Lutheran pastor Hans Fiene has a new post at The Federalist titled Why It’s Terrible News That Millennials Are Having Less Sex*. Fiene points out that the drop in promiscuity by Millennials is troubling because it likely presages a drop in marriage.
Fiene identifies two culprits, pornography and social media:
What’s causing millennials to be less sexually active, then? As with any trend, there are numerous explanations. But the two biggest factors seem to be the copious amounts of pornography that millennials, in particular millennial men, have grown up consuming, and the widespread use of socially isolating social networking. Just take a look at this profile of a millennial man, courtesy of Tara Bahrampour:
The fundamental problem, according to Fiene, is that pornography and social media are causing millennial men not to learn how wonderful millennial women are, and what godly and submissive wives millennial women would make:
As men pursue women, however, they come to develop a more robust appreciation of what women have to offer them beyond physical beauty and sexual gratification. They become more exposed to the various feminine virtues—things like kindness, compassion, selflessness, loyalty, tenderness. And the more decent men encounter “the imperishable beauty of a quiet and gentle spirit,” as St Peter calls it, the more they come to value this inner beauty over raw sexuality.
This is a very common approach, and it is founded on a breathtaking denial of what is going on in our society. Indeed, pornography and social media are part of the problem, along with a whole host of other factors. If you will permit me to use a metaphor, these factors are comparable to ignition sources lighting a forest fire. Forest fires can be caused by camp fires, lightning strikes, etc, but they are only part of the equation. The other factor is the health of the forest. If the forest is dry, or even worse, loaded with dead wood or other fuel sources, it is only a matter of time before one ignition source or another ultimately lights the inferno. Focusing on ignition sources is helpful only in the short term, because sooner or later something is going to cause the whole thing to go up in flames.
We have the same kind of problem with modern marriage. Marriage has been systematically weakened for many decades. Each new cohort of women is encouraged to delay marriage longer and longer. No fault divorce and our family courts have replaced legal commitment with an encouragement for women to divorce, including the promise of cash and prizes. The culture, especially conservative Christian culture, despises husbands and views men who marry and have children with contempt. Where in the past husbands were seen as head of the household, a husband who sees himself in this way is quite literally engaging in crime-think. Should this crime-think be reported to the police, the husband will be arrested and forced to undergo reeducation/self criticism until he learns to view headship as a moral and legal offense. As a former facilitator explains, the facilitators of these reeducation sessions are taught**:
Confront! Confront! Confront! With the explicit threat that the probation officer will be informed of your non compliance…
So on the one hand we have a coordinated and very public feminist assault on the definition of marriage, which makes marriage far less appealing to men. On the other hand we have new substitutes to marriage like pornography. And all of the main factors (including pornography) trace their way back to feminism one way or another.
But feminism is the problem men like Pastor Fiene dare not whisper! There are two reasons for this:
- Most people are enthusiastic supporters of feminism, including nearly all conservative pastors.
- Feminism is an active rebellion, so calling out feminism is scary.
What we get instead of confronting reality is a constant dripping of articles like Pastor Fiene’s complaining about the weak men who are screwing feminism up. Make no mistake; it is true that this is happening. Weak men really are screwing feminism up. It is, however, absurd to focus on the problem in this way. No amount of shoring up will make the feminist model of marriage work, no matter how much conservatives like Fiene want it to work.
Nevertheless, this approach of denial and redirect has worked for decades, so it is understandable why men like Pastor Fiene would be tempted to keep doing it. There is, however, a growing threat to Pastor Fiene in his efforts to frame the problem as weak men screwing feminism up. As I noted last month, Millennials are responding to articles with this frame and pointing out the obvious absurdity of the denial based approach. Commenter Broderick responded to Fiene’s article exposing the feminist elephant in the room:
This article completely misses the mark. Perhaps it is true that many young men and women find more satisfaction in porn than in real relationships. But this is merely a symptom. In a competition between the virtual and real wherein the virtual wins, we should instead ask why the real has fallen so far.
In this millennial generation, this has much more to do with confused gender roles than with pornography. Feminism has taught women to be masculine competitors – they are not taught any of the feminine virtues to which Fiene alludes. Modern education (installed, also, with plenty of feminism) has taught men to be feminine subservients – they are not taught any of the masculine virtues to which Fiene alludes.
As a general rule, men are attracted to femininity and women to masculinity. This is hardwired.
With the above virtues gone, what else can a man be attracted to in a woman other than her body? Likewise for women with respect to men? At this point, a man may as well just use porn, because he gets all the benefits of a virtual body without the drawbacks and costs of entering a relationship with a masculine “strong independent woman” (who, I might add, needs that man about as much as a fish needs a bicycle).
Add in legal corruptions to marriage (no-fault divorce, a hostile family court system, etc.) and you’ll find that the pornographers are being entirely rational in their choice to forgo real relationships.
Further down in the discussion Persimmon wrote a defense of masculine women:
Not all masculine women are promiscuous. I am a masculine woman who is not sexually active but I am aggressive. I would not know how else to be.
Also, Maybe the reason things have gone so haywire is because of the 50s. People, particularly women left that society because it did not make them happy. Some women were comfortable with it but others not so much. They wanted more.
*H/T Gurney Halleck
**See also page 33 in the Santa Clara County Probation Department STANDARDS FOR BATTERERS PROGRAMS AND CERTIFICATION for an example of how this is codified.
Classic churchian misdirection: identify the symptom as the problem.
All men have to do is self-flagellate and their souls will be cured.
Pingback: Denying the feminist rebellion. | @the_arv
” If you will permit me to use a metaphor, these factors are comparable to ignition sources lighting a forest fire.”
As someone who reports on this topic in my state, I can tell you the metaphor is very appropriate. The feds all but ceased logging operations here in the 1990s and along with it active forest management, which caused thinner, less fire-resilient trees to grow. Government agencies also engaged in fire suppression policies that quickly snuffed out small wildfires that, if properly controlled, naturally keep fuel levels down and reduce forest density that makes it so easy for flames to spread. Prescribed burning is also been heavily restricted. The consequence is that there are now millions of acres of forest in the state requiring proactive restoration work.
Thus, the inevitable megafires are “technically” caused by lighting or what not, but plenty of small fires are started by similar events. What makes them so intense are these underlying issues the state is now trying to resolve.
The exact same thing has occurred since the 1950s regarding sex and marriage. The country has changed, amended, or flat out abandoned rules, practices, and traditions intended to encourage early and life-long marriage and clearly defined expectations for each gender. Then churchies blame pornography for low marriage rates. To continue with the metaphor, there is a lot of restoration work required before that can happen.
To be fair, it’s hard to tell where pastors are coming from unless they written multiple posts on the same topic over a long(er) span of time. Sometimes the ignorance is innocent, even if it still does harm. You can’t really tell how much you were inundated in culture until you’re slapped in the face with tons of comments saying the opposite, especially with stronger Biblical support pointing out the elephant in the room..
In some of the posts, some of the pastors have been willing to acknowledge that they’re wrong and it’s only a symptom. But in many others, they’re content with the status quo of bashing men for all the evils in society.
Its probably not an accident, but its perfect that you used the Santa Clara county guidance. That’s the county I worked in.
@Scott
Ha! I found that document a number of months back when doing searches on Duluth. I had no idea it was the same location you were referring to. It could, however, be any county, as the Duluth model has been uniformly adopted.
The reason why weak men are screwing feminism up is because weak men go along with feminism insulting its continuation.
My greatest fear is that the upcoming generation of 30 something spinsters will take their bitterness out on the rest of the society via the ballot box. They’ll vote more and more to have the state replace men so all their needs can be met without marriage – we’re already seeing this today with women demanding taxpayer-funded abortions, contraceptives, and health care. This will all make it all the harder for men to attain a breadwinner salary. These women will also support more and more laws hostile to any healthy expression of masculinity, at least when it’s expressed by white men, while they endorse the taxpayer-financed importation of Third World invaders allowed to sexually assault these women at their leisure.
It’s also a myth that consumers of porn want less sex. According to a Barna Group study, 79 % of men age 18-30 view pornography at least once a month. Yet do we see an epidemic of men who don’t want sex with their wives? No. Most men want more sex than their wives are willing to give.
Persimmon’s comment is cute, since it repeats the standard lie (Betty Friedan) from that era, that women were unhappy. Actually, women reported themselves happy at a significantly higher ratio than since, and certainly than today.
Now happiness (especially self-reported) is a questionable standard to work toward, but it’s clear that feminists will lie about anything, even to themselves, to keep pushing for control.
@Deep Strength
Even if one is in denial about being in denial, they are still in denial. And I would argue that the reasons for the denial are the same either way. It is some combination of 1) Liking feminism. and/or 2) Fearing feminist backlash.
Persimmon’s comment is cute, since it repeats the standard lie (Betty Friedan) from that era, that women were unhappy.
There has always been, and always will be, some percentage of any population that’s unhappy. I’m not convinced by anything I see women were more unhappy in recent generations than they are today. Too many women I went to college with never married and live in a cloud of unhappiness mitigated by SSRIs and white wine.
The principal readership of the Federalist is stay at home moms. It also appears to mostly be written by them.
@Dr Torch
But they were unhappy. They were unhappy because they were consumed with envy of men. This is the very essence of feminism. That they are even more unhappy now, because they are just as consumed with envy but have new problems associated with getting what they demanded doesn’t change the fundamental point.
Moreover, Persimmon wants everyone to know that she (like the vast majority of her demographic) is quite willfully in rebellion against what 1 Pet 3 tells us God finds beautiful. She, like her peers, is masculine and aggressive, and wouldn’t know how to be any other way. She is also proud to be this way, not suffering under the oppression she says women endured in the 1950s. Everyone already knows this, so her point is trite. But it was worth quoting because Pastor Fiene is pretending that Millennial women are cultivating a quiet and gentle spirit, but that Millennial men don’t know this because they are too busy with porn.
Good post.
I agree that it’s some combination of liking feminism, on the one hand, and being scared of upsetting women, on the other — probably in different measures in each individual concerned.
While I don’t think many of these sorts identify as feminists, and many of them would say that they don’t like feminism because of abortion and the sexual revolution and so on, I think when you actually look at what they think of feminist young women (because pretty much all women are feminist in action, apart from true outliers who are conspicuous), it’s more or less all positive. They like the you go grrl, competitive, combative, success-focused, driven, hard-charging young feminist women. They wish, in fact, that young *men* were like them, I think. There’s a kind of transference effect going on here, too, as we sometimes see with men who have daughters and no sons in terms of wanting the girls to be more like boys, since there are no actual boys in the family …. well, there are relatively few young men in the church, too, and so I expect that at least in some cases, something like this transference is at play in this context as well. Plus there’s the heterosexual factor — most of the pastors will be, to some degree, sexually attracted to the young women in their parishes and ministries. The good ones will not act on it, of course, but it’s still there, and it still forms attitudes, or at least prods attitudes in a more sympathetic direction — something like the “lift” empath talks about.
I mean, so you have these pastors who see these young women, some of them quite hot, all driven and successful and participating to some degree in the church and so on, and they think “where the hell are the young men!?! These babes are awesome, and the young men are just total fails for not being here and scooping up these great young women!”. And so he goes off on the young men for not showing up to be BFs and husbands for these super-amazing super-hottie Christians in his church. What idiots, right? Of course what he doesn’t see is that the girls who are there are often sexually active, and with non-Christian men (at least men who aren’t attending that or any other church), other than the ones who are simply not attractive. And even if he saw that, he would likely blame that behavior on the young men who are not showing up and the young men with the women (evil seducer bad boys, corrupting our sweet young daughters of the king, don’t you know), because like many in the church he tends to assign women less (if any) moral agency when it comes to matters between men and women for various reasons (some theological error, some being uncomfortable critiquing women while thoroughly enjoying woodshedding other men) and so on. Very hard behaviors to change, really, because there are many factors that encourage and support these behaviors by pastors. Sometimes some of them will see some aspects of it, like Doug Wilson seems to do, even if it’s still hard to accept the bigger picture. But most won’t even get that far.
======
As for porn, of course it isn’t a good thing, and it’s really a bad thing for guys to be using it in a way that dulls their interest in actual women. It’s always better for a guy NOT to do that, in both moral and practical terms. However, it happens in a context. That context is one which Rollo has detailed extremely well in his writings — in that context, it is understandable, while also regrettable. Porn use occurs in a context, where it actually IS more attractive than the actual women around who are either not attractive or not available to regular men. Does it exacerbate this? Yes, it does. But, it doesn’t begin in a vacuum.
Also, Maybe the reason things have gone so haywire is because of the 50s. People, particularly women left that society because it did not make them happy. Some women were comfortable with it but others not so much. They wanted more.
Making the point while missing the point.
Only a very confused man would lament that more people are obeying Gods commandments concerning chastity. Everything else after that is just as worthless.
The culture, especially conservative Christian culture, despises husbands and views men who marry and have children with contempt.
And yet these men are desperately needed to keep the machine operating. Consequently the contempt can’t be open and blatant within the church, it must be veiled. Classic love-hate relationship. Hu$bands and fathers prop the whole thing up. Therefore pastors like brother Fiene are going to keep trying to groom fresh supplies of the very men they will later AMOG, admonish, and harness to the FI cause.
A reliable source showed me an email from a local 36 year old, divorced, heroic single mom to her pastor. I don’t know the woman or most of the players at all, but the subject line said and I quote, “honey do list”. There followed some stuff she needed done around her house, the usual shelves, light fixtures, cabinet repair type stuff. She indicated that though she had not been to church or her small group in a while, she was, again I quote “reaching out” for help since no relatives or friends have been forthcoming lately despite repeated entreaties. In fact it says, her ex- who is an electrician, refused to do the lighting work even for pay.
This was forwarded to an elder with a note that we would like to support this. The elder forwarded it for action to the deacon that has charge of the WIDOW ministry. He put together a team of hu$bands and fathers that bought the supplies and did the repairs on a Saturday.
Persimmon is replying every few minutes over there. Should be interesting if she wanders over here.
Novaseeker
As for porn, of course it isn’t a good thing, and it’s really a bad thing for guys to be using it in a way that dulls their interest in actual women. It’s always better for a guy NOT to do that, in both moral and practical terms. However, it happens in a context. That context is one which Rollo has detailed extremely well in his writings — in that context, it is understandable, while also regrettable. Porn use occurs in a context, where it actually IS more attractive than the actual women around who are either not attractive or not available to regular men.
Yup. And re-reading the OP linked piece I see once again the tired “perfect bodies in porn” trope. Given that most Millennial men have seen some visual porn, and given that a lot of porn on the web now is just amateurs videoing themselves with a webcam or phone….what “perfect bodies”?
Plus what about all the kindness and gentleness and lovingcaringness — if so many women are just chock full of that, how can a mere 2-D image with sound compete?
These people aren’t serious. They don’t really bother to even try to think about marriage issues, they are just engaged in a giant game of “Telephone” where they repeat each other’s fantasies.
Now, taking Nova’s comments about men / porn / women and applying it to women, what do we see? Stroll into your nearest chain bookstore, to the Romance section. Look at the covers. See any objectification there? Skim to find the explicit sex scenes. See anything there?
Women’s porn is in text because they are more verbal. Women’s porn as far as I can tell always boils down to Taming The Bad Boy; the 50 Shades trilogy explicitly does that. So clearly there’s a shortage of Bad Boys who can be Tamed, hence women’s porn.
Why, it’s almost as though men and women have different sexual strategies, have different roles to fill in mating, are different kinds of people and are not interchangeable. But that can’t be true, because feminism says otherwise, and in a contest between the Bible and Feminism, we know which wins in church after magazine after eucumenical org.
Lost Patrol
This was forwarded to an elder with a note that we would like to support this. The elder forwarded it for action to the deacon that has charge of the WIDOW ministry.
Yeah, I know several men in different churches who have to live with this. Some do it rather grumblingly, others do it silently and a couple have bought into the “single mom is same as widow” idea. Guess there’s nothing in the Bible on the topic, eh?
I mean, so you have these pastors who see these young women, some of them quite hot, all driven and successful and participating to some degree in the church and so on, and they think “where the hell are the young men!?! These babes are awesome, and the young men are just total fails for not being here and scooping up these great young women!”. And so he goes off on the young men for not showing up to be BFs and husbands for these super-amazing super-hottie Christians in his church. What idiots, right?
Outstanding! This is exactly it. Dash Two, put your bombs right on top of Dash One’s smoke.
Hrm, lets see:
1. Paul says a man should take a wife if he has sexual desire to avoid sin.
2. A boys desire interest in girls (and thus sex) starts around 15.
3. The church tells boys not to have sex until they are married and to avoid pornography
4. The church tells young girls not to marry until they are 30+ years old
5. Boy gets hooked on pornography because his desire doesn’t go away, its a quick and easy, if not empty solution, and the prescribed solution to his problem is 15 years out.
And the church cant figure out why the boom in porn use amongst Christian men? Or why men are getting married while already “addicted” to porn? By the time they get married, 15 years later, what more does he know if he has been a good, Christian guy?
Digging into Hans Fiene’s background, he’s a professional clergyman with no other life experiences. BA in English, got married at the same time, then an M.Div degree and quickly installed as pastor. I’m not seeing any warehouse jobs or bouts of unemployment. Straight to the top, as insulated from reality as the ivory tower can manage. He would do himself a world of good to leave his sheltered life and be a farmhand for just one summer.
What’s this? He was born in Duluth, Minnesota.
Dalrock this is so true!
But feminism is the problem [when] men like Pastor Fiene dare not whisper! There are two reasons for this:
Most people are enthusiastic supporters of feminism, including nearly all conservative pastors.
Feminism is an active rebellion, so calling out feminism is scary.
I was at a Lutheran Sunday Bible study when the pastor read the passage “Wives submit yourselves to your husbands..” . The women parishioners laughed at the pastor. Instead if standing his ground he literally trembled like some scared little boy. The modern Lutheran Church is well nigh apostate.
Pastor Fienes is clueless, as are the majority of hand-wringing clergy over this.
I don’t however believe that Millennial men have done quite as thorough a cost-benefit analysis as Dalrock describes here.
Rather Millennials have lived with the repercussions of the sexual/ divorce revolutions for a lifetime. Since they have parents who refuse to enforce morality because they themselves broke the rules regarding sex for fear of being labelled ”hypocrites”, they have started sex early and are often jaded by the time they hit marriage age. And that’s the cool kids.
Other Millennials have seen the sexual/ divorce revolutions up close and personal. True, they have seen ”The Simpsons”, ”Family Guy”, ”American Dad” countless commercials and that show with the Columbian chick in it lampooning fatherhood. They have seen their fathers, next door neighbors and uncles taken to the cleaners in divorce. They see their sisters being sluts and getting money thrown at them for it. They are also locked out of effective means of earning income and status with the loss of blue-collar and now college jobs because they are given to women or third worlders by various means.
Porn? It makes a hell of a lot of sense to use it under such circumstances.
@M.W. Peak: There have ALWAYS been “outliers” among women who chose to have a career of some kind and not marry, or not marry until the possibility of having children was gone. My understanding was that a lot of the women who became nuns prior to 1930 did so to avoid marrying a poor man and being worn out through having a baby every year. Many of these women grew up as the eldest daughter of a woman who had a dozen or more children, and had had childhoods filled with endless drudgery. What’s different now is that parents and schools are pushing girls into high-powered careers even though most of them do not have the natural inclination. In the Victorian and Edwardian eras, there were always a handful of women attending medical school, but they were always seen as the unusual women that they were. There was no thought that the medical profession should be 50% female.
The big change in the 1950s was that people became more aware of “how the other half lived” through television, and modern houses with modern appliances made it possible for women to work outside the home full time. I grew up in such a home, and it was chaotic and stressful, but it was just barely possible to make it work, even though there were no crockpots or microwaves, and most people didn’t have dishwashers, etc.
The growing expectation in the 50s & 60s that most women would work most of their lives (taking a few years out of the workforce to have 2.5 children) made no-fault divorce possible for the middle and working classes. As society became more secularized, there was less value seen in sticking with a loveless marriage, since you only have one life to live and there is no eternal reward for martyring yourself. (“Please Release Me, Let Me Go” was a big hit when I was in my early teens.) The divorce rate skyrocketed in the late 60s and early 70s, and parental expectations began to change. As late as the early 70s, parents who could afford to do so often sent a daughter to college with the expectation that they would only have to pay for a few semesters before she found an intelligent, ambitious husband. By the mid to late 70s, parents were pressuring girls to choose a major carefully, and to take their careers seriously, since many marriages failed.
What I remember being emphasized in the 70s was the importance of husbands of working wives doing their fair share around the house. The attitude was that housewives were dependent and boring, and that their husbands would tire of them quickly. A wife with a good job was livelier and made it possible for the whole family to enjoy a higher standard of living. Of course, it all depends on what you consider a “higher standard of living.” I was always envious of the kids whose mothers stayed at home and cooked. The odd thing that I remember is that the kids of the stay at home mothers were just as well dressed, etc., as the kids whose moms worked full time. There is fairly widespread recognition now that a lot of the “extra” income from the wife’s job goes up in smoke, but back in the 60s and 70s it seems as though the wife’s income after taxes was considered pure gravy.
@Original Laura:
https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/facts_over_time.htm
Employed Women was at 37.7% in 1960. 43.3% in 1970. 51.5% in 1980. 57.5% in 1990.
While it was rising from what seems like a low in the 1940s (massive boom time in work that isn’t suited for Women), that’s not really what kicked off the huge boom. No-fault Divorce and the Pill sent the rate vertical.
1999 is still the peak working rate, interestingly enough.
As men pursue women, however, they come to develop a more robust appreciation of what women have to offer them beyond physical beauty and sexual gratification.They become more exposed to the various feminine virtues—things like kindness, compassion, selflessness, loyalty, tenderness. And the more decent men encounter “the imperishable beauty of a quiet and gentle spirit,” as St Peter calls it, the more they come to value this inner beauty over raw sexuality.
. . . . So if I have this straight, yet another pastor is irritated that young men aren’t pursuing women for sex, and that’s bad — because if those young men don’t have the drive to go after sex, then they’ll never learn just how much they really don’t need it.
The modern American church is the only culture I know of that claims young men are guilty of lusting after and “objectifying” women while simultaneously complaining that they’ve also stopped f***ing them. It’s almost like a real-life version of the old joke: Why are the Southern Baptists so opposed to premarital sex? Because it could lead to dancing!
@Looking Glass
Yes, it looks like the rate leveled off in the last few years of the 90s and hasn’t changed appreciably since then. The chart farther down that shows labor force participation by age of the youngest child is interesting, too. I wonder why they chose the years from 1975 to 2015? It is clear that the trend as of 1975 was for the woman to spend fewer years out of the workforce, but continuing the graph back to 1945 would have shown what was going on in the 50s and 60s.
Pingback: Denying the feminist rebellion. | Reaction Times
Dear Looking Glass:
Note that in an earlier thread, the laws that kicked off VAWA, as well as the punitive enforcement of child support, were inaugurated in the mid 1990s. I wonder if the heavy hitters will agree that there’s a possible correlation.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that VAWA and federalized Child Support opened up a financial opportunity to many women, who were suddenly able to survive without working, thanks to new means to extort huge sums of money from their husbands and boyfriends.
Boxer
well at least he didnt equate pron with adultery, now thats something in these circles.
The analogy to fire is apt. Depending on the nature of the fuel and oxidizer, many fire investigators will tell you that ignition is free. ( nature finds a way…) Applying this to the current state of the sexual market, can there be any surprises?
Man so true. Why would any man want to marry 90% of American women. One trip abroad and my life changed forever. I encountered feminine women and my eyes were opened, for better or worse. For better for knowing the truth, for worse because like Plato’s cave, looking into the light hurts the eyes. Until women in America become more feminine and attractive, American men won’t want to marry them.
Very good article plus thoughtful readers comments. Thank you for sharing. I’ve added this post to my reading list at http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/the-marriage-strike/
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/02/09/want-your-husband-to-step-up-try-getting-out-of-his-way/
“I was cleaning up the last of the table items in our dining room after dinner, and I noticed a bottle of A1 Sauce on the floor next to my husband’s chair. Naturally, I thought that was an odd place for it to be, so I went into the kitchen where my husband was doing the dishes and asked him what the A1 Sauce was doing on the floor.
‘You never like it when I use sauce on my food’, he said.
It was at that moment when I realized what kind of wife I’d become: the kind who micromanages every move her husband makes, so much so that he has to hide a bottle of sauce on the floor so he can eat his damn dinner in peace.”
Proverbs 19:13 A foolish child is a father’s ruin,
and a quarrelsome wife is like
the constant dripping of a leaky roof.
Proverbs 21:9 Better to live on a corner of the roof
than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.
Proverbs 21:19 Better to live in a desert
than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife.
Proverbs 25:24 Better to live on a corner of the roof
than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.
Proverbs 27:15 A quarrelsome wife is like
the dripping of a leaky roof in a rainstorm;
16 restraining her is like restraining the wind
or grasping oil with the hand.
Three thousand years later, it’s still true.
Thanks for the shout-out, Dalrock. If I were really thinking ahead, I would have linked them here.
I couldn’t bring myself to respond to any of Persimmon’s one hundred “rebuttals,” if they even deserve that term. It’s beyond pathetic.
Scapegoating the porn is for weasels.
Let’s get real, a man marries has kids and soon finds himself in a sexless marriage. He refuses to beg for sex or to rape his wife, so he is stuck. Rather than divorce and not see his kids, do business with an escort or have an affair he settles for some self stimulation and some visual aids. But the church blames the porn. His wife claims her frigidity and denial was because of the porn even though the porn came after her denials. The only problem that the church will address is his porn and how it has emotionally wounded that pure woman of virtue.
A young man is not particularly tall, or socially confident, but he is serious about his studies. He has asked girls out before, but they are not really interested in his “type” and he is repeatedly turned down. He watches as women put on the freshmen 10 and the sophomore 15 and he no longer finds the girls his age attractive even there is more to love. His pastor tells him about these angles of pure light, but what he sees is bitches who aren’t interested in him and fatties that do not interest him. He too settles for images of imaginary lovers and the help of rosy palm. His pastor tells him that porn has ruined him, that he is taken captive in a prison of porn.
Not all porn is the same. There is a common tactic of conflating bikini babes with the hardest of BDSM porn in order to condemn all stimulating images as if they were the same thing. Likewise there are many uses and many different types of users who use “porn”. To use the word “porn” as a catch all as if every user is jerking off to bestiality under school bleachers is a cavil and prevents making distinctions. Adding the word “addiction” is the new canard of the evangelicals, as if every man who looks at a Victoria’s secret catalog is a porn addict. The addition has no real meaning it just carries emotional punch to rile up.
Evangelicals love to join the hysteria. They are hysterical about abuse, rape and porn. Every man is a suspect and every man is guilty. That is why the church is so vigilant about gelding the men. In the eyes of the church, a eunuch is the perfect husband, he serves his queen, works hard and never demands sex.
It really seems that the full gamut of pastorbators and cuckservatives have become desperate of late, as indicated by the increased intensity via which they are attacking men.
Why the sudden increase in intensity? Could it be that they are seeing something that worries them?
and it’s really a bad thing for guys to be using it in a way that dulls their interest in actual women.
I disagree. The burden of becoming competitive with new challenges to their position, is on women.
Is it a ‘really bad thing’ that since women have voted themselves a huge transfer of wealth away from men and towards women, that they have no use for the only thing the bottom 80% of men can provide, which is providership?
If women can’t complete with porn because women have eroded into a state of little or no value, it is not men who have to adjust their expectations down. Alternatives are a good thing.
When a society liberates itself sexually birthrates, marriage, and the society itself begin to declne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin
Here’s an interesting article on the man who followed up on his work and wrote a book in the 1950s that did a fair job of predicting our current climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitirim_Sorokin
http://www.mmisi.org/pr/35_01/nieli.pdf
the various feminine virtues — things like kindness, compassion, selflessness, loyalty, tenderness. … “the imperishable beauty of a quiet and gentle spirit,” as St Peter calls it
Few modern women have “feminine” virtues. Most of them resemble something like this …
You can send this article to Hans Fiene on Twitter over here : @HansFiene
Too many red-pillers fail to close the loop on such matters…
the various feminine virtues — things like kindness, compassion, selflessness, loyalty, tenderness. …
What an incel cuck this pastorbator is. Women have NONE of those virtues. Certainly not ‘loyalty’ or ‘selflessness’.
In terms of those virtues, the incidence of presence in each group is ranked as follows.
Men > Children > Animals > Women.
This is not an exaggeration. A dog or cat will like the person who treats it well, and dislike the person who treats it badly. A woman will, of course, hate the man who places her on a pedestal, and will see the generosity of a beta male as an invitation to plunder his resources.
LostPatrol,
He put together a team of hu$bands and fathers that bought the supplies and did the repairs on a Saturday.
Those husbands and fathers deserve no sympathy. Anyone who is still a whiteknight cuck as of 2017 has indicated that they will gladly bear costs. PUAs and other have free reign to pump and dump sluts and stick these blue pill cucks with the tab, since they have indicated that they WANT the tab.
Everybody wins! Everybody reaches their full potential and divine destiny, so everybody wins!
Original Laura, regarding 1970s culture, TV sitcoms heavily promoted feminism, with storylines about stifling marriages, liberating divorces, sexy working women, sexy divorcees, swinging singles, and even justifiable abortion.
Norman Lear saturated the airwaves with feminism, in such shows as All in the Family, Maude, The Jeffersons, Good Times, Mary Hartman, etc.
I think Lear also did One Day at a Time (about a strong, independent single mother) and Alice.
MTM gave us The Marry Tyler Moore Show (with the strong, independent Mary Richards — who every boy had the hots for), Rhoda, The Bob Newhart Show (with three divorced characters — Jerry, Ellen, and Howard), and Phyllis.
Then there were all those TV movies featuring sexy, sympathetic divorcees, including some starring Barbara Eden and Barbara Feldman (from 1960s I Dream of Genie and Get Smart, respectively).
Love American Style also featured free love, illicit affairs, and sexy divorcees.
I grew up watching those shows. I learned that what a woman really wants is a sensitive man who cares about her feelings, respects her as an equal, and loves her for her mind. I learned that it’s normal and fair for a women to have many lovers prior to marriage, and that divorced women are sexy and often make better wives than inexperienced virgins.
!970s TV was truly corrupting. I entered the dating world of the 1980s totally unprepared, with lots of false notions about women.
@Jonadab-the-Rechabite
“His pastor tells him that porn has ruined him, that he is taken captive in a prison of porn. He, and many other teenaged boys, are made to recite a pledge every year about sexual purity until the day they marry during the Youth Service with the girls. They are then each given a small card with the pledge printed on them and strongly encouraged to keep them in their wallets or Bibles. Once every few months, the youth pastor from the pulpit will admonish him and the young men in the congregation about masturbation and porn, referencing Onan in the Bible.”
Added my own experience and observations in bold, based on my own experience and observations. The struggles and guilt during those times were almost unbearable.
@chokingonredpills says: “His pastor tells him that porn has ruined him, that he is taken captive in a prison of porn. He, and many other teenaged boys, are made to recite a pledge every year about sexual purity until the day they marry during the Youth Service with the girls. They are then each given a small card with the pledge printed on them and strongly encouraged to keep them in their wallets or Bibles. Once every few months, the youth pastor from the pulpit will admonish him and the young men in the congregation about masturbation and porn, referencing Onan in the Bible.
Added my own experience and observations in bold, based on my own experience and observations. The struggles and guilt during those times were almost unbearable.”
horrendous, if they want to literally drive young men out of the cchurch forever, i can think of no better way.
I learned that what a woman really wants is a sensitive man who cares about her feelings, respects her as an equal, and loves her for her mind.
As long as he’s an Air Force officer and astronaut who looks like a young Larry Hagman.
Dear Anon:
Thanks for that reminder of what’s truly important!
@Broderick
Ha. I hadn’t made the connection. Your comment was very well received over there, and is still listed as the top comment out of 573.
@Oscar
The story at the link is very interesting.
“If you want a peaceful marriage, you have to be the antithesis of Eleanor Roosevelt. You have to stop dictating and start doting instead. Then watch your man become a man.”
In the end she just summarizes that she’s worked out a more effective way to make a man out of him, so the marriage can be “peaceful”. Still, even this level of self-awareness out of a beta controlling feminist is seldom seen.
Repeat! Repeat Repeat!
Great post Dalrock.
Pingback: The Importance of Twitter | v5k2c2
@ Lost Patrol says:
February 10, 2017 at 8:56 am
Young men need to memorize those verses from Proverbs and, when a woman reveals her quarrelsomeness, run in the opposite direction.
But that’s not what pastors teach young men these days. Pastors teach young men that all women inherently possess “kindness, compassion, selflessness, loyalty, tenderness” and “the imperishable beauty of a quiet and gentle spirit”. And if a woman doesn’t display these virtues, it’s the man’s fault, because he doesn’t “value this inner beauty over raw sexuality”.
With a handful of exceptions, no one is training young women to cultivate those virtues.
Yes, and I would go so far to say that Fiene is telling lies. It’s an easy trap to fall into is one has a desire to give a definitive-yet-sociably-acceptable answer to a bunch of lies from WaPo. “I’ll take what your saying and turn it around so you will see that Christ/Bible/Christianity is good.” But the current assumptions about how things work is so different from the Biblical worldview that this is almost always bound to fail, and to fail in the way of thinking really hard about lies instead of observing what is right in front of you. Because that modern worldview isn’t just “out there”, it’s in our heads, too.
@Oscar
Amen! They tell girls the virtues, but then excuse them from ever practicing those virtues if it’s inconvenient, or if it seems to impede “progress”, or if there is a man around to whom the burden can be half-assed-plausibly shifted. There’s no discipline/punishment for transgressing those virtues. Worse: They are praised for shirking them in a clever way, or for a good material reward. It’s downright wicked.
And I notice that Fiene did not list the virtue of chastity.
Oscar
With a handful of exceptions, no one is training young women to cultivate those virtues.
Further to that, many people would not even consider those to be virtues today. Those behaviors and characteristics are seen as holding back a SIW from being the man in charge that she wants to be.
The author of the article provides a dozen or more classic quotes indicating that virtually none of those traits were needed or used by her. “I come from a long line of alpha females, and instructing people is in our blood.”
Pingback: Yalom, psychoeducation and the Russians | American Dad
Gentlemen. This one is a little longer than my usual, but I would love your input. Thanks.
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/yalom-psychoeducation-and-the-russians/
@Red Pill Latecomer:
Perhaps small changes are coming at the margins:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/samantha-johnson/when-i-became-a-mother-feminism-let-me-down/
@ Lost Patrol says:
February 10, 2017 at 9:44 am
“Further to that, many people would not even consider those to be virtues today.”
How many modern Christians (let’s not even bother with the unregenerate) actually consider “a quiet and gentle spirit” to be a virtue in a young woman? In fact, as Dalrock has pointed out multiple times, it’s just the opposite.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/are-real-men-attracted-to-boisterous-opinionated-women/
Dalrock, Cane and others are much better at analyzing this phenomenon than I am, so I generally leave it to them, but when I talk about it with my kids (of both sexes), I use the following shorthand.
To whom do you think a man would rather be married? Abigail, or Michal?
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/are-real-men-attracted-to-boisterous-opinionated-women/#comment-217582
This phenomenon can be distilled into a prototypical conversation between a young man and a young woman:
Young Woman: “You are only interested in me for sex!”
Young Man: “What else do you have to offer?”
Crickets chirping …
Novaseeker says:
“I mean, so you have these pastors who see these young women, some of them quite hot, all driven and successful and participating to some degree in the church and so on, and they think “where the hell are the young men!?! These babes are awesome, and the young men are just total fails for not being here and scooping up these great young women!”. And so he goes off on the young men for not showing up to be BFs and husbands for these super-amazing super-hottie Christians in his church. What idiots, right?”
As to the pastor’s sexuality, there’s also the concerted effort to frame men as sex offenders and molesters that I think keeps men away. The last ELCA I visited, for adult education, invited men to come learn to be allies with women in preventing sexual assault and child molestation. Tons of women’s groups, no men’s groups. I was depressed for two weeks….
Scott’s recent post against cartoonish chivalry expressing a willingness to truly guide a young suitor into being a good husband was really striking. That’s what I find lacking.
@Scott
I learned that what a woman really wants is a sensitive man who cares about her feelings, respects her as an equal, and loves her for her mind.
As long as he’s an Air Force officer and astronaut who looks like a young Larry Hagman.
. . . . Who will himself be quickly forgotten as soon as they see the vain, conniving, adulterous and older Larry Hagman that showed up in Dallas.
But, but, but women just want a good man . . . !
“horrendous, if they want to literally drive young men out of the cchurch forever, i can think of no better way.”
It drove me away from God for seven years; thankfully, He restored me.
And are pastors stil using Onan to scare young men away from painting the ceiling? Onan’s sins were greed and disobedience, not wasting his seed.
@Cane Caldo
Given that his thesis is that millennial men need to try the free samples to see what they are missing with porn, I don’t think he dares.
Given that his thesis is that millennial men need to try the free samples to see what they are missing with porn, I don’t think he dares.
The fact that a pastorbator actually thinks this is evidence of stunning mental malpractice. How does he know that these millennial men are virgins? In all likelihood, they have experienced real woman and found them to be uncompetitive with porn.
the various feminine virtues — things like kindness, compassion, selflessness, loyalty, tenderness. …
What a pathetic pastorbator. He truly has no direct experience with women at all…
Oh, how could I forget :
This level of female-worship, which is excessive even by pastorbator standards, is not just evidence of incel lust by the pastorbator, but even worse….
….is evidence of a complete lack of genuine faith.
The pastorbator has responded, calling both Dalrock and Boxer ‘nuts’, but without any real rebuttal :
@Jonadab-the-Rechabite “His pastor tells him about these angles of pure light, but what he sees is bitches who aren’t interested in him and fatties that do not interest him.”
Even now, the fatties look down on him too.
Also, anyone see this over at the Chateau. It’s the Beta of the Month. There is even a Christian angle to it:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/shiv-of-the-week-still-single-tho-girl/
When I read kindness, compassion, loyalty, compassion and selflessness it was officially over.
Now, after having pulled myself together, on to the rest of the Artikel.
Now, after having pulled myself together, on to the rest of the Artikel.
Don’t bother reading that manginatude. Attack him on Twitter instead (see link above and his comments doubling down…. about how we know nothing compared to him, and don’t realize that we should do as he says..
From the Drudge Report: Bondage Goes Mainstream: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/from-the-dungeon-to-the-multiplex-how-bondage-has-gripped-the-nation-a7570706.html
Also, Maybe the reason things have gone so haywire is because of the 50s. People, particularly women left that society because it did not make them happy. Some women were comfortable with it but others not so much. They wanted more.
Women were once thought to be happy being mothers and now they’re supposedly happier being career women. Why settle for the domestic life when there’s fortune to be made?
If I may quote Judas Priest:
If you think I’ll sit around as the world goes by, you’re thinking like a fool, ’cause it’s a case of do or die. Out there is a fortune, waiting to be had. If you think I’ll let it go you’re mad. You’ve got another thing coming!
You go, girl!
@Anon:
Interesting response from the “Pastor”. He intentionally characterizes the piece as “radical feminist preacher”, which means he read enough to need to find a way to avoid the topic. Dalrock is saying he’s blind to the problem, not that he’s a radical feminist.
Dalrock said :
Given that his thesis is that millennial men need to try the free samples to see what they are missing with porn, I don’t think he dares.
The other flaw in the pastorbator’s logic is that if he is encouraging men to try the ‘free samples’, why should they marry at all? Why not do what the pastorbator wants forever (i.e. be a PUA?)
The pastorbator wants casual sex to happen, but then at a time decided by the pastorbator, play captain save-a-ho. Why not do just Part 1 of what he wants, eschewing Part 2 forever (and stick him and other cucks with the tab, which they apparently are happy to pay?).
Pingback: Time and fantasy. | Dalrock
As men pursue women, however, they come to develop a more robust appreciation of what women have to offer them beyond physical beauty and sexual gratification. They become more exposed to the various feminine virtues—things like kindness, compassion, selflessness, loyalty, tenderness.
LMAO, I would not put any of those on the list of things you can obtain from American women today.
Given that his thesis is that millennial men need to try the free samples to see what they are missing with porn, I don’t think he dares.
Indeed. I mean I think he would probably say “well, I want the young men to be sexually starved so that they are motivated to pursue young women by means of sexual attraction, but I don’t want them to *have* sex until they get married”. That, of course, doesn’t work for various reasons: (1) The Script, which the church typically fully endorses, which says women may not marry until 28 (and they’re sure not twiddling their thumbs until then, either), (2) the fact that young women *will* have sex with someone else, if these guys are not the ones doing it (literally … they will typically walk if the guy doesn’t push for sex after a few dates, even if he is attractive enough for her to want to have sex with him), (3) the women in question don’t want to be pursued for sex right now, before they are in The Script’s age range, by THESE GUYS, so they will rebuff them, even if they are open to being pursued for sex by OTHER GUYS (hint, not guys they will marry). None of this is mentioned.
Instead there is this inane idea that in the process of pursuing women based on sexual attraction, which is intensified and incented by refraining from masturbation, men will “see the light” and realize that “inner beauty” is actually more important than that still-unrequired sexual longing that he has for the girl in question, which may someday, after she’s 28, get requited.
Is this guy even a male human?
the more decent men encounter “the imperishable beauty of a quiet and gentle spirit,”
Wait… American women… “quiet and gentle spirits”? Oh that’s a good one! When they’re all taught to be strong sassy independent tankgrrrrls?
“Woke up to discover I’m a radical feminist preacher, which is slightly less accurate than calling me a radical pope apologist.”
Since you mention it, Hans, one of Protestantism’s central tenets is the idea that clergy are accountable to the ordinary Christian. Preaching feminism is a serious charge so a rebuttal would be very Luther-an of you. Your blog or Dalrock’s.
Refusing to heed the opinion of dissenters would, indeed, mark you as a practicing Papist. “You don’t have proper standing in the church to say I’m wrong! You’ve never been to seminary so what could you possibly know about God that I don’t?”
What could you lose? If nothing else, you’ll get lots of material for your Lutheran Satire website.
Novaseeker
Is this guy even a male human?
Looks like one from the images on line, and looks a lot younger than I expected. I would guess he’s in his 30’s, maybe pushing 40. You know, a lot of men and women unconsciously push whatever script or series of events worked in their own life. For example, say a Beta orbiter finally marries a post-wall single mother, or divorcee, he’ll talk about how “Friends First!” is a great way to marry. Or a couple meets in some youth program and winds up marrying, they’ll be interested in matchmaking via church functions.
Given what pastor Fiene has written, and his approximate age, we can make some guesses about how he met his wife, if he has one. Perhaps at some small religious school, where the meaner girls toned it down?
For sure he is out of touch with the way that 20-something people live now. Most of them don’t even go to college, for a start.
Tangent: For all the talk that preachers and pastors and priests and etc. like to indulge in about “meeting people where they are”, I haven’t really known very many who actually take the time to listen to and observe the people around them. There’s a kind of churchy bubble that surrounds them, that they can’t really see out of. Take the typical church leader; he’s got some middle aged woman office worker / secretary doting on him to some degree; teenaged girls put on their best face for Preacher Bob; the women of the church look up to him to some degree as a figure of authority…when does he ever encounter the other side of women? When does he realize women’s sexuality is not what he was taught? Outside of his own home, where does he encounter a contentious woman?
I’m sure that every pastor would bristle at this, and insist that they see all sorts of things I never do (true) and they know all about how fallen women can be (not so true), but every time I run across one of these Women are Wonderful paens I just wonder where those men live.
Woke up to discover I’m a radical feminist preacher . . . .
He gives himself too much credit. Radical feminists occasionally have balls. No one would ever suspect that was true of Pastor Fiene.
He is not a radical feminist preacher.
He is not even a tradcon, encouraging men to “man up and marry those sluts…”.
As far as I can tell he is telling men to sample a few of them and then, overwhelmed by their kindness, generosity and loyalty (?), wife one of them up.
The idea that after having sampled enough of them, wifing them up could literally be the last thing on a man´s mind appears to be inconceivable to him.
It have the same feeling I have regarding more extreme liberals these days, I cannot tell if they are consciously lying, LARPing or have chosen to remain willfully ignorant.
This is the best possible response that a troll could hope for: having your mark boost your countersignal to his own feminist tirade. It opens up the opportunity for more of his audience to find us, and gives hope to people who are depressed by his message.
Big thanks to @empathologism and @niggatyreese for backing my play. Get you guys a case of beer for that.
Our enemies are using Twitter to spread their message. The rest of you guys should consider creating a twitter account to talk back to these idiots.
Pingback: Out of season, preach [2 Tim 4] | Dark Brightness
Boxer @ 4:03 pm:
“The rest of you guys should consider creating a twitter account to talk back to these idiots.”
I really should follow your example… but it’s disgusting social media… eugh. I don’t even use HTML tags yet.
…
Anonymous Reader @ 1:10 pm:
“You know, a lot of men and women unconsciously push whatever script or series of events worked in their own life.”
In this case, I think it’s more he’s repeating what he was taught without ever having had enough life experiences to think for himself. Classic ivory tower syndrome. This must be part of why Christ demands we suffer, because if our beliefs don’t get tested then they aren’t truly ours.
Perhaps Hans shouldn’t disrespect social media before he tries it. It’s a great way to hear what other people are saying. I would never have had conversations with PUAs and other not-my-lifestyle types without the Internet.
Hey, wait a minute. Mister “The Internet Prevents Us From Developing Relationships” is on Twitter, maintains lutheransatire.org and produces an entire YouTube video channel. Is this hypocrisy or misanthropy?
By the time they get married, 15 years later, what more does he know if he has been a good, Christian guy?
Well, speaking from personal experience, by 15 years later he knows that I Cor. 7 applies to his life exactly opposite to how he felt it did 10 years ago.
Also, he knows enough to read “feminine virtues—things like kindness, compassion, selflessness, loyalty, tenderness” and laugh bitterly.
“Lutheran pastor Hans Fiene …”
That right there automatically and immediately serves as a flag to disqualify anything this guy has to say from serious consideration. That he’s a Minnesota Lutheran pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin.
“A Prog by any other name …”
I’ve been following this blog for a while and have never really ventured into the comments before, but being an LCMS member like Pr. Fiene and having watched some of his “Lutheran Satire” videos before, I decided to scroll down. And I have to say, I’m pretty disgusted.
It’s true he completely misdiagnoses the problem. Yes, he’s naive. But to throw baseless accusations and name-calling like “racidal feminist preacher” or “pastorbator” (seriously?) is just plain crude and uncharitable. Whatever happened to correcting an erring brother in love? (2 Tim 2:24-26) I see no love here, only wrath.
@feeriker
Maybe the word “Lutheran” brings to your mind church bodies such as the ELCA or Church of Sweden? Those “churches” are hardly Christian, much less Lutheran, since they’ve abandoned both the Bible as an inerrant source of truth and the Lutheran Confessions as an accurate expose of the truths of scripture. The LCMS, while we do have our problems like every church has had since the Apostolic Age, is one of the least liberal church bodies in the US.
You have to read all Persimmons cimments to get the whole pictureof her dissonanceand bitterness. She essentially refuses to do anything in order to attract a man.
@Paul,
Three questions for you:
Did John the Baptist sin when he referred to religious leaders as, “a brood of vipers”?
Did Jesus sin when he referred to religious leaders as, “hypocrites” and “white washed tombs”?
Does Nehemiah 12:1 say, “Thou shalt never critique the writings or sermons of a Lutheran pastor”?
Hi Paul:
I am responsible for criticizing Pastor Fiene on twitter. Please see below.
1. I’m not a Christian, and thus the preacher isn’t my brother, and I have no duty to follow Christian religious law. That’s granting that Christians are compelled to be charitable to the wreckers of our civilization, which I’m not sure there’s support for anyway.
2. He is a radical feminist by any reasonable definition of the term. For example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/466537?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Regards,
Boxer
@Bee
1 & 2
No. The Pharisees were self-righteous, teaching legalistic spiritual poison, and refused to listen to corrections.
Read what Jesus Christ says regarding the process of excommunication in Matthew 18:15-17. Notice how the first step is not bringing the erring brother in front of the church and shaming him; it’s correcting him one-on-one, hoping that he will listen to you the first time. Now we’re not talking about excommunication here, but I think the process works largely the same. There’s a time when harsher language and anathema becomes necessary, but that doesn’t mean you immediately leap on someone’s throat for one mistake.
3
No, and you’re completely misrepresenting what I said. Try reading it again. I didn’t say don’t call him out on it; I said to do so in love. Do you really think everyone in this comment section is doing that?
@Boxer
“I’m not a Christian, and thus the preacher isn’t my brother, and I have no duty to follow Christian religious law.”
Fair enough (although we all have a duty to obey the Law whether we believe it or not).
“That’s granting that Christians are compelled to be charitable to the wreckers of our civilization, which I’m not sure there’s support for anyway.”
There absolutely is support for that (Mt 5:44). Since you’re not a Christian I don’t expect you to know that Christianity isn’t particularly concerned with improving human civilization (progressivism of all forms is heresy) or understand why that’s the case.
“He is a radical feminist by any reasonable definition of the term.”
No. Someone who’s against all the feminist hot-button issues like abortion and thinks that women should submit to their husbands is not a radical feminist just because he unwittingly accepts the feminist narrative on one particular issue.
Dear Paul:
You’re either equivocating (i.e. being willfully dishonest) or you didn’t read the reference I provided, which well-defines feminism as a struggle toward reconstructing society, eliminating all forms of male privilege, entitlement and supremacy (I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the easily understood essence of radical feminism).
What does my favorite phony preacher do? He does all of the above. He openly struggles in an effort to tear up the social contract, creating a phony equivalence between male and female. This has no support in the bible, but is the principle tenet of radical feminism. Thus, when I call my friend Pastor(bator) Fiene a radical feminist, I’m calling him by his proper title.
I realize you’ll probably just double down and make excuses for his false teachings, but I hope there is a chance you keep thinking about the real issues here (which don’t include feigned pro-life positions or other side issues). Pastor(bator) Fiene is not a friend to Christians. He’s at best a LARPer who forwards a radical feminist agenda under cover of being some sort of Christian priest. He’s also not a friend to civilized people or families. The phony teachings he promotes are the deadly enemy of civilization. He demoralizes good men and women, excusing their bad behavior and promoting discontent at his every opportunity.
Regards,
Boxer
@Boxer
“What does my favorite phony preacher do? He does all of the above.”
Show me where Pastor Fiene does ANY of the above. Simply repeatedly asserting that he deliberately does so is not an argument. All his article proves is that he grossly misdiagnoses the problem of why many young men and young women are not getting together, as Dalrock expounded upon.
“He openly struggles in an effort to tear up the social contract, creating a phony equivalence between male and female. This has no support in the bible, but is the principle tenet of radical feminism.”
Yes, I am aware.
“I realize you’ll probably just double down and make excuses for his false teachings”
I’ve not once excused his false teachings, just criticized how he has been treated for them.
“but I hope there is a chance you keep thinking about the real issues here (which don’t include feigned pro-life positions or other side issues)”
I hardly see abortion (infanticide) as a “side issue”, but I suppose our different worldviews give you and I different priorities.
“Pastor(bator) Fiene is not a friend to Christians.”
I have no good reason to believe he’s not a baptized believer in Jesus Christ, so he is my brother, regardless of whether or not we agree on everything.
“He’s at best a LARPer who forwards a radical feminist agenda under cover of being some sort of Christian priest. He’s also not a friend to civilized people or families.”
This is completely unfounded. Just because he acts ignorant of the real problem doesn’t make him some subversive plant and mass-deceiver—he could ACTUALLY be ignorant of the real problem. Calling him a “radical feminist” simply gives him reason to dismiss Dalrock’s valid critiques without considering them, since he obviously does not see himself as any sort of feminist.
Give people the benefit of the doubt; if he is as you describe it won’t matter, but if he’s not then you might actually be able to convince him of the truth.
“Feminism has taught women to be masculine competitors – they are not taught any of the feminine virtues to which Fiene alludes. .”
If a woman wants to attract a man, they need to be a woman and not a man. Most men aren’t attracted to women that act like them.
Dear Paul:
Uhh, you haven’t read his article over at the Federalist, and apparently you haven’t even read the article here on Dalrock, directly above your own comment.
If you want to say I’m making shit up, you’ll have to give me a plausible reason for the good Pastorbator Fiene’s illustrated proclivity to blame men for the misbehavior of women, lambaste boys for not wanting to marry harlots (in direct contradiction to the teachings of the bible) and for constantly running interference for his feminist sisters, rather than confronting them — as is well documented in the articles he’s written.
The reason he does all these things, of course, is simple. He’s a radical feminist, who LARPs as a Christian priest. There simply is no other reasonable explanation.
I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. He won’t get any such consideration from me. I’m treating him much better, on twitter, than he treats the young men in his congregation. Those people who are foolish enough to put their trust in him are the ones I save my sympathy for.
Regards,
Boxer
My comment on Pastor Hans’s article:
“Don’t worry, Hans. As long as you hit that wire with the connecting hook at precisely 88 miles per hour, the instant the lightning strikes the tower… everything will be fine.”
Paul @ February 11, 2017 at 11:00 am:
“Whatever happened to correcting an erring brother in love? (2 Tim 2:24-26)”
Tried that. Didn’t work. Being nice only made us look weak and be easily ignored.
Paul @ February 12, 2017 at 3:48 pm:
“All his article proves is that he grossly misdiagnoses the problem of why many young men and young women are not getting together, as Dalrock expounded upon.”
So you admit we’re right. This is progress and we thank you for taking us seriously. No offense, but what are YOU doing here? Can’t Fiene defend himself? We aren’t the libtards. Let Fiene name his terms and we’ll have a debate on this critically important, relevant topic. Or, Fiene can anklebite us on his YouTube Channel. Either way, why put yourself in the line of fire for his sake? Fiene is a leader of the Christian Church; that position comes with the duty of owning your shi#.
It’s a false shepherd who sends his flock to take the bullets meant for him. It’s a false shepherd who persists in error when fatal mistakes in his theology are pointed out. Hans is a false shepherd and Christ would have us point this out, loudly and in public with many insults, like Christ did. And Luther, come to think of it.
I love this attitude of his, like, “Hey guys, modern women aren’t just all beauty and raw sexuality, there’s more to them than that, ya know. They’re not just incredibly beautiful. There’s much more.”
Yeah, all that beauty and raw sexuality all over the place. Sorry I get distracted by the 10,000 strong herds of long-haired, doe-eyed, gazellesque minxes wobbling around on their high heels and skinny legs with those delicate little arms and fragile necks and those bird-like high pitched voices that make you just want to pick them up and carry them home and get lost in their raw, feminine sexuality. With all the beauty in my face all day long, I forgot to ask them what they thought of Franzen’s latest novel. I was too distracted by their beauty. Tacoma, Dayton, Bismarck, Laramie, Great Falls, Omaha…..just blizzards of raw sexuality and beauty.
You can listen to Pastor Fiene broadcast on Issues Etc. The guy is totally anti-man
1) He claims that millenial men are voracious consumers of porn without mentioning any facts to substantiate that. Typical chuchian crap. The girls consume hardly any porn. I am serious. This moron actually says this.
2) Church girls are wonderful modest creatures that if only christian men would take the time, then they would discover how wonderful they are and how their gifts are to be savored. Stop laughing.
The truth of the matter is that most churchian women have been fucked and chucked so many times they are completely incapable of any meaningful relationship. Most American women have been so used why it is if they were like a cheap bottle of wine passed around by hoboes. American women love the genitals of donkeys; they drink the cum of dogs.
http://issuesetc.org/2017/02/13/0441-millennials-sex-and-marriage-pr-hans-fiene-21317/
Fiene, finey, fo, phom. I smell the blood of a living scum: Pastor Fiene. A little pussy worshiping peasant.
Pastor Fiene has competition:
http://www.startribune.com/pornography-is-an-affliction-for-young-men-and-it-s-been-mainstreamed/413461753/
@ N. Vanderberg
🙂
VandeNberg, apologies sir
@Paul
Fiene went public by posting for all the world to see. He is not in the confines of his church where someone can quietly approach him. This is a war for the soul of the church. Pastors are held to a higher standard and men are called to confront God damned lies (sorry, I know that is redundant for all lies are damned by God but I say it for proper effect). Men are called to judge and confront and get angry and have wrath and hate and rebuke and discipline….just like God, in who’s image they were made. Only revenge is the Lord’s. Men are to be jealous and zealous about upholding the word and that is what Fiene just received. And you should too.
The church with a denomination and steeple is in late stage 4 cancer and is returning to men in the leading of their house, in the simplicity that is the Word, Jesus.
Feminist men need a woman like a bicycle needs a fish. Duh.
m11nine says:
February 9, 2017 at 3:42 pm
“Persimmon is replying every few minutes over there. Should be interesting if she wanders over here.” FWIW, she said elsewhere she is black. Methinks sour grapes are much of why she’s swearing off men. The gap between hypergamic tastes and what they can actually catch for non-short-term is widest for black women, of all women in America.
FWIW, she said elsewhere she is black. Methinks sour grapes are much of why she’s swearing off men. The gap between hypergamic tastes and what they can actually catch for non-short-term is widest for black women, of all women in America.
Like most black American women (the Ford Pintos of the female species), she lacks the self-awareness to realize that it is men who have sworn off of HER, that if you want to attract and keep something valuable, you have to demonstrate that you hold some intrinsic value yourself. This actually begins to seep into the self-programming of MOST women at some point in their lives (usually at an age too late to do them any good), but BAW seem to lack some internal component in their design that would enable them to process this reality at any age.
Dear Feeriker:
Come on, now. Don’t get between a dog and his meat. lol
I’ve dated tons of black chicks. As in, despite their relative rarity, I’ve probably had as many black relationships as white ones. Black women, as a whole, certainly aren’t better than white women. All women seek to live at a man’s expense, after all. But, they really aren’t any worse, either.
I do have some sort of inborn proclivity to them. I blame Brigham Young, who long ago told my people that “death on the spot” was the penalty for banging a black woman. At some level in the Mormon collective unconscious, they become exciting.
In any event, there are a fair number of slim, feminine black women in the world, who would make good wives to a serious family-minded man. Most of these women are immigrants or first-generation North Americans. Not surprisingly, they also tend to be very religious Christian or Muslim girls who were raised in an intact, patriarchal, two-parent house, where they were taught to love god and respect their man.
I realize this goes against the prevailing White nationalist narrative on sites like this, but in my anecdotal experience, African and Carribean immigrant girls tend to be a little bit more intelligent, more chaste, and more ambitious than regular white chicks. I don’t presuppose any genetic superiority. It’s probably because only the most intelligent and driven crabs escape the bucket into our macrosphere, and thus we find the potential elite washing up on our shores. The loud ghetto hoochie mamas and thugs don’t tend to make it here.
In any event, if a young man is not completely wedded to the idea of racial purity, and he wants to have a traditional family, seeking out one of these girls might be a good bet for him. Naturally, there are no guarantees that the sweet, modest, religious girl one marries today won’t start hanging out with nasty fat skanks and queer theorists at her job, and suddenly decide she wants to take full advantage of the family court system. There’s the rub.
Boxer
@Boxer,
Is there really a “prevailing White nationalist narrative” on this site?
I can’t say I’ve detected that from the host. Certainly some of the commenters elide a sympathy for it from time to time, which doesn’t surprise me altogether, but I haven’t thought it generalizable and one doesn’t judge a site by a subset of its commenters, especially if their sympathies are not permitted to overshadow the mission and subjects of the site.
The ones who do find themselves sympathizing with it should be advised: WN puts a target on your back and your front and the top of your head. You are not the only ones exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. Lots of people ready to take aim at that target. I doubt the skin-deep ethos of WN is going to turn into the kind of unity necessary to preserve a collective – in fact: the visceral revulsion the majority of people of European descent have against WN has a lot to do with the failed culture-bonding that WN telegraphs.
Most people are aren’t WN, including the majority of Europeans and Americans of European descent, correctly intuit that WN will be the fastest to turn on each other when the SHTF. Having failed to bond to a tribe they are so confused they mistake Russians for friends on the basis of skin color. Someone’s been holding a gun to your head for 50 years, ready at any time to shoot, and all of the sudden your insight is so penetrating you realize they are your friend?!
You are automatic kryptonite.
Not a good survival strategy.
Consider the possibility that if you agree that you are “white”, you have already agreed to have lost. You should take offense that anyone calls you “white”, most of all your government. If your roots are Scandinavian you have European grandparents that go back to Cro-magnon times. If your roots are Indo-european you have roots that take you back to the Pontic Steppe and which may tie you to Hellenic, Latin, Celtic and other major European cultures. If your roots are Anatolian we can thank your grandparents for sea faring, beer and bread, and your roots go back to the earliest cities to emerge from the last Ice Age.
Don’t let anyone tell you you are “white”.
Take “European” back, learn your roots. Learn the old languages. Learn the old ways. Learn where you came from. Initiate into cultures. Welcome others who initiate as brothers – not on the basis of skin color, but on the basis of culture and brotherhood.
That’s how we survive this.
Now I expect Dalrock to chide me for going way off topic.
That’s as it should be.
@Boxer/Stroller:
I have only dated “white” woman and married a “white” woman and do not find anything attractive about “black” womenz . . . do I qualify as a WN in your book(s)? I wanted to marry a Scot like myself, but settled for Dutch, as a good Scot woman are hard to find in my neck of the woods. Maybe I was a crypto Scot Nationalist and didn’t know it.
Dear Peeps:
It’s for you to define yourself. Are you a WN? I trust you to know yourself well enough to tell me how you feel about things.
In any event, I support White Nationalists (and Black Nationalists) who honor their heritage by becoming decent, respectable people, achieving cool stuff in the real-world, and being good citizens. I don’t care too much about ethnic stuff (as you might have gathered above) but as long as I’m left alone to mudshark and racemix, I have no problem with anyone else’s hobby.
Best,
Boxer
I see some of this like the red pill in male-female relations. Certain things float to the top even if they are suppressed and exceptions to the rule exist.
I was a lot more open when I was younger, but reality has shown me that some groups will refuse to integrate.
I am also definitely a nationalist. God did make the nations and I am seeing that trying to mix everyone together is not a really bright idea. Any nation should seek the interests of its own people and seek to advance itself (in a moral manner) as much as it can.
Q: Who cares about a sexually-incontent heathen’s disordered erotic proclivities?
A: His disappointed parents and GlaxoSmithKline’s clinical sales department.
(The dreaded race-hobbists certainly don’t care… until such a union produces bastards. Every right-minded man or woman, regardless of creed or color, should care about that.)
As for Perambulator Merkel al McMuffin: You’re too late, fam, the cool kids are all fashy goy now. Guess they’re all gravely imperilled. Dead men walking. The “you’re-not-really-white” genocide proceeds apace.
Seriously, white nationalism’s biggest problems are pathological altruism and passivity.
The former is a nasty and uniquely white tendency for self-conscious, conspicuous self-abegnation.
Cuckism. Nobody does it better.
And as a sort of vestigial cultural artifact, it doesn’t matter very much. Kind of like an appendix.
It’s cute and nice and squishy and adorable until it is (((expolited))) and becomes an existential threat. Then body politic, the tribe, goes septic. Then it matters.
Right now is when it matters.
Right now is an inflection point.
Back on topic, I think any sort of substantive anti-feminist cultural change will require women to police themselves. Men’s concerns are inconsequential, no matter how urgent. Just some more background noise in girl-world.
What really matters is would-be-slattern Suzy’s position in the pecking order and the usual meangirls-on-girl shaming required to keep her there.
Obviously we aren’t anywhere near that state culturally. After all, the mean girls are still pushing Lean-In Multikult Tweet-Your-Foeticide Masochism with abandon.
But perhaps that could change through extreme austerity. My question is what degree of disconentment is required to precipitate such a change? Is it possible for this to happen spontaneously?
Or will they cling to the penis envy ’til the American Flag Burkas become compulsory? So brave.
This is what I think concerning black women: I have been romantically linked to four of them yet I never despite the fact that one physically attempted to force me into her bed (is that attempted reverse rape?) could not bring myself to proceed further*. I was also chased up and down Helvelyn by a Chinese bird but again I just couldn’t bring myself to…. I deduce therefore that I and I presume most white men are biologically wired to feel sexually repulsed by people of a different race or if you prefer attracted to women who look much like themselves. Chasing Asian babes is for losers.
It seems to me that White Nationalism is a specifically American thing: Brexit after all is not about White Nationalism but about British Nationalism; that to be British one will perforce be white (not that all white people are British) is a different matter. One never talks of being Italian English or Polish English or as the case may be and I observe that although Americans so often preface their nationality with the name of another country you never hear the term English American. I deduce therefore that the only true Americans are English Americans and yet English immigrants to your country like John Derbyshire or the late Christopher Hitchens are not in any real sense American – whatever they may wish. It is all very confusing.
* I attempted however to pimp a Lord Justice of Appeal who frankly was far passed it to make a move on one of them: what does that say about me or my tastes.
When Christ walked this earth, He had few negative words for murderers, prostitutes and even what society considered the worst: tax collectors. There was one group He went after with full hatred: the religious leaders. Be they the conservative religious (Pharisees) or liberals (Sadducees) He used words so nasty translators soften them (see Mat 22 among MANY examples). Fienes exemplifies several of the reasons why Christ hated these people so much:
1- They substitute the traditions of men for the clear words of Scripture. Women are to have their heads covered in Church as a visible sign of submission. Any pastor that approves of women sitting at Church with uncovered heads violates Scripture. This is not only plainly taught in Scripture, but was the universal understanding of ALL Churches for 2K years UNTIL Vatican 2 caved into feminism. Fienes is among the 99.9% of Protestant pastors who not only “re-interprets” Scripture to get along with feminism but also followed the decision of the Romanists. If you believe that symbols do not matter, then why use water in baptism? This is just one among many, many other compromises which render Fienes, and 99.9% of pastors, unfit to preach.
2- Using these traditions of men instead of their Bibles, they tie up large burdens and place them on the backs of the people without so much as lifting a finger to help. The Bible gives clear directions as to wives being required to submit. It also teaches men what to do if they do not: the silent treatment. There is a manual on married sex in the Bilble: Song of Solomon. It extols the virtue of an interracial marriage, but when the wife decides she is too tired to get up late at night and give her body to her husband for sex, the solution is he goes away from her, and things go badly for her. As pointed out by Oscar in the comments with her story about the bottle of A1 sauce, Proverbs teach husbands to retreat to the rooftop and have nothing to do with a quarralsome wife. Yet the uniform message from the pulpit and Christian counselors is “more communication” which rewards rebellious wives. Women feed on communication. Cuting off this from them is the Biblically recommended method to discipline them. Yes, a husband should discipline his wife. We are told to treat our wife as Christ the Church but only ever told about the sacrificial side of Love. However, does not Christ also discipline the Church? Now, I am NOT advocating physical discipline, I am not Muslim. The Bible however does recommend withholding not only affection but also money and protection. When my wife was spending too much, I announced I would shorten my working time and if bankrupcy ensued, then so be it. Everyone criticized me BUT, it worked. She stopped spending and became more appreciative of my efforts.
3- They love to be called leaders, teachers and even some as fathers yet they eschew when a layman picks up a Bible and says “Christ is my leader, teacher and only guide to the Father, this Bible plainly says you are wrong.” Fienes is Lutheran, he may claim to believe in the priesthood of all believers and yet his denomination does not permit lay people to administer sacraments, as do almost none. This is wrong, and a symptom of something much worse. I am the bane of Sunday school. I show up and routinely contradict the teachings of the elders respectfully, from the plain meaning of Scripture until I am told to shut up. I have never been to seminary, I am a busy physician. But I look up the Greek and Hebrew, I wrestle with my Bible and I will NOT accept what some authority figure tells me but rather, as Luther said, I will believe what the Bible plainly says unless convinced by Scripture and reason. Fienes is a traitor to the words that sparked the reformation, in fact, Luther himself later on betrayed his own words, as did Calvin and the majority of Reformers. If a pastor wishes to reason with me from Scripture, I always, ALWAYS listen in the due submission I owe to those set above me; however, he (and it damn well better be a he) must make his case from the Scripture not tradition, feelings or some cultural movement.
I realize this post is long, but my thoughts are longer. I am 58 yo, 35 years happy marriage and 42 years converted from agnosticism when I tried to disprove the Bible. I am a young earth creationist having rejected macroevolution while still agnostic on the science. My Bible is my Pope, my Christ is my Brother and my wife my helper- not my master. I am also a PCA member beyond pissed off at the direction the PCA is on.
JR
Uh, sorry, Matthew 23 begins Jesus’ rant against religious leaders.
Dear Fellas:
Well, I’m a North American. It’s hard to tell what my nation is, since this is such a big place. I guess you could call me a Mormon (we’re sort of an ethnic group/nation) but I don’t pay any attention to the folk religion of the Mormon people, and I don’t live within the historic boundaries of the Mormon state any more. All the same, I aspire to be a nationalist (as opposed to a white nationalist), provided we can figure out what nation I owe allegiance to.
Of all the WN types I’ve known, the majority of them seem to have a long list of personal problems and nothing in the way of real-world achievement. I don’t think this is a coincidence.
Incidentally, many of the WN types I’ve met are Jewish (or descended from a Hebrew grandparent or two, or married to a Jewish chick) and hate themselves for it. Many of them are also self-hating homosexuals.
The one in this thread is a perfect example. It’s clearly a dude, despite his using a female title (LOL!). He’s upset, but doesn’t know exactly what to be upset at. Terms like “fashy goy” and (((whatever))) indicate a life lived mainly on the internet.
White Nationalists are commended for realizing that North America is generally in trouble. Unfortunately they don’t have any solutions, and aren’t really smart enough to grasp the root of the problems, so they retreat into a goony ethnic identity (the smart folks call it “retrocultural nostalgia”) and suppose they’ll be safe there. I guess it makes them feel better.
Given that Americans are theoretically descended from people who were thrown out (run out?) of the UK, it seems like English-American is the only thing one can’t really be.
Peter Brimelow is another one. It’s almost akin to convert’ zeal, the way naturalized Americanos become the biggest flag-wavers possible.
I’d probably argue that North America is much too big for any one nation to occupy — at least in the long term. We have regional and cultural identities based upon geography (New England, The South, Texas, Quebec) or ethnic migration patterns (Appalachia, Cascadia) but these seem fragile without tenable borders. In any event, I dig a lot of Anglo-Americans. A younger Peter Brimelow is currently starting riots on college campuses and I hope he manages to defund them.
Boxer
North America is not a nation, it is a continent. I would bet you would not want to live, permanently, under the Mexican nation Boxer. You are really more of the mess we call the USA now. I haven’t fully thought through exactly what a nation means in my case, since I grew up buying into the melting pot idea. Reality doesn’t work that way, so I am adjusting my views.
Everyone should keep in mind that many called WN are not really that. I am not stupid enough to think any specific color is “better”. I just think we are different and I prefer to live with others with similar views, compulsions, etc.
Keep in mind that a British race was different than a French race, for example, in the past. Both may look similar to some, but each has different backgrounds and cultures. Note that Czechoslovakia is now the Czech Republic and Slovakia, IIRC.
People self-segregate and that is not always a bad thing.
Canada (where I’m from) and the U.S.A. (where I live now) aren’t nations either. They’re more properly seen as multinational empires — big political entities that comprise multiple smaller nations.
I mean, really, what does a Newfie have in common with someone who was born and raised on Haida Gwaii? Does a ethnic/native Hawaiian have anything in common with a white New Yorker?
Hence my question. As an aspiring nationalist, which “nation” ought I give allegiance to?
I don’t know what this means, but if it’s an attempt at an insult, it’s really not necessary. We can just agree to disagree.
Peace,
Boxer
@Boxer
Hopefully this isn’t really needed, but for the record I am not a white nationalist, nor is this a white nationalist blog.
As for my readers, the internet is a big place, and the majority of readers likely never comment. However, my guess is that the vast majority of readers here would not be troubled by your preference for black women (moral issues of fornication aside). I think the issue most in the sphere would object to would be if you were virtue signaling in this regard, which I don’t read you as doing.
I don’t have the stats handy, but as I recall marriages between black women and white men have fairly low divorce rates. But as you suggest, this is probably an exceptional group, as this type of pairing is very uncommon.
Dear Dalrock:
Apologies. I shouldn’t have been so ambiguous. And, I agree, I’ve never seen WN content in any of the original articles here.
This blog is constellated in a complex of similar sites, many of which do skew towards WN content. Whether the authors of those other sites are WN, or whether they’re just writing occasional clickbait to seem edgy and drive up traffic, I think we’d probably agree that many commenters, here and elsewhere openly identify as WN.
A small minority of these people are my internet friends, so I can’t condemn all of them; though I stand by my original assessment that the more hostile WN types seem to be motivated by individual psychological problems, rather than political or social idealism.
I don’t disagree with you there. I find the virtue signalers at least as tedious as anyone else. But, this goes both ways. If a large racial group is described as uniformly unattractive (the ford pinto of women lol), the speaker is basically indulging in the same sort of fetishism as the older folks (both white and black) who would look askance and mutter at the younger me, assuming that I was a frat boy, slumming with a prostitute. (Actually her name was Annie, and I was in love with her at age 21).
It’s not all fetishism. Sometimes people just meet and like each other, and off they go.
Best,
Boxer
I praise God regularly that I left Christianity 17 years ago…. I looked into an alternative religion and embraced Islam which is a very masculine affirming religion. My born Muslim wife is commanded by God to obey me her husband. Sometimes I have to remind her of that, but I don’t get any back talk or feminist crap she just acknowledges that I am correct. I lay a tight dread game on her too. It works for me