only a priest).
He was one of the few men who dared to publicly condemn nazism.
He was super-clear about marriage.
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/pius-xi-insensitive-on-women-issues/
I bet he could have been friend with our friend Dalrock.
Of course only Christ can defeat the Devil, but the lexicons and exegesis serve a purpose (Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.) God will in due time destroy the Devil and all who serve him (Pro 11:21 Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered., Pro 16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.) but till that time afore appointed when he gathers all that he has raised up (Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.) and destroys them all on that day (Isa 24:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth., Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.) the exegesis serves as a light against them and if they harden themselves against it, then that is their lot (they do it of themselves, but is also wherewith they were appointed).
For as much as egalitarians and complementarians rebel against the plain fact stated (that Head is Lord or Master in a different word) in so doing they are hardening their heart against the plain truth and the fact that they harden their heart is evidence that to them it has not been given them to receive the light of the plain truth that man is to rule over women and husbands over wives by defacto divine right to show forth an example of how God rules over man.
Therefore keep proclaiming the fact that men are to rule over women, and husbands over their wives, all it will do is cause wailing and gnashing of teeth in this present generation of “Christians” till they either submit to the truth (if it is given them) or they harden their hearts to the point where the only thing left is just slavery under a tyrant or death.
“Beware the opposite error of male supremacy and dominance.”
After spending nearly two decades fighting with egalitarian feminists on this issue and finding how untrustworthy, manipulative, and ideological they were, he should have come to the conclusion that maybe the problem doesn’t have a corresponding opposite. If it did, one would expect that Grudem would address it at a scholarly level. But he has not.
This whole situation is parallel with the LGBTAlphabetSoup movement. It doesn’t matter what Scripture, reason, tradition, biology, philosophy, or any other potential authority says. The ideology wins. The efforts to blur the distinctions between men and women started with feminism, but they’ve evolved into something (somehow) even worse.
@Dal, sorry it’s OT, but damn, you’re missing some gold here:
https://markdriscoll.org/how-to-have-a-godly-fight-with-your-spouse/
In the conflict between beliefs, even ones not deeply held, belief always trump facts. More and more for those who have wea reason
This has been a problem recognized by some since Socrates
@Daniel,
Yes, in her heart — meaning, she wasn’t just mouthing the words. She related to him as servant to master — that was the basis of their relationship. She obeyed him, even when he was being a cowardly jerk, and even when doing so put herself in harm’s way. In 1 Peter 3, God tells us that Sarah is an example for all women.
Of course, churchians easily explain away these verses and concepts. Patriarchy, dontcha know.
Dalrock et al……
There has been note in this regarding the always present caveat warning men not to be “harsh demeaning and argumentative”. While I understand that some (many…most?) will do this to sort of soften the punch of a strong stand on biblical headship, how do we address the harshness of unbiblical headship without seeming trollish?
The Bible calls each gender out on their issues. Husbands shouldn’t treat their wives harshly, wives shouldn’t show disrespect or rebellion. But in practice, it seems to become one sided. Can’t really stand for biblical submission and headship without being labeled misogynistic and can’t really stand for accountability of that headship without being labeled a feminist.
Just looking for feedback that accurately promotes the unbending expectation of biblical submission as unto the lord and the enormous responsibility of the biblical headship.
Hose_B, I think about that alot.
Here’s the best I have been able to come up with, as far as what right looks like (and I have used this example elsewhere but I don’t remember where).
In my church, if I go to my priest and say “Father, I made a unilateral decision about X and it failed to pan out” he does not challenge my authority to make that decision.
Rather, he will say “well, lets look at what went wrong with your reasoning/discernment.” He will confront me with the sins associated with stewardship, etc.
But the presupposition is that I had every right to make the decision in the first place
This is enormous.
On the other hand, if my wife goes to him and says “Scott made a decision and it turned out to be a horrible one. I resent him for the error he made and I am having trouble trusting/respecting him” he will respond by helping her with the sin she has brought to him, not say “well, that Scott is a rascal and should not be ordering you around!
Now, I realize that not everyone here is in a confessional faith tradition. And even those who are are not likely to find that kind of leadership. Mychael and I are lucky that way.
But church leadership would be correct if it handled things this way.
Scott: Wow, assuming your assumptions (yeah yeah) about what your priest’s actions would be in the hypothetical examples you gave are correct, that is a fantastic example of leadership. A leader who chooses to focus on what the Bible actually identifies as sin, rather than on the made-up sins that are preached by our culture, is to be commended.
Plus, in your hypothetical example, the priest is focusing on the sin of the person with whom he is speaking, rather than gossiping about another who is absent. Why is it that “mature” Christians have no problem with gossip in the guise of “Christian concern”?
Since I can control only my own actions, surely you should speak to me about my sins rather than the sins of my spouse/friend/whoever.
25-year-old teacher (and single mother) has sex with 13-year-old student. Teacher gets pregnant, then has abortion to hide the affair. She’s sentenced to 10 years: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/34273159/teacher-gets-10-years-for-sex-with-student
Teacher’s 6-year-old daughter got to calling the 13-year-old lover boy, “daddy.”
I’m guessing from the above that the teacher was a single mother, as there as no real daddy around for the daughter to look up to.
Pingback: How Can Christian Schools Shine in a “Doubling Down” World? | theology like a child
Dale, to be precise, they aren’t assumptions. That’s how it goes with him.
When I read through some of what Grudem was writing (and he argues that he thought the issue would go away in 10 years) my thought is this is what he had in mind.
Further on Hose_Bs point–It is been explored so much here that I don’t want to belabor it too much. But since Duluth is now solidly a part of most of Christian theology (it’s like a new testament book now) “headship” as discussed here is all considered abuse therefore, we find the problem you brought up. You cannot talk about headship in most circles without all the caveats about not being overbearing, and being a “servant leader” and “Jesus washed his disciples feet” etc.
And so I suppose that a sea change must occur within the clergy and I have no idea how to go about causing it. That sea change would include a rejection of the all-headship-is-the-equivalent-of-abuse doctrine and then the presumption that what husbands are doing at home is within their roles as husbands. The burden of “proof” if you will, that something egregious is going on would be a very high bar.
Under the current regime, I would never discuss an issue where my leadership failed with clergy (unless he was like the one I have now) and this is a shame. Fellowship between you and your pastor is severed under those circumstances. If you can’t go to your spiritual father and say “shoot. I made a mistake leading. What do you think went wrong?” for fear that he will just tell you what a monster you are, then its not really church.
People should just stick to the only seven-times purified non-perversion ‘version’ of the Holy Bible – The King Jesus Bible (King James). They’d save themselves a lot of confusion, babel, and heartache.
And to jump back in here for just a second. Those very same pastors and priests who only know to say “you are an abusive husband for making unilateral decisions” wouldn’t know how to give different counsel anyway. For they themselves have been raised in a feminized society, a feminized church, and even if just one was reading this and thought “wow, maybe I need to help encourage the men of my congregation in this way” don’t know where to start.
I wouldn’t trust the average pastor to help me make sound, rational loving decisions about my family.
Offtopic, but this article is worth some discussion.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/why-your-risk-for-divorce-is-probably-lower-than-you-think/
Basic take away, UMC low divorce rate, low class super high. Marry a slut – bad for your marriage chances, get married too young, bad chances. And they agree the divorce rate is probably about 45% overall.
@Red Pill Latecomer
Most crazy part of story – the mom of 13 yo supports the relationship. No fathers in sight and women descend into barbarism.
People should just stick to the only seven-times purified non-perversion ‘version’ of the Holy Bible – The King Jesus Bible (King James). They’d save themselves a lot of confusion, babel, and heartache.
It makes perfect sense that the KJV, a version written in an era when words had both meaning and force, would lose out today in favor of versions full of weasely fluff written at a Fourth Grade level. Most of today’s new English versions are to the Bible what USAToday is to newspapers: shallow pablum written for the lazy and marginally literate.
@Rollo
Classic Driscoll.
Sometimes a couple simply cannot come to an agreement on an important issue, and it affects their oneness and unity, possibly including their sexuality. In such circumstances humble servants need to ask whether or not the issue is rally worth holding their ground on, or if in love with a clear conscience they can defer to their spouses. And, if they think the issue is important enough to retain their contrary position, they need to seek outside authority. The couple needs to agree on a godly authority (for example, a pastor or biblical counselor) to whom they will each present their case, allowing that mediator to make a decision for them that they will then submit to…In short, when all else fails, get a referee and let him make the call.
So, to be clear, if a husband and wife cannot come to agreement, and the wife is withholding sex as a result, then go to Mark Driscoll and install him in the husband role with the powers/privileges that role provides. Mark Driscoll will then make the final decision, and both husband and wife will submit to his leadership.
Conveniently, there isn’t a single bible verse quoted in that entire blog post.
Also, see: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/complementarian-threesome-meet-the-new-man-of-the-house/
“Beware the opposite error of male supremacy and dominance.”
What on earth does he mean. How is male supremacy and dominance differentiated from headship, covenant representation, bearing the image and glory of God as opposed to merely the image of man (1 Cor 11:7), ruling his household well, the idea expressed in 1 Corinthians 11:9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man, the command for wifely submission and obedience in all things as to the Lord, the command for the husband to sanctify his wife with the washing and watering of the Word, the differences in the law concerning male and female sexual history (Deut. 22:5ff et al) and Paul’s likening of a husband to Christ and a wife to the church. Is Christ not dominant and supreme to the Church? What does Grudem mean? Seems like he despises Biblical patriarchy but doesn’t have scholarship on his side so he makes vague charges meant to weaken patriarchy and appease the women he worships.
Is Christ not dominant and supreme to the Church?
Only as long as He doesn’t contradict the FI. The second He does, He’s out the door and into the street.
“The King Jesus Bible (King James)”
Hasn’t Ye Olde Englishe qualified as a foreign language yet? Reading KJV is more translating than reading… this from an avid reader.
@Kevin,
That article is proof of the adage “there are lies, bald-faced lies and statistics”. It’s chock-full of spin and fallacies. I particularly like its assumption that divorce is caused in part by smoking habits… and this glorious quote by Stanton, “While the 40-50 percent divorce risk number is indeed correct, it actually applies to no one.”
Pingback: God is a god of order [Isaiah 45] | Dark Brightness
Stanton also doesn’t address the reality that the marriage rate is falling overall.
Yes, we know that if you are college educated and you’re disciplined and so on, your divorce risk is lower. But you can’t really design a social system of marriage around the successful people with the successful traits — of course they’re going to be successful in marriage more commonly because they’re successful at everything else more commonly, too. They just have success-oriented traits. If the system of marriage is designed around them (and I believe that the current system of mating and marriage is quite obviously designed around the prerogatives and traits of the most successful in the society), then of course it won’t work very well for pretty much everyone else.
@Kevin
My grandfather might have called that “Whistling past the graveyard”. Agree with GunnerQ’s takedown and Novaseekers analysis. You might want to search this site for other discussions of Glenn Stanton’s pedestalization of women and his huge blind spots.
@Novaseeker
Stanton also doesn’t address the reality that the marriage rate is falling overall.
Also couldn’t help but notice that when he compiled his list of “personal factors” that lower your risk of divorce, he left off maybe the key precaution to take: Be married to a man, since after all, over %70 of all divorces are initiated by women, and the majority of those are no-fault. Unfortunately, that’s an option only available for the women and not the men (unless, of course, you happen to be gay).
@Gunner Q
For almost all statistics the proportion at the exact statistical mean is zero or close to zero. Stanton is technically correct and is simply speaking academic demographer speak. He makes no causal claims about smoking. Many of the things he reports are likely confounded but the report on smoking is multivariate adjusted for a bunch of stuff he also quotes suggesting they are independent.
As always, the best way to never get divorced, having a 100% success rate, is not to get married.
@Novaseeker
Stanton might be wrong about many things, but his analysis is simply descriptive and consistent and supportive of other things Dalrock has posted, whether or not he appreciates the underlying causes or problems. I view it as good news that many of the potential threats to marriage are recognized even by those who cannot admit the structural problems. You guys are expecting him to address a ton of issues beyond what his article addresses. For what it does address it is correct. It does not address the marriage rate is falling, but it also does not address alimony laws, covenant marriage laws, cross racial marriage, and so forth. Not every article is a comprehensive analysis of marriage.
I agree that marriage as we currently have it is not great and an institution that only caters to the most successful cannot be the bedrock of society. Another way to think about it, is that in a hostile environment towards marriage with terrible incentives, what features might put people at increasing risk of your wife divorcing you? Strong conviction to marriage, strong religion, and marrying a virgin will get you a relatively expected low divorce rate. Even the most poor can do that, but only those morally grounded will.
Strong conviction to marriage, strong religion, and marrying a virgin will get you a relatively expected low divorce rate.
If we take this to mean a woman with strong conviction to marriage, strong religion, and virgin until marriage; then we are entering sparsely populated territory. Bring your own provisions. Maybe such women are not necessarily unicorns yet, but they must be on the critically endangered species list by now. If a man can find and marry one he has succeeded in achieving “relatively low divorce rate” status. It’s a jungle out there.
Kevin
Stanton might be wrong about many things, but his analysis is simply descriptive and consistent and supportive of other things Dalrock has posted, whether or not he appreciates the underlying causes or problems
You might have a point if there did not exist a multi-year record of Glen Stanton’s failures to address any of the substantive issues driving divorce. Focus on the Family is just another “blame men” feminized organization, and Stanton is a woman-pedestalizer from way back.
Put it another way for you. Remember the Good Samaratan? Remember the Jews who saw the robbery victim in a ditch, who hurried away rather than help him? That’s Glen Stanton right there: crossing the road to get far away from yet another frivorced man about to stick a gun in his mouth.
His analysis is a regurgitation of stale talking points and nothing more. He returns to that pool from time to time.
Scott says:
January 19, 2017 at 7:59 am
And to jump back in here for just a second. Those very same pastors and priests who only know to say “you are an abusive husband for making unilateral decisions” wouldn’t know how to give different counsel anyway. For they themselves have been raised in a feminized society, a feminized church, and even if just one was reading this and thought “wow, maybe I need to help encourage the men of my congregation in this way” don’t know where to start.
I wouldn’t trust the average pastor to help me make sound, rational loving decisions about my family.
And that’s the point Scott: No one knows your family as well as you, because you made it. You made it when you proposed. When you proposed, you brought that family into being. When you brought that family into being, the social contract was that you would be the husband ( a word also meaning “manager” – as in ”Animal Husbandry”*, a scientific study) and the woman to whom you proposed would be your wife.
Today’s woman however is good at getting married, then doing a bait-and-switch routine to flick the switch to entitled laziness. Pastors, who only see the couple on weekends mostly, don’t know but for the sake of peace, will side with the woman.
Is there any Scriptural command or precedent for a pastor to have the role of adjudicator in a family dispute? I don’t know of any.
*Universities now call it “Animal Management” , a more politically palatable term.
The problem is that Stanton is rehashing the obvious, really, while sweeping under the rug. Basically he’s advocating marriage, of course, by claiming it isn’t risky unless you’re messed up as a person, but really there aren’t very many nearly perfect people in the world. So, yeah, if you’re close to being perfect and marry someone who is close to being perfect, your odds of divorce decrease dramatically — gee whiz, who knew? I don’t see this as being helpful in the least when dealing with the problems of marriage today, because it just reinforces the idea that there’s nothing wrong with the culture of marriage, the legal system around marriage, or anything else, other than YOU. YOU are the problem with marriage. That’s his view, and it’s stated in many places over many years, and frankly he’s wrong.
Spike-
I understand. But, I didn’t really mean this:
Is there any Scriptural command or precedent for a pastor to have the role of adjudicator in a family dispute? I don’t know of any.
So I’ll try to re-state. What I am suggesting is that it is OK to go to your priest or pastor as an elder, spiritual leader and ask him for help. They certainly do not stick their nose in if you don’t ask. I am a consumate consulter. I welcome wise council from other, godly men on these matters.
But as I said, the presupposition should be that the positions of man and wife are correctly configured and address only that which has been asked.
Just like most liberal policies, no-fault divorce is a vanity project for upper and middle-class ideologues, to the detriment of the poor, less-educated, less disciplined, disadvantaged, and vulnerable. The bible makes divorce difficult in order to HELP the most flawed people in society persevere in their marriages despite the multitude of problems their flawed-ness creates. The upper classes never needed that help as much because they had the psychological and socioeconomic tools to weather most storms. But, upper class women and their feminist cucks wanted the option to blow up the family if so inclined. Now they use it as a tool for personal advancement. Meanwhile, poor people have been decimated.
As Novaseeker and Anonymous reader stated, Stanton is doing nothing by pointing out the obvious. It’s masturbatory. Courage would mean advocating marriage as a permanent bond, and calling out people who marry divorcees as adulterers. It would mean standing up against the Duluth bullshit that makes it impossible for highly-flawed people to remain married without it being considered an “abusive” relationship. It would mean telling wives to shut up, submit, and see the marriage through.
I Peter 3 teaches women to follow the example of Sarah who _obeyed_ Abraham, calling him lord. It teaches obedience of the wife to the husband.
If your in academia, it makes sense, career-wise to keep churning out publications on the same topic if you can get them published and it is a hot topic.
In terms of influence, some people are more likely to read a new article even if it rehashes old information. So for getting his message across, Grudem’s approach may not be that bad.
For those who find using the Search tool to be difficult to use, here are some past postings about Glenn “single mothers are heroes!” Stanton
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/?s=stanton
PS: I find the idea of advising 20-something men, “Just be UMC” to be even worse than telling the same men “Just be yourself!” in the dating world. There are college graduates out there working 3 part time jobs to get the pay / benefits of 1 full time job. I know, I know, they should just ManUP!
PS: I find the idea of advising 20-something men, “Just be UMC” to be even worse than telling the same men “Just be yourself!” in the dating world. There are college graduates out there working 3 part time jobs to get the pay / benefits of 1 full time job. I know, I know, they should just ManUP!
Yep. And of course the two issues are linked — economics and marriage/mating/sex — for both sexes.
Fact is this, despite any pre-existing ideological commitments: when you liberalize a system and free it up (like we’ve done with much of the economy, like we’ve dome with the SMP/MMP, like we’ve done with marriage), you favor overwhelmingly the strong hands in the game. They become unfettered to not just win, but crush, and do they ever crush. The idea that there are “trickle down” benefits is largely false — are there some of them, sure. The lion’s share, the absolute overwhelming share, of the benefit of liberalizing these things goes to the people who are best positioned to benefit from the liberaliztion and exploit it to maximum effect.
In the MMP, in marriage and in the economy, these are the people with the highest success traits, across the board. That is why we are seeing the massive correlation between economic success and marital success — when you liberalize the systems, the people who have the highest success traits benefit from that, and everyone else … yeah, not so much.
Marriage was successful for more people in the past because the weaker hands had social/legal and economic support for their marriages — support which often was shaming, legal barriers, social ostracism and so on. That is needed for the weaker hands to succeed here. When we removed all of these, the weaker hands folded (often), and the stronger hands survived, which is what happens when you do this. And yet the answer is always this: “well, the weaker hands should become more like the stronger hands, and everything will be awesome for everyone!!!”.
But everyone isn’t — and everyone can’t be — Michael Jordan. There’s the rub.
This isn’t a conservative/progressive issue, it isn’t a GOP/Dems issue, it’s just a human issue and fact that the weak hands in life need support or they will fail and drown, and when you design the system in a way that benefits the strongest hands the most, you can’t be surprised when the weaker hands fail, and you also can’t chide them for failing because they aren’t stronger hands. That’s EXACTLY what Stanton is doing, and it’s both shameful and ignorant, in my opinion.
here are some past postings about Glenn “single mothers are heroes!” Stanton
Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family.
In the old days I would occasionally send money to FoF. Because Focus on the Family, Right? I mean who else was going to stick up for traditional families the way things were going?
*shakes head slowly*
LP. Don’t fret. Many of us used to support this stuff.
Kevin @ 3:22 pm:
“For almost all statistics the proportion at the exact statistical mean is zero or close to zero.”
That’s great. We can risk marriage now because the odds of frivorce almost certainly don’t fall between 49.99% and 50.01%.
“He makes no causal claims about smoking.”
Dude, the subtitle is “How Personal Factors Influence Your Risk of Divorce”.
“Stanton is technically correct and is simply speaking academic demographer speak.”
He isn’t speaking to fellow academics. He’s speaking to ordinary people who don’t understand statistics and are watching marriages crash and burn everywhere, trying to convince them that what they see and hear isn’t real.
The institution of marriage is dying and Stanton’s courageous response is telling young people to be more careful. Dalrock has blogged extensively on this tag-teaming with feminists. Stanton watches the feminists chew you up then warns the next guy to not fail like you did.
Divorce doesn’t happen because couples are smokers or “badly married” or “lack strong personal convictions”. Divorce happens because one of two people stood in front of Almighty God and spat in His face. That is not something that “just happens” or “is risky”, let alone “no-fault”. But you’ll never hear that from the likes of Stanton.
Spike, nor sure if you are still following this thread.
But I was thinking more about this and the only analog I could come up with is likened to the issue of open (or partially concealed/concealed) carry. In some parts of the country, (like where I am) seeing a “regular person” out in public with a gun on their hip (or even just showing itself as your jacket blows up in the wind) is no big deal. But this is a cultural phenomenon. Try that in LA and you will be surrounded by black and whites in a nanosecond. I have lived in both places, trust me.
Likewise, what I am trying to say is that a man saying to his priest (or anyone for that matter) “I told my wife to go back to work for a while until we can pay off her car” would come across like an openly carried revolver in a Texas Walmart–no big deal. But the word “told” in that sentence is like a huge blip on the “abuse!” radar screen.
In order for that to happen, a huge shift in what protestants call “churchian” culture around here would have to change. (We have something similar but I don’t think there is a name for it).
That way, a conversation with someone about what might have gone wrong in such a scenario would be focused on the issue of what went wrong, not the “abusive” relationship dynamic that pastors are now trained to detect. (Many of them have licenses in the mental health professions).
@Novaseeker
You bring up a very good points that is extremely ignored nowadays, firstly: that all liberalizing a system does is give those with a natural advantage (by virtue of birth, status, looks, personality etc) even more of an advantage and those who lack it are left without (such is the case of men doomed to Incel-dom) and are pretty much told to become something they cannot and though they can strive to be like the former yet there is a separation apparent that eventually becomes too clear that those with the advantage are left without excuse.
I will give an (anecdotal though may be) from my own life:
For those who do not wish to read, it can be summed in a single verse: “Pro 18:14 The spirit of a man will sustain his infirmity; but a wounded spirit who can bear?”
(h) The mind can well bear the infirmity of the body, but when the spirit is wounded, it is hard to sustain.
The Tale of 2 Brothers and their Step-Brother
Once there were 3 brothers, all different yet the eldest through no fault of his own was born with a chromosome deletion (bottom bit of the third chromosome) and was thus subject to growing up under a helicopter Mother all because of his natural born weakness.
The younger was born normal and thus was only moderately watched over.
As they grew up it was apparent the younger got all the female attention whilst the older was shy and awkward, the result of the helicopter parenting of the mother.
Try though me may all his effort got him being told that he should just die and was creepy.
Unfortunately his mother divorced and took up with a strange man who had a son.
The elder watched as the younger and step-brother pull girls with dexterous ease, each going through 3-6 (over a period of time) while he was yet to know 1.
Around 17 he suggested an arranged marriage, his entire family laughed at the idea considered it outdated and misogynistic.
He kept trying regardless, sure he was depressed since he was 10, and suicidal since he was 15, he tried and tried, who knows how many approaches he did, all rebuffed.
Finally by 20 unable to bear it any longer he just said to hell with it all, whatever romanticism, idealism he had in his youth was burned out of him.
Yet the younger and the step-brother continued pulling girls oblivious to him and not even willing to help him.
At 23 he discovered a kind Pastor whose preaching could be equated to a threshing floor, it gave him some hope and since he had nothing to lose or gain embraced it wholeheartedly even if his whole family hated it.
At the same time he discovered the Manosphere and what he discovered about women filled him with rage, feeling cheated of what could have been and confirming him to hold fast in his beliefs
Unfortunately having been depressed so long, and not having the gift of able to maintain alone as Paul was able (1Co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that., .1Co 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?) he decided he would commit suicide via natural causes (mainly extreme asceticism and lack of sleep which aggravates the heart murmur and sleep apnea).
At 25 he discovered a kind fellow’s blog named Dalrock and save for divorce agrees with pretty much everything on the blog (at least posted by him).
At 26 his long laid plan is finally about to succeed, better dead at 26 than living 60-80 years an Incel.
THE END
I hate this nation, these people and this culture (though I am in Canada) and it would do well for them to experience a modern Siege of Jerusalem (https://infogalactic.com/info/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(AD_70) ) but I do get a great deal of pleasure reading these passages:
Isa 3:16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:
Isa 3:17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
Isa 3:18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
Isa 3:19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
Isa 3:20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,
Isa 3:21 The rings, and nose jewels,
Isa 3:22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
Isa 3:23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.
Isa 3:24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
Isa 3:25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.
Isa 3:26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.
Women (individually and collectively) will get their just desserts in due time and as for America, as “strong” “safe” and “secure” it purports to be yet it shall fall, either through a brute force sacking not unlike the Siege of Jerusalem or through drunken stupidity not unlike Babylon (which left their rear entrance open and after a drunken revel were equally sacked and massacred).
Num 24:21 And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said, Strong is thy dwellingplace, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock.
Num 24:22 Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.
Num 24:23 And he took up his parable, and said, Alas, who shall live when God doeth this!
At 26 his long laid plan is finally about to succeed, better dead at 26 than living 60-80 years an Incel.
THE END
DO NOT DO THIS.
Talk to someone. Talk to a priest. Call a hotline. There is always hope. One of our themes in the manosphere is that there is always hope, we have power to change ourselves. We cannot change the culture, but we can change ourselves, each within our own limits, and reach things we want to reach. Hang in there, and do not give up. We are all here for you.
@Novaseeker
I thank you, but it is too late for me, besides I have tried do my best and it is not enough though I have a hope in Christ yet I cannot bear the loneliness, I have tried and I do not have it in me to be the asshole, the bad boy, the sort of folk that women like, therefore I am only doing what makes the most logical sense in the long term, and besides I spent years researching the method of the manner of suicide by natural causes (it really is quite simple which is why it took so long to figure it out, fast yourself till you get a heart murmur, aggravate that with lack of sleep then if you have sleep apnea as a pre-existing condition the combination is guaranteed to be fatal, and since the heart murmur causes circulatory problems combined with the lack of food it is really only a matter of time, slow and painful it may be but at least it beats feeling like you are trapped in a hopeless situation that just will not end, unlike women this is no “plea for help” I have done my research and done it well).
As pitiful and wretched as my story was, I am not out for sympathy, I just wanted to elaborate on your point on how some guys get all the women without seeming to try while others, try though they might get nothing, and why the oft touted saying “become like them” rings hollow when not all have the ability to do so or just are not that kind of guy and set myself forth as an example of the very argument you laid out.
I am sorry, I do not have it in me, I have tried but well some of you guys may have had at least some success with women, I have no foundation in that matter or anything to look to to keep me hopeful as I have nothing in that area, only thing I have that I consider worth anything is my intelligence (which is nothing that produces progress but rather able to consider “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” or Dowling’s “History of Romanism” a light read) so unless you consider an ability to comprehend complex theology and a natural understanding of Puritan (AV1611) English a plus I really do not have much, and besides women of this generation hate that kind of intelligence, loathe and revile it. all it has gotten me is constant accusations of being “creepy” without being predicated upon any objective/rational basis (I have had trouble reading subtle body language from my youth up).
Apology for the late reply, I am a fast typist, just do long posts.
Hi Scott – just got back on the thread.
What you describe here is context – concealed versus carry is a good example.
Regarding the role of Pastor, you have every right to consult him as you see fit. Nothing wrong with that, as it is in the context of biblical principle – men follow God (“iron sharpens iron”), women follow men.
What I was alluding to is when there is a dispute intra-family, usually with the wife wanting to pursue some action and the husband opposed – the Pastor becomes an adjudicator, not an advisor. This I can see no biblical basis for.
From the sound of it, the Serbian Orthodox Church you attend is far less squeamish about political correctness. “I told….” doesn’t bat an eyelid, nor should it, if a husband, whose responsibility it is to run the family, deems the finances in a state requiring the wife to work. I have been bankrupted twice by my wife’s failed ventures, so I said the same thing (“I told her to…”) to a group of her friends. I got met with the venomous spit of “Abuse!” feminists are famous for.
Under these circumstances, I don’t see context as an excuse, as indoctrinated women see the woman-woman bond trumping the husband-wife bond.
Johann,
At 26 his long laid plan is finally about to succeed, better dead at 26 than living 60-80 years an Incel.
Dude, absurd.
For one thing, if you just learn how to do three basic things, you will do better with women, relative to money spent, than 90% of men :
i) Learn how to approach women during the daytime and start a conversation.
ii) Learn how to notice Indicators of Interest (IOI).
iii) Learn the basics of escalation, and two-steps-forward, one-step-back seduction.
That is it. While there are more advanced aspects of Game, these THREE things alone will put you vastly ahead of most men. You can be average-shortish, broke, and not that good looking. You can even be Asian. You will still do better with women that most men, and save more money than most men in their dealings with women..
PLUS..
Believe me, by the time you are 40-45, and have accumulated 15+ attractive women as cumulative sexual conquests, you will find women to be far less important. A quiet evening at home with your favorite music and books will be more appealing than going through the motions with all but the most attractive women. Your libido will fall, and very little will seem new, and you will feel amazed that you used to make women such a large part of your sense of self worth. This happens by a man’s 40s if he has experiences 15+ women (which is also why men this age are very attractive to women, since such men can literally exhibit a level detachment/indifference that drives attention-seeking women nuts)…
Johann,
I should also add that we are just ~3 years from VR sex so compelling that that alone is a reason to hang on until then. Don’t kill yourself before even seeing what that is like.
Plus, even if you don’t want to use VR sex (I don’t either, due to eye strain), the presence of it will remove so many other men that if you want to practice real-world Game, your prospects will be far better than today, just due to too many other men opting out for the instant gratification and home-based convenience of VR sex.
To kill yourself 3 years before VR sex is just a waste…
Anon,
I have read quite enough books, in a single weekend (other obligations and duties notwithstanding) I read the entirety of Dowling’s History of Romanism, during my time as an Incel I have studied in my free time (when I had it) Baroque music, how it relates to the Reformation and how it is pretty synonymous with Protestantism and the Reformation, read up on the various books showing the infamous history of the Society of Jesus or Jesuits, since I was young I have read various large works (mainly Poe and Shakespeare), and since 23 I have read the many books, be they Popish or Protestant pertaining to various issues regarding the Faith.
So I am quite intimate and well familiar with books and what is contained therein, besides, flesh and blood or images, VR sounds like a halfway between flesh and blood and not entirely images.
More of a Frankenstein’s Monster VR seems to be in my estimation,, and besides I do not keep up with that stuff, technology has gotten far too ahead for me, and as I keep trying to stress I was merely using my miserable existence to prove an argument of Novaseeker’s and that it was not something that the detractors can easily wipe aside as simply their fault, I was not trying to draw attention to myself, rather show the difference between those who have the natural advantage and those who do not and what better way than between 2 brothers (Jacob and Esau come to mind, technically I did include my step-brother but it was mainly my younger brother who I was jealous of who did not have any problem with women though is quite the rebel vs authority figures).
As real as it is the manner in which I wrote it was in a parabolic form, explicitly to illustrate that point, just as the Rich Man and Lazarus I was aiming to show forth a truth using my life just as Christ used their lives to illustrate his point (He is Lord of Heaven and Earth, so he can use whoever to make his points).
Nothing more.
However miserable the ending may be I have reached the point that unless I can see quantifiable success with women that I can observe and have the theory and practice explained in real time (it is one thing to read about it on a blog, it is another for a true Mentor of Game to explain the theory beforehand, then show it being done then afterwards have it explained in detail what just happened) which can then be reduced into identifiable patterns because as verbose as I am with words I am quite dim when it comes to social cues (IOIs).
I can easily do 1. as talking is easy, cheap and when it is just a random female with nothing that interests me, the problem is with those that have something that interest me (I do confess I have a soft spot for German females).
As for 2. You might as well ask me to recite Gen Chapter 1 of the Jerome’s Latin Vulgate by heart (which I cannot do), I have memorized some of the Mass but that is besides the point.
As for 3, I have read about it on Rollo’s blog and mentioned in The Rational Male, but it is all theory to me, and as many times as I have read it I have no idea how to execute it and if I do no barometer to ascertain whether I have been successful or not.
Regarding the title of the post and general message, my divorce went exactly like this. I was generous and agreeable beyond all reason in attempt to get it over with and move on and admittedly to show how noble and “fair” I was. My attorney, a female who was very aware of the female state, said,
“Your wife thinks you are a big jerk. You want to disprove this and convince her and her cronies that you are not one. It won’t work. She will just think you are a big jerk and a big chump as well. You think she will act in kind, but she will not. She will see weakness and exploit it.”
This was one of the first steps in my awakening. I retracted all of my offers and fought it out and retained my house and now have my youngest son also (the others are grown).
Johann Bachmeer
Don’t cash in your chips this early in the game. We need men like you in the fight. Take Novaseeker’s advice.
I once operated in similar fashion to what I think has happened with you. I took women collectively and placed them at the center of the known universe, defining my self worth based on their impressions of me or actions toward me. It’s a shaky foundation, a job they really don’t want, and it left me alternately angry and dejected. Making any human beings the center of our orbit isn’t going to work, as you no doubt know due to your extensive studies in the faith.
it is too late for me, besides I have tried do my best and it is not enough though I have a hope in Christ yet I cannot bear the loneliness, I have tried and I do not have it in me to be the asshole, the bad boy, the sort of folk that women like, therefore I am only doing what makes the most logical sense in the long term,…
A hope in Christ = Never too late, not alone, and frankly; renders “doing what makes the most logical sense in the long term” – illogical.
Women may like assholes and bad boys, but that is actually not what is called for per se. What they like is the confidence and free wheeling aspects. Non assholes and bad boys can develop this just as well. Some of those sorts of men regularly contribute here, and help others come to a similar peace of mind. I can see you joining those ranks.
Johann seems intelligent enough, though there’s either a deep attempt at trolling or a deep gamma streak that’s crying out for attention. (There’s a fanfiction.net profile of the same name, for instance.) So, I’ll take two approaches.
1) Depression is a nervous system defense function. If you’re sickly, you’re sickly and that needs to be addressed. Get your Endocrine functions checked. Just because you’ve survived, that doesn’t mean a lot. Though if it’s a Chromosome 3 issue, that gets more complex. Your health dictates where your thinking leads. Once the inward spiral begins, it’s very hard to get off of it. But getting off of it is key. That’ll solve a great deal of your problems.
2) Boohoo. For all of the verbiage you’ve tossed out (and, yes, you’re clearly playing for attention), you’re envious of your brothers because you can’t get laid, so you want to pull a Reverend Dimmesdale? Seriously? That’s what we’re talking about here.
Either be a Christian and deal with your health & envy issues or go hire a prostitute. Acting or LARPing as a gamma is fairly pathetic. Deal with the problem head-on. It’s an insult to our Lord to do otherwise.
Strong conviction to marriage, strong religion, and marrying a virgin will get you a relatively expected low divorce rate. Even the most poor can do that, but only those morally grounded will.
Absolutely true, because if there’s one thing our post-modern society has produced in abundance, it’s poor virginal women with a strong conviction to both marriage and religion.
@Looking Glass
“Either be a Christian and deal with your health & envy issues or go hire a prostitute.”
I’d suggest both. Isn’t that legal in Canada anyway?
@Damn Crackers:
Not sure. Though getting cucked by Fidel Castro sure is.
Kevin: No fathers in sight and women descend into barbarism.
I’ve been following the Twitter accounts of three middling, longtime working actresses in their 40s. They’ve each done 100+ films and TV episodes over the decades. None are A-list, though all are reasonably well known within their spheres.
Three actresses — with four divorces among them — in their 40s. All single mothers, (The twice divorced actress has a kid from yet a third former lover.)
Bismark said that those who love sausages and respect the law should never observe either being made. I used to respect these actresses. They always came across as intelligent and dignified in their TV interviews, and played likeable characters.
Their Twitter accounts were an eye-opener. Without a script, they sound like mean, petulant children. Re-tweeting leftist talking points, mindless praise for Obama, Bernie, and Hillary. Spewing hate against “Trumpsters” even as they Tweet about LOVE (in caps). Lots of rainbow flags, praise for LGBT events, and saying they want their children to have the freedom to be whoever they want to be, etc.
They want total freedom, for themselves and their kids, with no judging or responsibility.
Two of these actresses are especially foul-mouthed. LOTS of F-bombs, and mindless gangsta slang like Wurd and “She’s my beotch!” (None of these actresses are black.) I guess these 40 something actresses (two are closer to 50) think using such slang makes them sound hip.
So dignified, likeable, and admirable on TV. So childish, hateful, stupid, illiterate, and potty-mouthed on Twitter, when there’s no script in hand.
All three are single moms — two are raising kids from multiple fathers. Feral women, with no fathers in sight.
The white trash rich enjoy a disproportionate amount of responsibility for social problems. They’re the catalyst in an infinite feedback loop, since they both set a wide example, and they also set unrealistic expectations as the norm.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2013/12/25/thieves-and-liars/
Note that actresses have the means to outsource the job of fatherhood to nannies, coaches and other staff, so as everywoman sees her screen idols raising not completely dysfunctional kids, she mistakenly assumes she will be able to do this too. Absolutely false, and the statistics back this up.
Boxer
Note that actresses have the means to outsource the job of fatherhood to nannies, coaches and other staff, so as everywoman sees her screen idols raising not completely dysfunctional kids, she mistakenly assumes she will be able to do this too. Absolutely false, and the statistics back this up.
That so many, many ordinary women truly believe that they can duplicate the lifestyles of their Hollywood idols speaks volumes about how widespread delusion is.
Look around Plenty of Fish if you want a view of how self-centered many women are. Their dogs or their kids are first place in their lives. They don’t need a man. Etc.
Johann,
I would add to the advice to either stop trolling or to grow up. Life is a bitch at times. I very near the end of a 30 year marriage and could wine even more than you. I am choosing to not do that, eve though being alone can be quite tough at times. Even church leaders have a hard time being really supportive for a variety of reasons. (I have and will be addressing some of these in the generic in my blog over the coming days.)
Men who don’t already have connections are often left out to dry and if you push to make things right you get chastised for speaking against anointed leaders. Very few really are supportive. You can get handshakes and such in a service, but most do not do anything beyond that.
You need to “strengthen yourself in the Lord your God” as David did when he found Ziklag was burned and all of his and his men was taken. They were ready to stone him, a nasty cap to years of running from King Saul.
Anyone can make it. Having friends and connections helps, but is very hard today. Work ways around it. Find other activities to fill your time with. Don’t rely on anyone else to make you happy. You must make that a choice. The tough times come, but they also go. Build things. Make something that can help someone else, now or in the future. Being productive will give you value whether anyone on this earth acknowledges it or not.
====
Side note: I am going to gather up some recommendations to a newly divorced man. I know much of the problems, but I thought gathering the details all in one spot could be useful. Please feel free to post those as replies on my blog if any here have useful suggestions to add. (Point me to any posts Dalrock has made as well.)
I made a basic post for this in case anyone has any useful details.
https://billsmithvision.wordpress.com/2017/01/20/gathering-advice-for-the-newly-divorced/
I know I have gotten good advice here, but I didn’t write it all down and it would be tough to find now.
Their dogs or their kids are first place in their lives. They don’t need a man. Etc.
And yet there they are, on a web site like plentyoffish.com, flaunting their entire pathetic, empty lives in front of millions of complete strangers, like an Amsterdam whore displaying her wares from inside a storefront window, desperately hoping to snag a man.
Like I said, the delusion is very, very deeply entrenched.
Boxer, check out the Twitter page of Game of Thrones actress Lena Headey: https://twitter.com/IAMLenaHeadey
Four separate tweets in which she uses the F-word. Also Balls and Hells, and such gangsta slang as Wurd, Gurl, Yas, etc. Lots of support for ever more refugees coming into Europe (while she lives safely in a rich, white, gated neighborhood), support for gay marriage, praise for Meryl Streep, and calls to protest Trump.
She’s got two kids from two different men (divorced from the first, and kept the identity of the second unknown).
A highly talented actress, with a wide range of roles under her belt. Classy English accent and self-deprecating humor on TV talk shows. Very disappointing when you see the Real Lena Headey as she reveals on Twitter.
BillyS: Their dogs or their kids are first place in their lives.
Because unlike with a man, dogs and small children have no power over women. A dog can’t even complain or verbally judge a woman. Can’t tell her she should move to another city or change jobs. With a dog or child, a woman can play at being Strong and Independent. She’s the boss, even if someone else picks up the bill.
A woman once told me that dogs were better than men, because unlike any boyfriend she’s ever had, her dog offers her unconditional love. Like men are somehow bad because (like women) we place conditions on our love.
Pingback: Smoke Without Fire – The Orthosphere
@Red Pill Latecomer
A highly talented actress, with a wide range of roles under her belt. Classy English accent and self-deprecating humor on TV talk shows. Very disappointing when you see the Real Lena Headey as she reveals on Twitter.
But on the other hand, you probably now have a much better understanding of why the producers for “Game of Thrones” thought she’d be an ideal pick to play Mad Queen Cersei Lannister. Art imitates life!
@Red Pill Latecomer said, “She’s got two kids from two different men (divorced from the first, and kept the identity of the second unknown).”
There have, I think, been several celebrity women who have kept the identity of their child’s father a secret. Jodie Foster comes to mind, although she may have used an anonymous sperm donor. Even in this day and age, it has to be uncomfortable for the child to be publicly outed as having no identifiable father, especially in the situation you mentioned in which one half-sibling has a known father and the other does not.
@Johann: Your life will improve a great deal if you can get past your crippling envy of your brother and step brother. You are 26 years old — they are no longer necessarily a part of your daily life. Your mother may have made some huge mistakes in raising you and dealing with your medical issues, but that is in the past. Try to forgive her. Novaseeker is right that you should talk to somebody about your problems. A lot of problems that seem unfixable at a given point in life end up resolved one way or another within a few years. Don’t give up on life at age 26.
Interesting take, sounds like Johann is in the ‘Valley of Suicide’. I was there too, you have to push through to the other side. Don’t get jealous, there is no point to it. Be what you can be and to hell with the rest.
I didn’t read all the comments so forgive me if this has been covered…I know Dalrock’s article is about how part of Grudem’s life was wasted by egalitarians with the idea from the title “Surely they will be reasonable once they see how reasonable *we* are” but it dawns on me that this is exactly the same reasoning of the Christian left (you know the ones out marching today with the other anti-Trumpers) and also the entire philosophy of Obama’s presidency which started with the apology tour.
I’m pretty sure I’m past the Valley of Suicide but there’s no guarantee of Brotherhood after that. I understand and accept that I can’t demand anything from anyone and I’ve gotten used to there being no help. I bear absolutely no grudge against anyone I have tried to reach, who have had to concentrate on their more immediate concerns. I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to find a way forward eventually, but for now I’m in a holding pattern and it is unproductive to whine about it.
Dalrock
if you get a chance, check out the TCM commentary for the movie, “Giant”. they characterize it as one of the first great ‘Feminist’ films and an explicit attack on Patriarchy, saying that the movie is really about the conflict being about who would control the rearing of the children. Rock Hudson’s antediluvian and retrograde Patriarch or Elizabeth Taylor’s Feminist.
What a badge of honour for President Trump, that legions of harpies, led by foul mouthed Madonna, should be offended at his simple common sense. Something they lost so long ago it isn’t even a memory for most of them.
And not just in America! Crazy feminists the world over are crazy because of Trump’s victory. Praise God for this ray of light upon the darkness of feminism. Hopefully more men will see the revolution of evil for what it is.
How about this champ?
@Don
It is rather interesting how Madonna can go from “welcome to the revolution of love” to “I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House” inside the same speech.
@ MarcusD: Revolution of love is just total BS. This is how women’s ~rights~ is playing out, it will reach its peak in hell. May God have mercy on our souls, our children, and our nations.
Madge (as she is called here) – you can keep her.
Gents, if you have a moment:
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/are-you-really-over-feminism/
In the “reasonable” category, the “Women’s March” had a huge contingent of pro-Sharia people. This has started the first true meme war of the year and it’s going to be fun, but let that also sink in. These “reasonable” people that Grudem was dealing with have no issue siding with Sharia Law.
They’ve never been reasonable; just evil. They should have been approached accordingly.
Scott,
Thanks for attacking those cuckservative Prager U videos. The most recent one from Jim Geraghty, while mentioned here, has not been attacked to nearly the full extent it deserves.
Among other things, note how easily they drift into the ‘feminist’ frame that it is ok for a woman to have a high N at the time of marriage, and for the woman to give her youth to alphas and then demand a beta provider when no more carousel riding is possible. Jim Geraghty himself married a single mother, and asserts that this is evidence of his studly masculinity. The cuckservatives, predictably, accept this frame as normal, and stretch credulity by claiming that ‘as women get older, they become attracted to Ward Cleaver types’. Yes, they are truly pushing that falsehood.
Putting aside the fact that most millennials have no reason to even know who Ward Cleaver is – this is just more evidence of how out of touch cuckservatives are, and this is not even one of the five biggest sins in Geraghty’s video.
Interesting about the wymn’s marches around the world. Trump actually got them to exercise. The most many will get this year. Also this is probably the first time in over 200 years a cattle drive was held in D.C.
Interesting about the wymn’s marches around the world. Trump actually got them to exercise. The most many will get this year. Also this is probably the first time in over 200 years a cattle drive was held in D.C.
I’m also prompted to wonder if having such a high concentration of estrogen in one place required implementation of HAZMAT protocols.
@GunnerQ: The average full-time wage in the USA is something like $30,000. Even if you assume that both the man and the woman each earn $30,000, a couple with $60,000 per year will have to budget very carefully in most parts of the country. If one spouse spends $20 to $50/week or more on cigarettes, and the other spends $0, then you are going to have a marriage in which one spouse thinks that cigarettes are a necessity, while the other thinks that cigarettes are a waste of money. On top of that, the spouse who smokes will almost invariably be drinking far more than the non-smoking spouse, so what you end up with is a big disagreement over how the couple’s discretionary income is going to be spent. There may be other lifestyle issues as well — if the extroverted smoker/drinker of the couple wants to go out several evenings per week, the introverted abstainer is either being forced out of his/her comfort zone OR left at home.
This is a lifestyle issue as well as a financial issue, but I would say that it is mainly a financial issue for couples with an average-range income. If there is a mad scramble every month to pay the rent, the non-smoker married to a heavy smoker is going to start thinking that being married to a smoker means being perpetually broke. Regrets are going to set in.
The other aspect would be that someone who generally dislikes cigarette smoke may fall in love with, and marry a smoker. When the honeymoon phase is over, the smoking becomes a bigger and bigger issue.