From the discussion of both my post on manface and girlpower characters it is clear that even in the men’s sphere there is much love for “strong women”. In my most recent post the discussion eventually turned to the question of teaching women to defend themselves (martial arts, weight lifting, concealed carry, etc).
Before I go any further, I’ll state that:
- My own thinking on this topic has changed over time, as I started with something closer to the mainstream conservative view.
- I’m inclined to generally respect other men’s choices regarding their own families.
Temptations of the kickass gal.
With bullet point number two above in mind, I think we need to be aware of the temptations involved. The kickass gal is a well established conservative feminist trope, and we should be aware of this when considering how we direct the training of our wives and daughters. Feminists know why they want our daughters to move out on their own in the big city and experience the carousel. Conservatives on the other hand pride themselves in knowing how to make this feminist goal “safe” for our daughters to achieve.
The kickass conservative gal trope is easiest to spot when it comes to guns. Conservative shooters love the idea of guns as a realization of the feminist dream. If you aren’t familiar with the subculture, go to any online forum on guns and you will find a group of men eager to explain how tough their pistol packing wives/daughters are. One of the local DFW gun ranges understands this culture well, and features pictures of a kickass gal with a pink gun on their website. This is not, I should add, a range dedicated to women shooters. I’ve been to their store, and their target customers are the same group of men every other range/store in the area caters to. The same is true of another gun shop just a few miles away, B&S Guns. They have a billboard* by the freeway with a picture of a woman shooting a rifle that says “We won’t tell your HUSBAND.”
If you decide you want to teach your wife/daughters to shoot, keep in mind that the entire culture you are bringing them into is designed to tempt them into a feminist rebellious frame of mind. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it, but you shouldn’t kid yourself about the temptations you are throwing their way.
There is also the reality of the difference between men’s and women’s interests when it comes to masculine pursuits. All of the men I know who shoot enjoy going to the range to practice, and even enjoy breaking their guns down to clean and maintain them. I have yet to observe a wife or daughter who takes this level of interest in shooting. They may embrace the “empowerment” of it, or simply enjoy infrequently going to the range for a bit of shooting, but I’ve yet to come across a woman who really “got into it” the way men do. This, plus the realities of men’s and women’s different instinctive response to violence means that training and arming women is going to be much less effective than gun owning feminists desperately want to believe.
Again, I’m not saying you are wrong if you decide to teach your wife or daughters how to shoot. My wife enjoys coming to the range with me from time to time, and I plan on teaching our daughter to shoot. However, we need to be realistic about the risks and benefits involved with this.
We’re so manly, even our women are like men!
There is another temptation involved with this, and this temptation is for the men involved. Part of the appeal of the kickass conservative gal is the idea that the man who masculinizes his women is proving how much more manly he is than other men. This tends to start with selecting a specific masculine pursuit and declaring it to be the very definition of manliness. In a general sense this could include marriage and fatherhood or even the ability to attract women, but for this specific example it is something like shooting, hunting, rebuilding an engine, weight lifting, or martial arts. These are all positive pursuits for a man (in the right context), but none of them are essential for being a “real man”.
The base temptation for men is to declare that one of these manly pursuits is the real test of a man, and any man who doesn’t do them isn’t a real man. The tie in temptation is then to add another layer cementing the man’s status as the only real man in the room, by declaring that any man who doesn’t think highly of masculinizing women in this specific way is merely too much of a girly man to appreciate strong women. This is a standard feminist slogan, but it comes from a conservative I’m more manly than you are position.
*Thanks to Cane for finding an image of the billboard.
I’ve been reading your blogs for i’ve been reading your blogs for a while and I must say that your work is top notch sir. I would’ve never thought about that but when I think about the whole subliminal message behind the strong woman with the gun imagery, I gotta say you are correct. Any man who doesn’t follow the given pursuit ( in this case, shooting) would feel and mask in a lysed in compariso would feel emasculated in comparison.
Come to think of it this could go with other pursuits besides ones that are considered primarily “masculine”. One that I can think of off the top my head is that there is a slogan that goes “you just got chicked” whenever a woman out-does a man at a given activity.
Pingback: Kickass conservative gals. | @the_arv
I work at a range, and I can say from experience that, with some exceptions, the regular female shooters are not particularly attractive. Also, you might check out Springfield Armory’s new ad for their Saint AR. 6 strong (attractive) women…aaand sales to betas and omegas skyrocket.
I think that part of the reason kickass girls appeal to lame guys is because lame guys have no game and don’t know how to interact with women so they fantasize about cool, masculine girls who are into the same things they’re into. The reason why they’re friends with their guy friends is because they like to do the same stuff, so they apply that logic to women. “I just need to find a girl who likes to endlessly play video games, watch ESPN, crush deadlifts, drink beer, and bang. But I keep meeting these vacant girls who are interested in fashion, being pretty, and instagramming themselves at trendy restaurants and bars (read: ‘I can’t supply the kind of excitement that frivolous, feminine women require, so I need to find a non-feminine woman who doesn’t require it’).”
In short, they are not masculine enough to handle a feminine woman. A woman would never be interested in them because of their looks, charisma, career, intelligence, etc. because they don’t have those things. So they keep dreaming about a gamer chick who likes them for their impressive k/d score on Call of Duty or whatever.
In hetero relationships, the man brings X to the table and the woman brings Y to the table. But if a lame dude can only bring 0.5X to the table, then the woman has to be somewhat masculine for there to be X + Y.
Yes. The “kickass gals” meme is the norm in “conservative” circles, and I love the way you tied this to the feminist dream:
Conservatives on the other hand pride themselves in knowing how to make this feminist goal “safe” for our daughters to achieve.
When trying to “red-pill” my friends, this is the most difficult needle to thread–bar none. It is usually where the dads of daughters will ultimately lay down their claim at being about “traditional” values and jump ship. They presuppose a daughter, on her own, in the big city, (doing things they cannot admit in their subconscious she is doing–see “Sigmund Freud”). This requires her to be armed and “kick ass” in their estimation.
All roads lead back to it. Courtship? Must only be about the aesthetic of a boy on the porch with flowers. The underlying principles behind it will stifle princesses dreams.
Good man? One that can “handle” a strong woman.
The frontier days? Must have had kick ass women who could easily drive the wagon train, shoot a fly off the ass of a mule from a mile away and…
It’s a piece of this puzzle I have not been able to sugar coat or rationally explain well enough to be effective. A real tough nut to crack.
So they keep dreaming about a gamer chick who likes them for their impressive k/d score on Call of Duty or whatever.
I think you’re right. What they do not get, though, is that any of the gamer chicks who are even decently attractive have no interest in gamer geek guys, and want the most masculine guy that their looks can attract. It’s always the unattractive guy’s fantasy that he can attract an attractive girl who shares his same interests. Uh, no, you can attract an unattractive girl who shares your same interests, but even there, the competition even for unattractive girls in, say, geeky gaming communities is pretty darned stiff given that the sex ratio is similar to that of gay bar.
Novaseeker/Ayatollah-
I never understood that culture. The really cute “gamer” chicks don’t have boyfriends like Sheldon. I just don’t get why they keep trying.
I had a colleague who is into quoting movies like Napolean Dynamite, knows everything about Star Wars, etc. and is hot.
She is married to a fortune 500 dude. That’s how it works.
I think my last point explains some of the Schmoe phenomenon. The Schmoes are aggressive about coming up to the beast women at conventions because the Schmoes *expect success with them*. They think “finally, there’s a girl who’s on my level- she’s all about being cut and strong, not about all of the stupid, feminine things that typical girls like (such as flirting and having sex with guys who are more attractive and successful than me).”
This is an entirely American phenomena: I have never held a gun and outside of the military I doubt I have ever met anyone either male or female who has done so. I have never found that females have any interests (other than to their looks) although they will for the duration of the relationship but not a minute longer profess great interest in whatever you, a man, are into. Even when I between my twenties and thirties played Soccer no female ever came to show support of the team.
In America, however, it is different: I recently watched the sixty year old Lone Ranger movie; set out in Montana, there is one child of the family, a girl, who, the Father not having a son, is bringing up as if she were a boy. Treating girls as if they are boys obviously goes back a long way and though I do not once again intend to seek out the page reference in De Tocqueville, he in the 1830s observed that America would end up producing strong women and weak men.
Did you see the video clip recently on-line of the – he looked drunk to me – refugee in Sweden who fought off and with little effort no less than four female police-women; and then again in Paris the other week a Terrorist took the gun off a police woman an event that has happened on at least one earlier occasion to my knowledge with on that earlier occasion fatal consequence for the two then gun-less police women.
Interesting perspective. I always viewed it more from a political point of view — women are naturally followers of trends (well, all humans are, but women especially), so if you normalize the image of the pro-gun woman, maybe you can cause other women to view firearm ownership as normal.
This in turn might slightly lower the likelihood that they will vote for a candidate purely because they’re against “those EVIL guns that nasty, mean, raping MEN like because of their testosterone poisoning, OMG.” Plus reducing the chance that they’ll try to slip anti-gun ideas into your kids behind your back. And if things ever came to a gun confiscation, maybe they wouldn’t rat out their husbands if the same decided to have their guns be lost in a tragic fire, ahem, rather than handing them over.
Additionally, there’s the safety issue. Unless you’ve got your woman imprisoned in your house like a Middle Easterner, you can’t hover around them 24/7 even if they’re not “independent carousel riders.” My uncle knows a guy whose attractive wife was forced off the road by a black guy, who presumably intended to rape her. She drew a pistol and aimed it him, which prompted him to get back in his car and flee. The “feminist” activity she was involved in was grocery shopping for the family.
In short, while I like most of your work, I think you’re overdrawing a point somewhat here. While there may be “kickass dame” fantasies in some cases, there seem to me to be a number of practical considerations why armed women aren’t as bad a thing as you’re making out.
It’s nice to be able to drive away from home overnight when necessary, knowing that your wife can do something other than scream if some wretch comes in through the window at 3 AM. If nothing else, if things ever go totally down the toilet, I’d rather have two semi-competent shooters in my household than one.
@Ironsides
“Interesting perspective. I always viewed it more from a political point of view — women are naturally followers of trends (well, all humans are, but women especially), so if you normalize the image of the pro-gun woman, maybe you can cause other women to view firearm ownership as normal.”
You’re attributing way to much rationality to the fetish of armed female action heroes. Men aren’t drooling over hot girls in camo shooting an AR-15 because they’re brilliant propagandists trying to trick women into voting Republican.
I just don’t think you understand the article. Dalrock said explicitly that he takes his wife shooting and plans on teaching his daughter to shoot. He didn’t say “armed women = bad.” This post is not about armed women. It’s about men fetishizing tough women and where that fetish comes from.
But…Sarah Palin is going to save Conservatism! If not her, then Megyn Kelly. If not her then Dana Loesch. If not her then Carly Fiorina. If not her then Hannah Giles. If not her then Joni Ernst. If not her then Tomi Lahren. If not her then Lauren Southern…
Gay.
It’s such a sucker’s game, too. The Feminists get what they want while Conservatives lose on both counts since women aren’t safe alone in the city even when armed.
ayatollah1988: they are not masculine enough to handle a feminine woman. A woman would never be interested in them because of their looks, charisma, career, intelligence, etc. because they don’t have those things.
Not quite true. It’s true that Betas are not “masculine enough” to handle a feminine woman. But it’s wrong to say that Betas don’t have “looks, charisma, career, intelligence, etc.”
They might not have “charisma.” But many Betas have good looks, a good career, and intelligence. One can be an intelligent, high-earning, even good-looking Beta, yet still lack that Alpha charisma/masculinity that women want.
Dal, while I see your point and don’t disagree, I am also receptive to the marketing strategy that these gun ranges and, especially, the NRA, employs to lure more women into the “gun culture.” Their strategy has nothing to do with the topics here…their strategy (besides making money and selling memberships, duh) is that, like it not, women do vote and are a powerful electoral voice…and are also the most easily deceived when it comes to the lies of the gun-grabber lobby….so the more women they co-opt into the gun culture, the better off the Second Amendment will be. I’m sympathetic to this marketing angle because, over the years, I’ve become pretty much a 2A absolutist – I welcome any American 2A defenders, of any sex/color/creed/zir/zhe/zhatever.
This strategy, of course, may indeed have the effect of enabling the “yougungrrl” trope of you so eloquently speak…but the NRA isn’t looking at that or even considering it an issue. Do we consciously “disavow” women shooters in order to “reassert the patriarchy” at the risk of near-term 2A erosion? Remember, if the 2A goes away, it goes away for everybody.
Ironsides said In short, while I like most of your work, I think you’re overdrawing a point somewhat here. While there may be “kickass dame” fantasies in some cases, there seem to me to be a number of practical considerations why armed women aren’t as bad a thing as you’re making out.”
I agree. I carry a weapon (and am a better shot than my husband, who is plenty masculine while I am plenty not) because a car full of vibrants once tried to force me off the road. If not for my brother in law who had been lying down in the back seat sitting up and scaring them off, I have no idea what would have happened to me and my sister. I didn’t carry at the time, so even that small chance at defending myself would have been denied me. If you’re making the point that women shouldn’t think guns make them manly, I’m with ya. But because I am not in any way a badass all by myself, I need an equalizer. I take my weapons seriously *because*I am a girl in need of a boost to my strength. not because I’m some kind of masculine freak. To fail to teach (or allow to learn on their own, as I did) your women to defend themselves as much as possible is negligence, not protecting them. Unless you keep them under guard all day yourself, they have to take some responsibility for self-defense.
The kind of “strength” I want in a woman is the ability to listen to criticism or disagreement, without reacting like it’s a personal attack, becoming offended, and getting defensive and argumentative.
I want a woman strong enough to listen attentively to criticism or disagreement, to assess my remarks with dispassionate logic, and to ask honest and intelligent questions if she doesn’t understand.
@Ironsides
This is a stupid strategy though. If anyone really wants tough women, then he must create tougher men. Sparta did not have tough women because they praised tough women, or because they celebrated tough women. They created tough men, and then women followed along. Normalizing the image of the pro-gun woman actually removes the incentive for women to get tough because you’ve put the effect before the cause. It’s like trophies first and then expecting competitors to match the prizes.
To get from her to there, every effort spent to elevate or toughen up women is counter-productive because the propaganda is going the wrong direction.
@PokeSalad
No, we just shut up about them. And we sure as hell don’t bring them up while we’re talking about how the kick-ass chick theme has taken over the world.
Ironsides @ 2:57 pm:
“In short, while I like most of your work, I think you’re overdrawing a point somewhat here. While there may be “kickass dame” fantasies in some cases, there seem to me to be a number of practical considerations why armed women aren’t as bad a thing as you’re making out.”
Teaching a woman to shoot is bad because women react to sudden violence with fear while men react with aggression. Train Barbie to shoot at the range “just in case” and when she’s attacked in a parking lot, she’ll shoot with her eyes clenched shut. At her foot.
If I wanted to protect a wife, I’d reinforce the master bedroom with barred windows & a heavy door and just tell wifey to run there, lock herself in and call the cops. Fleeing is a woman’s first reaction and the bedroom is where she likely felt safest even before the remodel, so in the heat of the moment she’ll naturally do what she should without even thinking about it. Add AAA membership so she can stay locked in the car. Done. No need to constantly condition her into male threat responses.
Don’t train a woman to behave like a man. Especially not for once-in-a-lifetime events. This shouldn’t be hard.
“My uncle knows a guy whose attractive wife was forced off the road by a black guy, who presumably intended to rape her.”
Fascinating. Your uncle must live in the one place in North America that still has pirates.
This is a great post.
I quibble only with the inclusion of husband and father as one of many pursuits. Even God goes by Father – it is the ultimate manifestation of manliness just as motherhood is the ultimate feminine. Not the only manifestation, but for Christians the point of our creation.
looks like the “equalizer” meme is cropping up, and some latent conservative feminism is creeping up in these comments too. very interesting lol. Something in my gut told me this was a sensitive subject even for some anti-feminists. Very similar to “but the women help the economy, so they must be in the work force!” and “women always get abortions so it must be made legal!”.
Conservative gun worship is definitely useful propaganda. People have bought into the “women need guns so they can protect themselves from the men ’cause they’re weak!” rhetoric big league.
@ Red Pill Latecomer
I’m not talking about Beta’s. I’m talking about incel’s. People who are *completely* unable to interact with women. Which is why I used the example of the chronic video game player who’s holding out for a hot gamer chick.
My thinking is that all of this comes back to there being no men’s spaces free of women. And (some) men actively encourage females to invade men’s spaces, even their own wives and daughters. Yet, apparently it’s still okay for women to have their women’s-only spaces – clubs, gyms, etc. – free of men. It’s diabolical.
@RecoveringBeta
I just went to Springfield’s site and am surprised at how chickified it is. Out of seven products listed across the top (XD to 1911), the photos are of 6 women and one man. But even the one man checks a SJW box, since he is black.
just don’t remind them to cock the gun, when its pointed at you.
PokeSalad @ 3:07 pm:
“Do we consciously “disavow” women shooters in order to “reassert the patriarchy” at the risk of near-term 2A erosion?”
Yes. God forbids doing evil in order to accomplish good. Encouraging women into masculine behavior in the hope they’ll vote in masculine patterns is not an option for us. If doing right by God kills the Constitution a few days early then fine. Our consciences will be clean.
As if that wasn’t a plan of hopeless desperation anyway.
Frontier women had strength and agency because they were still chattel of men. Men expected and required that women would defend their family and work equally for survival. That was traditional.
When “rights” were “granted” to women, responsibility did not follow. I do not need to expand on this in this forum.
Men still like to see the trappings or symbols of a woman that will work toward that common goal of family and marriage. It’s merely style without substance in the current legal environment. When men hear of or see a wife that is a traditional wife, they forget that she’s only that way by choice; they forget that AWALT still applies.
Many men fail because they forget that maintenance and risk management is still required, as is required for any tangible property. Wise men in the past made that traditional, and taught their sons and daughters how to marry and live together.
There may be cultural or genetic components in the immigration of peoples into the US, especially in the 1800’s, that selected for marital conflict. I can’t help but think that successful people stayed put in their nations, and that includes the majority of successfully (and happily) married couples.
“The kind of “strength” I want in a woman is the ability to listen to criticism or disagreement, without reacting like it’s a personal attack, becoming offended, and getting defensive and argumentative.”
That’s such a good point. So many discussions of ‘strong women’ get tangled due to not having a solid definition of strength.
Pingback: Kickass conservative gals. | Reaction Times
Two things about this post:
1) Sex sells. One of the reasons there are billboards having women with guns on them, women in bikinis selling everything from laundry softener to real estate, is that sex sells. The reason the elites unleashed feminism on us is so that women would help them sell ( and buy) stuff we don’t need, to impress people we don’t like, with things we don’t need. This shit is good for the economy*, but bad for families..
2) My son got interested in the martial arts. My wife and later, I myself joined a martial arts school. Learning the arts was fine, but what I didn’t anticipate was the type of people who train there and the effect it had on my wife.
Rich people made her very unhappy. It suddenly wasn’t enough that she owned a pleasant home in a good suburb. She now coveted a three-story waterfront home. It wasn’t enough that she was married and had a family. Her husband wasn’t rich and capable of drawing the kind of money required to live lavishly. A bunch of rich lesbians became her closest friends. Suddenly her husband was the target of collective disrespect and ridicule. Being married was somehow alien and stifling to her.
It took me a red-pill awakening and a lot of conflict to sort this out. While we both still train after our son has grown up and left home, I would say that the experience – not of the martial school itself but of interacting with other people – has been a deeply negative one, and this is what husbands need to be aware of.
*I’m not sure it is good for the economy. It makes for an increasingly inefficient economy, not an efficient one. That is, if you want a high-income country with a lot of debt – have an inefficient economy. If you want high income and low debt/ credit, have an efficient one.
@ Red Pill Latecomer says:
April 10, 2017 at 3:15 pm
“I want a woman strong enough to listen attentively to criticism or disagreement, to assess my remarks with dispassionate logic, and to ask honest and intelligent questions if she doesn’t understand.”
Good luck with that.
Until recently Tomi Lahren was the poster girl for the Kick Ass Conservative Girl. Ironically enough, it was actually my own daughter who made me aware of her. She was like, hey Dad check out this girl Tomi, she’s kinda Red Pill for a woman. I could see past the fluff instantly, but I also understood why she’d be popular; a gorgeous young blonde who’s desperately trying to be the heir apparent to the likes of Ann Coulter.
Girls love her because she’s everything they want to be in terms of conservative feminism, but she’s pretty enough to be a model and she hates those fuscia haired dykey feminists. Trad-con guys love her because she’s smoking hot and she speaks their language. I got the bigger picture after I’d watched her ‘girl problems’ video here:
It’s the Sisterhood Über Alles as usual. The Feminine Imperative supersedes conviction, religion, politics and ideology. Thus, she’s surreptitiously fired from The Blaze right after she declares she’s pro-choice and women drop any ideological beef they ever had with her to support their sister. Whether you’re in the R column or the D column, if you’re a woman it makes no difference. The Feminine Imperative fluidly uses both the political left and right to front itself.
Gunner Q says:
April 10, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Ironsides @ 2:57 pm:
“My uncle knows a guy whose attractive wife was forced off the road by a black guy, who presumably intended to rape her.”
“Fascinating. Your uncle must live in the one place in North America that still has pirates.”
Yeah. Diversityland. It has outposts in every state now. Didn’t you know that? You should try harder to keep up on current events.
“The base temptation for men is to declare that one of these manly pursuits is the real test of a man, and any man who doesn’t do them isn’t a real man. The tie in temptation is then to add another layer cementing the man’s status as the only real man in the room, by declaring that any man who doesn’t think highly of masculinizing women in this specific way is merely too much of a girly man to appreciate strong women. This is a standard feminist slogan, but it comes from a conservative I’m more manly than you are position.”
Spot on. I don’t have a problem teaching women how to shoot or them learning how to do so. However, those that actually want to learn for self-defense are few in number. In my family, it was only my mom that ever got a concealed carry permit. She hunts deer. Neither of my sisters took an interest in shooting or hunting (though both carry Tasers™). My ex-gf took a class, in full disclosure without any prodding by me, on self defense shooting.
All the women I just listed I don’t think of as kickass, etc. For those that learned basic self defense, it’s one more tool in case man isn’t around (my ex is single for the moment and one of my sisters is married).
This idea of masculinizing women is a) disgusting and b) leads to the carousel among many other negative outcomes. Brief aside: Until my ex, I hadn’t ever actually dated a truly feminine woman. That was a bit of a culture shock, to say the least.
Guys that pull the only real man in the group nonesense should be ignored, as well as though who tout how great their wives/gfs/sisters/daughters are at shooting, hunting etc. and how empowered they are. Do these people not realize that they are playing the game by liberal terms?
” They presuppose a daughter, on her own, in the big city, (doing things they cannot admit in their subconscious she is doing–see “Sigmund Freud”). ”
That elite college degree is paramount, Scott! Heaven forbid they get married early on or learn a decent job to hold them over until they do so.
“But…Sarah Palin is going to save Conservatism! If not her, then Megyn Kelly. If not her then Dana Loesch. If not her then Carly Fiorina. If not her then Hannah Giles. If not her then Joni Ernst. If not her then Tomi Lahren. If not her then Lauren Southern…
Gay.”
@Cane LOL!
“women do vote and are a powerful electoral voice…and are also the most easily deceived when it comes to the lies of the gun-grabber lobby….so the more women they co-opt into the gun culture, the better off the Second Amendment will be.”
@PokeSalad We could always try repealing the 19th Amendment. How many people, especially women, even know what it is?
“Fascinating. Your uncle must live in the one place in North America that still has pirates.”
@GunnerQ Detroit? LA? New Orelans? West Lafayette, Indiana? Indianapolis? Austin? Chicago? Philadelphia?
@Spike Dang that’s rough brah.
Enjoy, gents!
Perfect choice in music, by the way.
You can find and endless supply of images like the one above, and an even more abundant number of “conservative” men who post this crap on the internet.
They brought a woman in to my high school Jazzercise class to teach a seminar on self defense. First, we sat in a circle and each had to come up with a time we’d felt threatened by a man. Then she spent the rest of the seminar screaming “Kick ’em in the nads!” as the solution for every self defense problem. It was…less than helpful. (Your tax dollars at work, gentlemen.)
My “self-defense” strategy consists of a) trying to avoid situations in which I’m likely to be attacked; b) being aware of my surroundings; and c) running away and screaming. I used to carry pepper spray, too, but since I’ve never lived in particularly dangerous places steps a), b), and c) were adequate. I’d probably blow my own head off if I tried to shoot a gun.
I emailed a pic of the sign to Cane.
Of course you can be beautiful and feminine and know how to use a gun. I would say in many cases (particularly for women with so much to lose) knowing how to handle a hand gun is critical.
Excellent post. Worth exploring in more detail. I have always despised the masculine conservative female trends, but had never given much consideration to why, beyond, “I don’t care for women who try to be men.” Anyway, worth exploring further. Title IX played/plays a role in this as well, by convincing dads that little Sally can be just as great an athlete as little Johnny. In reality:
http://usatodayhss.com/2017/the-fc-dallas-u-15-academy-team-beat-the-u-s-women-s-national-team-5-2
The only female sports more enjoyable to watch than the men’s version are sports where grace is as important as strength / masculinity, such as gymnastics or figure skating. Because, in reality, everyone knows that competent 15 year old boys are better than the world’s best females. No ass kicking’s are even possible. Anyway, feminism embedded in Title IX idiocy probably helps feed this beast.
Per Desteen @ 5:14 pm:
“Men expected and required that women would defend their family and work equally for survival. That was traditional.”
This is exact opposite. What normally happened was the man headed to the frontier alone, leaving his wife with extended family, and only sent for them when he had a safe place ready. It was never expected for a woman to fight men. The times it happened anyway are generally referred to as massacres.
You are trying to square a circle using necessity. To say women can be as capably violent as men if only they need to be. Intentionally putting women in harm’s way and justifying it with high standards & showing them how to work a musket is… is exactly what the Pentagon is doing right now. And it’s a hopeless mess that is going to spark another massacre.
“I can’t help but think that successful people stayed put in their nations, and that includes the majority of successfully (and happily) married couples.”
America’s original settlers fled religious persecution. The plurality of second-wave immigration was Irish fleeing the potato famine. Most of the others were displaced by the Industrial Revolution or avoiding tyrants. But family instability? How many families moved to the Bakken fields over the last decade *because* their marriage was unhappy? And that’s a very tame frontier.
…
Luke @ 7:05 pm:
“Yeah. Diversityland. It has outposts in every state now. Didn’t you know that? You should try harder to keep up on current events.”
Please enlighten me. It’s hard to imagine Dindus ramming cars off the highway to rape, rob and murder in broad daylight. I know about Knockout Game and BLM but if stories like this are commonplace in the American heartland then how are the Dindus not hood ornaments yet?
…
Heidi_storage @ 7:41 pm:
“My “self-defense” strategy consists of a) trying to avoid situations in which I’m likely to be attacked; b) being aware of my surroundings; and c) running away and screaming.”
Smart girl. You don’t need to win a fight if you can avoid it. Smart men do that, too.
“I used to carry pepper spray, too, but since I’ve never lived in particularly dangerous places”
That’s just as well. Pepper spray is notorious for friendly fire; very easy to misjudge which way the nozzle is pointed, the wind, etc. I’ve used in combat on only one occasion, when I could see the attack coming ten seconds away but not avoid it.
There is not much of a self-defence culture here (Aus) but I spend considerable time in the hunting culture. The number of times that you hear the mantra that “we need more women in hunting” is something that this article speaks to.
Partly, there is the idea that more participants means more votes and hence more political support, but what is typically ignored is that (a) most women who hunt belong to families that hunt, so are not converts. You would expect them to vote according to family priorities, anyway; and (b) hunting is so much less naturally attractive to women that spending time and energy in trying to recruit them is less cost-effective than trying to recruit more men.
A reason often implicit rather than explicit is the feminist idea that having women involved somehow validates hunting. That there is something wrong with an activity that only attracts men. That is understandable if you presuppose that menare childish and irresponsible, but that is a lie. I don’t CARE if some women want to hunt, but their value is only according to their performance, not how good they look in form-fitting camo.
(A lot of the latter is like porn for guys who don’t like to admit that they like looking at female forms. )
Some of it is driven by the feminist imperative to invade any area in which men are seen to be having fun. Funny thing is that you almost never see women forming their own crews or starting their own clubs. They are always in activities created by men, for men, which they then demand be changed to make them more suitable for women. Same as feminism, everywhere.
Cuckservative men are such losers.
The truth is, if conservative women were REALLY strong, then government spending would be at half the levels that it is today, and there would be very few single mothers. Conservative women would be one step ahead of leftist women, and prevent any such legislation and programs from passing. Instead, ‘conservative’ women support these things too.
Another famous example was Cassy Fiano, who is just a fat girl who poses with guns. She is a Republican, but pretty much agrees with most of ‘feminism’ outside of a few key areas. That is enough to get her worshipped by cuckservatives.
I mean, she is just a fat girl who occasionally poses with guns. See the link.
There are almost no truly conservative women.
I view women handling guns as akin as to women driving cars. It’s not so difficult that the average person is unable to do it competently with a bit of work. If you need to, or have the responsibility, then do it.
What it doesn’t mean is “equality”. It doesn’t mean equal ability, enthusiasm or expectations. There is a difference between expecting a woman to kill her own snakes, and thinking that there is something great happening if the men in her family are not just ready, but more willing to do it…. and do it better.
Scott says:
April 10, 2017 at 7:27 pm
OF COURSE a tradcuck would rather have a “kick-ass Army Ranger in drag” than a twerking skank. Because rationalization. No twerking skank is likely to give any tradcuck dweeb the time of day. A “kick-ass woman,” however, might smile condescendingly in his direction, which is more than enough to send his heart into palpatations.
Listening recently to a podcast on military experience, issues and the transition to civvy life.
The men are all about what they experienced, learnt, working and fighting with their fellows and the good things that they believed that they had achieved.
The soldierette on the panel spoke only about what was achieved “for women”. Not women victims of the regime that her unit was fighting, but soldierettes. Not achievements of her unit. Not the men who taught her, led her or served beside (or in front of) her.
Anon says:
April 10, 2017 at 9:32 pm
Cuckservative men have set the bar almost on the floor. Cassy Fiano is another Heidi Klum to most of those losers.
You have to remember that Satan will use any and everything to push his agenda. Feminism, politics, money, lust. Each person has a different weaknesses for Satan to push. In the case ornate Springfield, they want to sell. Sex And feminism sell. Politicians want to get into office (or stay). Appealing to wants of women gets votes. You see what I’m getting at. The ultimate goal is to get at the husband/father and divide the family. All
He has to do with most people is twist a small weakness and he manipulates them into furthering his plan WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING IT!!! Which makes it very hard to identify and stop.
Anyone who carries, (or relies on a gun for protection in any way) that does not train regularly is beyond stupid. Firearms carry too much responsibility NOT to train. And not just shooting. Situational awareness Drawing. Varying conditions. Cover and retreat techniques. Hell, do this simple test yourself…….go to the range, fire 10 rounds, then go run around the parking lot and immediately fire 10 more. Elevated heart rate, adrenaline, etc. the difference is staggering.
I am a personal fan on the line training the USMC Used to
Teach. (I think it’s judo or something now) Basic “get them off me” moves (although they ended with a leg sweep and a heel across the bridge of the nose) It relied on leverage (not strength or size) to break holds and inflicting pain (as opposed to injury) to stop the attack. Eyes, wrists, fingers, groin. They cause immense amounts of pain. Ever doubt this, bend one finger back to your wrist. You will immediately agree.
In combat, this gives you the advantage to kill you enemy (heel to the nose). In civilian life, it gives the chance to get away.
Teach your wives and daughters whatever you want, but make sure to tell them the truth about the training. It only goes so far. And don’t get tricked by Satan into furthering his agenda. The safest place to be is with their husband/father, which is where they are supposed to be anyway.
There are almost no truly conservative women.
Of course. To expect women to support small government is like expecting government employees to support small government.
Hence, there are no strong women – strong enough to fight against the growth of government, which is what a conservative is supposed to do.
Both the wife and I took the mandatory course (Canada) and both passed. We have a 30-30 and a 22LR. Shotgun next on the list. She wanted to have the ability to put down our old horse if it came to that. No other reason then that for her. Practical.
We’ll keep mending conservative fences,
Bring our ladies right back to their senses,
Though it might be a sin if she tries to fight men,
She’s still a Kickass Warrior Princess!
PeterW – “Some of it is driven by the feminist imperative to invade any area in which men are seen to be having fun.”
Peter, let us call it by its rightful name – female cultural appropriation!
I am not interested in Sarah Conner for a wife. I thought Linda Hamilton was a knockout in her pre-Terminator days, but that whole tanktop, dangling cigarette, sinewy arms, aviator sunglasses, disassemble/reassemble-my-weapon-every-two-hours thing was decidedly not attractive – and decidedly ridiculous.
My wife learned to shoot – and I take her to the range – for one simple reason: I travel a lot and am away from home. She wanted to be able to defend herself inside the house in case of an intruder, and I concurred. She doesn’t need a CCW permit. Period. If she feels the need to go somewhere that would warrant carrying a concealed weapon, it’s simply confirmation that she shouldn’t go. She sleeps with a loaded gun when I am not home. I am not entirely convinced she is safer, and could truly handle it in a moment of crisis, but she sleeps better and it was a small price to pay.
When I’m home, though, she sleeps even better.
QUOTE : Peter, let us call it by its rightful name – female cultural appropriation
I don’t think so.
I don’t care if women want to shoot, hunt, run businesses or form clubs…..
It’s when they won’t form their own institutions, but insist on invading men’s. That’s not cultural appropriation, but institutional.
It’s the difference between buying your own sombrero and demanding that a Mexican GIVE you his……. while telling him that he must decorate it in your favourite colours.
Rollo,
Dittos. I hadn’t heard of Tomi Lahren until she made the headlines recently, but it took about 36 nanoseconds to determine that anyone who “came out” as pro choice was never legit to begin with. I’m not actually a big Ann Coulter fan either. She’s smart and articulate, and has more balls than many men when it comes to speaking her mind in a hostile audience, but the real test of authentic womanhood is submissiveness and I suspect that acerbic tongue of hers would go into overdrive the second she was asked to defer to her husband’s judgement. Frankly, I tend to measure any conservative these days against a single thought experiment: what would he/she have to say about the prevailing views in this blog – or yours.
@RPL
Following on from Oscar, indeed, you’re looking for the veritable Unicorn. Good luck with that.
Good discussion, folks. I’m learning from this.
@PeterW.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Ditto for my favourite pastime of fishing.
@innocentbystanderboston
“Of course you can be beautiful and feminine and know how to use a gun. I would say in many cases (particularly for women with so much to lose) knowing how to handle a hand gun is critical.”
Please tell me that you didn’t post that egregious clip as an example of a woman knowing how to use a gun. I don’t think it’s responsible gun ownership to go up to a group of dangerous thugs and start something with them as if you’re invincible just because you have a Glock in your purse. What do you think would happen if those dangerous thugs weren’t intimidated by her fierce Mama Bear shtick and decided that they weren’t going to let a scrawny middle-aged woman come up to them and call them bitches? Would she have gone Death Wish on them, or would she find out that she isn’t so tough after all?
@GunnerQ: My great aunt, who owned a small country grocery store, was gang raped by a car full of prison escapees in the 1960s. A former pastor’s sister-in-law was shot and killed when she got lost while driving and drove into the wrong part of the city. My sister was attacked by black female students in a dormitory stairwell when she was in college.
If you haven’t heard numerous stories similar to these, you must live in a very safe area. I wish we all did.
If you are exposed to a culture that has firearms embedded into it’s norms you notice that this trope rarely surfaces. If it does, it comes across as odd. Women and children that know firearms are completely unremarkable in this circumstance.
This post provoked the comment that proves Dalrock’s point. Getalonghome wrote:
Why did she write that? She could have wrote:
“I’m a good shot.”
“I practice regularly.”
“I get consistent center mass at 15 yards.”
“I love to shoot.”
“I get better every year.”
One could write alternatives all day. But what she chose was to display gun dominance over her husband, and then followed it up with a statement of the irrelevance of manhood because guns.
Later in the same comment she writes:
Negligence is a strong word, and it’s an ultimatum leveled at every husband and father in the world. Keeping that context in mind: How does that reflect on her husband? The parenthetical note is important: Why did she have to let us know that she learned on her own? She didn’t have to add “as I did”. We are left to assume that Getalonghome’s husband is just shy of negligent, and that she don’t need no man for defense.
Dindus and vibrants are a problem now; no question. The question is: Why did conservatives become feminists instead of chaperones?
@Cane
“Why did conservatives become feminists instead of chaperones?”
Perhaps because they bought the premise that a husband has no right to control anything his wife or daughters decide to do. What would you say?
@getalonghome
Its quite telling that the way we do things and how society is structured ensures atomization that exposes vulnerable women to danger that would necessitate the use of firearms by such women in order to stay safe and even alive.
When societies and ways of doing things were more collectivist with the defense role being delegated to armed men it is accomplished in such a way that women did not need to bear arms in the 1st place.
The problem is deeper than we think. And atomization is the problem that lead to the necessity of female firearm use in the 1st place.
And contribute to the rise of kickass conservative gals.
@Original Laura
See my comment above^
@CaneCaldo
No Husband and Father should stand alone in defence of his family. A single stick is easily broken but a band of brothers consisting of Husbands,Fathers and their able bodied Sons that pull together is much harder to break as a bundle of sticks is very hard to break.
I have a half-baked theory. I think that in modern life, males are not used to ownership of final responsibility. If everything else fails, it is down to the man. Sure, you can teach your wife to shoot, but if there’s a noise in the night, you are the one who has to go investigate. A lot of feminist drivel is bought into by men because it is comforting. Responsibility doubled is responsibility halved. They can tell themselves that if women have the right to work, then they don’t have to provide. That if women are just as tough, they don’t have to protect. But this is to mistake what it is to be a man. There is only one component, the considered and appropriate application of violence. What is the greatest threat to a child? “Go to your room until your father gets home from work”. To be completely morally and physically responsible for other human beings is a terrible weight. You don’t find it outside of combat, usually, or a traditional family. Patriarchy isn’t all male prerogatives, a lot of it is the crushing stress of ultimate responsibility. Which is why not many young males will take it up if they aren’t being incentivized to do so with all those prerogatives.
Tarrou…..
I have sometimes thought that if there is a ruling spirit to this age, it is that of avoidance of responsibility.
No fault divorce.
No fault insurance.
Compulsory insurance, health insurance, superannuation.
Excessive social security.
Abortion on demand (no-responsibility sex)
Occupational safety (it’s always theemployer’s fault)
Excessive litigation (it’s always someone else’s fault)
Free this. Free that. (Someone else has to pay for it.)
Reliance on government for protection.
No doubt you have your own items to add.
@Ironsides
This post isn’t about whether armed women are a good thing or a bad thing. It is about husbands and fathers understanding the temptations involved with deciding to arm their wives and daughters.
@Pokesalad
If you have internalized the yougungrrl trope, then yes, I suggest you mentally disavow it. If you are a husband and father deciding whether or not to arm your wife and daughter(s), the NRA’s political/PR stance shouldn’t be part of your decision making process. Decide for your own family, but keep your eyes open to the temptations involved.
@Kevin
As a society we should honor fathers and fatherhood. Sadly it would be a huge improvement if we could just get conservative Christian leaders to stop holding fathers with contempt. But this doesn’t mean fatherhood is the only way to be a real man, or a real Christian man. The Apostle Paul taught us in 1 Cor 7 that not all men should marry. For some men, it is much better if they don’t marry. So fatherhood isn’t required to be a real man, especially from a Christian perspective.
If you have internalized the yougungrrl trope, then yes, I suggest you mentally disavow it. If you are a husband and father deciding whether or not to arm your wife and daughter(s), the NRA’s political/PR stance shouldn’t be part of your decision making process. Decide for your own family, but keep your eyes open to the temptations involved.
This is an important distinction and doing it mentally at first is a good idea. The line between a father making a rational decision about arming his family and the trope probably seems subtle to most on the outside of this community. But it is the lynchpin of this post.
“I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.”
Nietzsche
There is an insidiousness to this. Pushing feminism among conservatives…but they love it!
I think it’s a mixture of the “thinking strong women are hot,” plus territory-marking from the perspective of the women involved. Most women really don’t want to be in combat. My wife asks me to kill spiders.
Worth about 5 posts is the idea of other men teaching your woman. It is, ultimately, lift-chasing and a chance to be the only real man in the room. It’s gross. Be the real man to your own wife, not the wives of other men.
Finally, of course Tomi Lahren is a fraud. She’s only 23-25 (Millennial chick). Went to a university, and rose to her level of fame for being hot, not for her viewpoints.
Frankly, I tend to measure any conservative these days against a single thought experiment: what would he/she have to say about the prevailing views in this blog – or yours.
THIS. By this criterion alone, I think we’ll find that true conservatives are much, MUCH rarer than everyone thinks.
No Husband and Father should stand alone in defence of his family. A single stick is easily broken but a band of brothers consisting of Husbands,Fathers and their able bodied Sons that pull together is much harder to break as a bundle of sticks is very hard to break.
Amen. Alas, community having been mostly destroyed in the western world, this is VERY difficult to pull off today. Unless you are part of a religious commune in which everyone lives in close proximity, odds of other husbands and fathers being in close proximity to assist you in your time of need are miniscule, zero, or south thereof.
Original Laura @ 1:12 am:
“If you haven’t heard numerous stories similar to these, you must live in a very safe area. I wish we all did.”
Is that all, though? My grandfather bought my mother her first gun to protect her from a gang of black female students during her college days (nursing) so I’m clued in on stories like yours. Blacks have murderously hated whites for at least three generations now but a couple comments here sounded like blacks had begun to literally hunt whites for sport. Hitting women & old men from behind with a baseball bat is more their style.
California doesn’t have black trouble outside of enclaves like Oakland because Mexicans hate blacks as much as blacks hate whites, plus the journalists cover up the hate crimes because they don’t want to give Trump an excuse to build his wall. Therefore, my own war stories are of Latino barrios rather than black ghettos. Illegal immigrants really are doing the job Americans don’t want to do: ethnic cleansing.
As it happened, Mom was horrified at the thought of actually using the gun. But she didn’t get injured, either, and the iron sights on her revolver are badly dented. I heard enough stories of Grandpa murdering thieves that I don’t push such topics in-family. He was quite a character… long dead now.
…
Dalrock @ 7:59 am:
“So fatherhood isn’t required to be a real man, especially from a Christian perspective.”
Thank you. It’s nice to hear it now and then.
@8 in the gate
Something like that. Few men want to control their wives and daughters; that includes me. I want them to make the right choices. That’s good of me.
But I also don’t want to see their disrespect when I tell them they should not do this or that. I also fear the spread of rebellion and abandonment among the women if I am seen as a tyrant, or “unreasonable”. That’s weak of me. What I have learned is that I just need to reach deep down, get in contact with that sensitive side of me, and choke it out while I say to myself, “Stop being a pussy, Caldo! God is in control. You will say what is right, and you will deal with whatever comes along after with that same faith no matter what anyone else does; as long as you don’t bitch-out and keep silent.
The undeveloped land mass of the New World presented generations of people with room to spread, and then the car–fast, cheap, reliable, personal transportation–happened and infowarrior1’s atomization process accelerated at an unprecedented rate.
I have noticed a trend of fathers being proud that they sent their daughters to martial arts class, thinking that’d keep them safe.. Then I ask “So, did you send your son as well?” And they start reaching for excuses as to why not. One said “well no, he’s a guy, I figured he could take care of himself.” Then I point out that men are more likely to be assaulted than women… and people start trying to change the conversation.
I think a similar question needs to be asked of any man who tries to get his wife or daughters into guns. Does he do the same for his sons? If not, that lays how bad of a father/parent the person really is.
The kind of “strength” I want in a woman is the ability to listen to criticism or disagreement, without reacting like it’s a personal attack, becoming offended, and getting defensive and argumentative.
The eternal lament: “why can’t a woman be more like a man?”
@ys
Definitely something to think about.
I have noticed a trend of fathers being proud that they sent their daughters to martial arts class, thinking that’d keep them safe.
Most martial arts is a glorified game of tag. When you spar, if you touch the opponent, you get a point, yay! But if you put your girls in a studio where people are actually getting hit and knocked down, they will quickly realize their absolute physical limitations (women are smaller, slower, and weaker), get demoralized, and quit. Far better to put them in a “light contact” school so they develop a false sense of competence and security, or something.
A little “kickass gun girl” eye candy brightens the day…
Men’s instinctual reaction to violence is: fight or flight.
Women’s instinctual reaction to violence is: freeze, flight, or fight (in that order).
When Alexander destroyed Tyre, he killed ALL the males, but allowed the women (who didn’t fight him) to live. Yea, they were sold as slaves, but they still survived by submitting and not fighting back.
You can’t erase thousands of years of survival instincts.
I took my wife shooting once, a couple years ago. I started her out shooting .22 shorts in a full size revolver. Then I moved her up to regular .22lr in the revolver. She was kind of ok with it. Then, I let her try my CZ82 (9X18 mak). She took one shot, and gave it back to me. It was too much gun for her.
Needless to say, my wife is a girly girl, and that is the way I like it. She’ll probably never shoot my AR15,SKS,12 Gauge, Mosin, Glock, etc. That is ok. She is my wife, not my shooting buddy. I’ll shoot with my shooting buddies.
I do hope to take my wife out again with a .22 rifle sometime. I think some level of basic shooting proficiency is a basic human life skill, and it is something the mother of my children should be able to do. I’m not always around to protect her. I’m sure she won’t conceal carry or anything, but she should at least be able to pop off a few rounds of .22 from the Marlin 60 or a revolver in a pinch.
We do have a lady that is a friend of ours who likes to go shooting. She is married, and has five children. She is girly enough to watch Jane Austen with my wife, and tomboy enough to enjoy shooting the Mosin with the husbands. A couple years ago, her husband gave her a Ruger 10/22 takedown rifle for Mother’s Day, and she cried tears of joy at such an expression of his love.
@ Scott says:
April 11, 2017 at 8:39 am
“The line between a father making a rational decision about arming his family and the trope probably seems subtle to most on the outside of this community. But it is the lynchpin of this post.”
It seems as though the line is lost on many INSIDE this community. If that’s true, how can we hope to make it clear to those outside this community? We can’t.
In the background there is the modern tendency of too many betaized men to raise daughters as surrogate sons. We’ve all seen the only-child family with one girl who is encouraged to be a tomboy, or the family with multiple daughters who are pushed by society to be strong ‘n independent and the father goes along with that. Also political expediency as touched on by several comments; “if more women own guns / hunt / shoot competition then we get more votes politically” is a factor.
I understand the man who wants to have his own family also be his fireteam, but suggest that such a man should carefully examine his own motives.
The tl;dr of all of this:
Why you are doing something is at least as important as what you are doing.
@Oscar
Yep.
Don’t feed the trolls.
[D: Problem solved.]
Tarl, you can post better than that. A) is a fake blonde with long dark roots clearly showing, and B) never finished puberty, going by her near-racklessness. (If it’s got less than a C-cup, it needs to go home til it finishes growing up.) Their physical fitness/health is high, though, and that’s nice. Go find bikini pics of women on the looks level of Katherine Heigl back in her prime in say, the 2nd “Under Siege” movie, Scarlet Johannesson in “Lost in Translation”, or the like, and you’ll have some memorable eye candy.
”Why did she write that? She could have wrote:
“I’m a good shot.”
“I practice regularly.”
“I get consistent center mass at 15 yards.”
“I love to shoot.”
“I get better every year.”
One could write alternatives all day. But what she chose was to display gun dominance over her husband, and then followed it up with a statement of the irrelevance of manhood because guns.”
Looking at the context of her statement taken in its entirety and not just the one sentence, she most likely wrote that to indicate her husband is manly and she is not. Ergo, being competent, or even exceptional, with a firearm is not ipso facto manly behavior. I don’t know a lot about Annie Oakley but legend has it she was a feminine woman.
THIS. By this criterion alone, I think we’ll find that true conservatives are much, MUCH rarer than everyone thinks.
Not just that, but even the term ‘conservative’ is wrong, since it was bestowed by the left that likes to call itself ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ (they are neither).
Right wing = free market, small government, personal responsibility.
Left wing = the opposite of the above.
Cuckservatives are economic leftists because they love any and all socialism, as long as it is packaged as men paying, women receiving. There is NO form of forced distribution at gunpoint that cuckservatives don’t love, as long as their one and only criteria is met.
Race nationalists are left-wing too, for similar reasons. Nazi Germany was a heavily socialized economy with government intervention in most sectors.
Dalrock,
Thanks for a good post. Been reading your stuff for years but I’m not much of a commenter.
If I may be so bold as to quote from my upcoming book:
A lot of my opinions have changed in the three years I’ve been researching the subject of men and women in scripture.
Cross-dressing is also absolutely forbidden. It’s an abomination for a man to dress up as a woman. The prohibition for women, however, is a little different. A better translation would be, “The woman shall not put on the implements of a valiant man…”. This includes not just clothing but also armor and weapons. It’s an abomination for a woman to wear a military or police uniform. Neither should she carry weapons that pertain to these roles.
Way before the “red pill” ever touched us–back when we were just dating– Mychael said this to me.
No firefighters, police or soldiers.
MAYBE nurses in a hospital distant from the battlefield, but not anywhere near male soldiers chain of command.
She still thinks this.
Way before the
Not sure where that sentence fragment came from. Stupid phone.
Right wing = free market, small government, personal responsibility.
Left wing = the opposite of the above.
Well, that’s one opinion. And yes, it’s a common talking point among modern American libertarians and conservative. I even accepted that definition in my youth. But really, it’s just an opinion.
The terms Left and Right have been tossed about for centuries, with differing definitions. Some think the terms originated in the French Revolution, when the supporters of king and church sat on the right side of the National Assembly, and the more radical members sat on the left side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics
King and church. Hardly small government.
Others believe that the terms originate from Edmund Burke: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/the-great-debate-by-yuval-levin-review/#
If this is right, then the touchstone of modern political debate in Britain and America is not capitalism v. socialism, or religious fundamentalism v. cosmopolitan secularism, but an earlier and deeper disagreement over the nature of the modern liberal political order itself….
Paine [a Leftist] whose hatred of authority in any form is so great … rejects the claims of tradition and convention and seeks to reconstitute government and society itself according to abstract reason….
…the irony is that, as government has grown, so has the number of self-professed Burkeans of the left seeking to preserve the status quo, while Paineans of the right want to begin all over again.
From the above, it seems that a Rightist is someone who believes that human nature limits the perfectibility of man. Whereas a Leftist is more utopian, and believes that men are mutable and that society can mold men into angels. A Rightist seeks to preserve order and proven tradition, whereas a Leftist is eager to destroy all institutions and to reboot society into a more “just” form.
Ultimately, what does it matter whether an ideology is considered Left or Right? No rational reason.
Pundits and politicians argue over political definitions because many people are emotionally attached to be Left or Right. Their identity derives from seeing themselves as a conservative, progressive, or whatever.
This is why Never Trumpers hysterically argued that “Trump is no true conservative.” Because many people have an irrational, emotional attachment to the term conservative. So if you can convince someone that X is no conservative, he will often reject X rather than reject the label “conservative.”
Libertarians expend an enormous amount of energy arguing over who is a “true libertarian.” Rather than argue the merits of a policy, they argue about whether the policy is “truly libertarian.” As if once we know the “true libertarian” position, the matter is settled.
I’m beyond political labels. I used to care, but no longer. I support what I believe are the best policies. Whether that makes me a rightist or leftist, liberal or conservative or libertarian, I don’t care.
I care about being a Christian. I don’t care what political label fits me.
In other news, femtwats complain that quiz championships feature only male finalists :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396240/Campaigners-slam-male-University-Challenge-final.html#ixzz4dxSmQeJt
They say, with a straight face, that it should not be allowed. No mention of whether women have the talent to compete in this very egalitarian, meritocratic field of competition.
No firefighters, police or soldiers.
Nearly all of them know this on a visceral level, but most won’t admit it. These can be highly dangerous arenas on any given day, and women want a man or men to show up when the stakes reach maximum. All the women, including those wearing the uniforms, know deep down that it is play acting. Men prop up this house of cards or there would be nothing.
Libertarians expend an enormous amount of energy arguing over who is a “true libertarian.” Rather than argue the merits of a policy, they argue about whether the policy is “truly libertarian.” As if once we know the “true libertarian” position, the matter is settled.
Just for the record, the siimplest and most accurate definition of a “libertarian,” a definitional criterion upon which every other aspect of libertarian philosophy rests, is this:
One who adheres to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which rejects as immoral any and all use of aggressive force except in the legitimate defense of one’s own life, family, and property.
@anon
No. Perhaps one could think that if she had not wrote this sentence.
That is the summary, and that determines the context. The talk about her manly husband is fluff meant to sooth us into a lull; to persuade us that husbands and fathers have no concerns if a woman takes over a man’s role. It is no different than the HuffPo feminist who swears that her kitchen-bitch husband is manly and attractive as he changes a diaper. But above all: Don’t a man dare to trespass on a woman’s rights to guns. If he does, he’s a tyrant, and less than a man than her poor-shooting, gun-passive (but manly!) husband.
It’s possible that getalonghome is not even aware of what she actually thinks; doesn’t realize what she has said. That doesn’t mean it is not her mode of thought and operation. I’ve spent two or three days pointing out very similar words of men here. Feminism seeps deep.
I don’t know a lot about Annie Oakley but legend has it she was a feminine woman.
I can’t understand why you’d reference a legend you admit you don’t know much about.
As a guide to libertarian conduct, the NAP is useless. I have learned, from the many years I spent in the libertarian movement, that the NAP can justify any policy.
It’s a matter of defining words like “initiation,” “aggression,” “force,” “property,” “rights,” etc. Define those however you like, and the NAP can be bent to support any principle.
During the Iraq War, I met libertarians who supported invading the entire Mideast (not just Iraq), to libertarians who wanted complete U.S. withdrawal from the Mideast, to every position in between. All of them were libertarians of many years standing. All claimed to support the NAP.
The pro-war faction said that Iraq, or “radical Islam,” or “the Caliphate,” had initiated force against the U.S. on 9/11, and it was “self-defense” (a libertarian principle) to invade (or even nuke) the Mideast. The antiwar faction denied there was any initiation of force or any need for self-defense. Both sides claimed to support “individualism” as opposed to “collectivism.”
On copyright, I’ve met libertarians who oppose any and all intellectual property, saying that all IP laws are state aggression, thus IP is not legitimate property. Likewise, I’ve met libertarians who believe that copyright should not only be protected, but should never expire, and that even ideas should be protected, on the grounds that IP are “property rights” (a libertarian principle).
I can see libertarians opposing No Fault Divorce, on the grounds that marriage is a contract, and thus No Fault Divorce is an initiation of force on the party being divorced. Other libertarians would say that being bound in marriage once you want out is is slavery, an initiation of force.
After many years in the libertarian movement, I’ve come to realize that it’s an incredibly elastic “philosophy,” one whose basic “principles” can justify all sides of every issue.
Dalrock, BillyS – that image of the billboard may not be worth 1,000 words, but it’s close.
The pony tail stickng out of the cap? Seen it at more than one range. “Girl power”? Heard it, at more than one range.
Some feminists in the 90’s were very anti on firearms, going on about how “you cannot defeat the Master with the Master’s tools”. Now this is a really good opening line for some quotes from Manos: The Hands of Fate but I’ve resisted that temptation for years. No sense weakening now.
The other extreme is of course “I shoot, and shoot better than him, but he’s still the man and I’m just a girl, tee hee hee”. This tends to go along with a somewhat pudgy, nerdy man who nervously nods along.
There’s an issue buried here. Men get a lot of responsibility shoved on them while at the same time authority is pulled away from them. I’ve discussed here before how if a person or persons want me to take charge of their security (that is responsiblity) even for a day in the city, they must surrender to my authority. If I spot a flash mob down the street and demand everyone get into a store right now that’s not the signal for a debate over “Why? What’s wrong? It’s such a nice day! Why do you have to be this way?” etc.
Teaching a family to shoot, starting with a wife, can be a team building exercise. Or it can be a sharing of responsibility, which has an implicit sharing of authority that can be really attractive to men now. Because sharing authority is better than just having it all yanked away. The problem with that can be summed up easily: fire teams are not democratic, there is one team leader and maybe an assistant leader in case the leader goes down.
It’s quite possible that the men who are engaged in the “kickass gun girl, YEAH!” mindset are really offloading some of their authority onto her, unconsciously. That’s just not going to work in the long run.
Now, to briefly address all the “girls shouldn’t shoot”, sorry, I’m out in flyover country where varmints come in various forms. Women in my family have learned to shoot in a purely utilitarian sense for generations – because it’s easier to kill a varmint in the chicken coop or garden with a rifle than a broom. If firearms are in a home, everyone should know which end to keep away from themselves and how to load & unload it safely. They don’t have to be able to repel North Korean paratroopers, just avoid putting holes in anything without intending to, and be able to credibly repel a breakin.
People should also know how to operate a fire extinguisher and perform basic first aid as well as change a vehicle tire, because even if you don’t need it some neighbor might. It’s like the “in case of a loss of cabin pressure” instruction on airlines: you have to take care of yourself first before you can help someone else.
Cane Caldo [April 12, 2017 at 12:09 am] & Red Pill Latecomer [April 12, 2017 at 12:14 am]:
The point I think you are disagreeing about, at root, is about semantics: “What do we mean, when we say X means Y?”
We live in a culture not just atomized by the automobile (per above comments by others), but also stupefied by dictionaries: Webster bedamned, words don’t have definitions; definitions have words.
Reality first, labels second. And, one can stick any label on anything. Hence: entirely different languages (3,000 or so, IIUC).
What happens is, important political ideas get labelled — then, later, less than honest political operatives try to extract the “importance” while leaving behind the idea(s), because they realize they can get a free ride off the brand-name recognition and the accumulated customer loyalty that comes with the “name” — despite disagreeing with, or not giving a dead hound’s worth of cold sh_t about, the idea(s).
In Intellectual Property law, it’s called “unjust enrichment” (trademark law). Alas, trademarking doesn’t exist in politics.
“Republican” means whatever the Bush family says it does, until Donald Trump comes along and shows that now, sorry, now it doesn’t mean what the Bush family said it did. Not anymore, anyway.
Look at the current disarray amongst the Democrats. It’s a huge brawl over whose views are going to get the “Democrat” label slapped on them. In other words, when Hillary was The One, being a Democrat mean “this”; right now it doesn’t mean anything at all; when whomever gets control of the mess (assuming the Democratic Party machine doesn’t burn up on re-entry from whatever eccentric, extra-terrestrial orbit it has been in for the last quarter-century), “Democrat” will mean”that”.
All of which is I guess a roundabout way of saying that I agree with RPL on this one.
Pax Christi vobiscum
@Anonymous Reader
Cool story bro. It doesn’t matter. When you start talking about ranch wives shooting coyotes, 10,000 conservative feminists have to tell a story about their pony-tailed wife who is such a crackerjack shot that she puts all the boys down at the range to shame, I tell ya! She’s a pistol!
There’s a man who comments here who has kickass gun-girls all over his own blog. Several months ago, he was in crisis with his out-of-control wife and seeking advice. Gee, I wonder why? Who knew that men who are attracted to kickass girls could be overwhelmed by sassy women?
Just like everything else that has gone off the rails down into the Feminist Canyon of Doom: We must say: “No.” We should do whatever we think is best in our own specific situations, but we should say “No.”
“Women deserve birth control!” No.
“Women deserve abortion on-demand!” No.
“Women deserve no-fault divorce!” No.
“Women deserve to be CEOs!” No.
“Women deserve equal pay no matter what!” No.
“Women deserve to kick ass too!” No.
Another local gun range with events catering to women:
http://defenderoutdoorsshootingcenter.com/events/defender-events/
Ladies Only Shoot N Sip
Date Night
QUOTE: One who adheres to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which rejects as immoral any and all use of aggressive force except in the legitimate defense of one’s own life, family, and property
Getting off-topic, but this is why I have rejected Libertarianism. It denies the Right of human beings to work together for a common purpose. It denies my right to help defend my neighbour, and to be defended by him. It denies that human beings are, by nature, social.
The more fanatical among them resemble lefties or religious fanatic in that purity of thought and doctrine matter more than outcomes…… and hell hath no fury like a fanatic who has just decided that a fellow-fanatic is less pure.
BillyS
Now THAT even surprises ME….WOW
Obama and his fanatic SJWs and unhinged leftists are out of power, so gun sales are dropping due to less worry – – or hysteria – – about the 2nd Amendment being overturned (?) or crippled by the federal government. So, gun manufacturers are going to try to widen their market, no big surprise. Very few will become active gun collectors or enthusiasts…more likely they treat the gun as an accessory – – hence the overabundance of “sparkly” guns at the gun shows lately. (Ugh.) Also, the girls like to make the guns go *BANG* but not so much the cleaning part – – it leaves their fingers all nasty-smelling.
Nothing terribly new here, and it probably won’t last long.
The B&S Guns billboard up-close.
https://foursquare.com/v/bs-guns/4c3cef5a15cb1b8d9a4e7bdc?openPhotoId=58d12a14cf445119f8b3fbf0
[D: Great find! Thanks!]
@Heidi_storage
Indeed the best self-defense is evasion. To slip away and avoid confrontation all together.
Violence is not only ugly and frightening but it constantly mutates therefore there is no one single kickass way of dealing with it. All violence has things that lead up to it. It doesn’t simply “happen”.
There is sizing up, there is maneuvering prior to violence. Common sense, situational awareness will enable most dangerous situations to be avoided.
Also just because you best a person doesn’t mean you will be free from retaliation down the line.
nononsenseselfdefense.com
is a good website for this.
A lot of western insanity comes down to radical individualism one of the poison offshoot of the Enlightenment:
http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/10/20/new-theory-individual/
Not only has it proven so toxic to western society as a whole but it contradicts the entire testimony of Scripture which assumes a certain collectivism. Hence nations were held collectively responsible. Fathers’ Houses too for the actions of their Head. So are we held collectively responsible because of the sin of Adam our Federal Head and through our belief in Christ who became our Federal Head unto Salvation in him where we are dead buried and risen from the dead
This is true: “Just like everything else that has gone off the rails down into the Feminist Canyon of Doom: We must say: “No.” We should do whatever we think is best in our own specific situations, but we should say “No.” ”
Every time we say “yes” when we should say “NO!” is like putting a crack in a dam. We may rationalize that it is a small crack, but here is the problem: cracks propagate under load. We should have the good sense not to put more cracks in a dam that is already leaking like a sieve. We haven’t begun to understand the destruction that will be unleashed when the dam breaks.
Every time we say “yes” when we should say “NO!” is like putting a crack in a dam.
It’s very hard to publicly oppose gay marriage (or even to deny that a person is whatever sex they identify as) without being seen as a hate-monger. The same with many feminist issues.
I noticed 10 to 15 years ago, conservatives on talk radio were becoming wobbly on gay marriage. When asked about the issue, Los Angele’s Doug McIntyre (KABC-AM) said, “I just don’t see how it affects my (heterosexual) marriage.”
McIntyre intentionally avoided giving a direct answer. I suspect he opposed to gay marriage, but instead of saying so, he avoided the question, and instead gave a vague, wishy-washy response that implied he supported it.
When the issue of gay marriage came up, New York’s Curtis Sliva turned into his character of a dumb Brooklyn “guido,” and said something against it, but in a way that intentionally made him sound stupid. Thus playing the court jester, so that his anti-gay marriage statement wouldn’t be taken seriously and wouldn’t be condemned as a hater.
It’s shocking to me how quickly gay marriage — and now transgenderism — gained mainstream acceptance. How quickly, and widely, even conservatives became afraid to say no to it.
@RPL
Leftists invested 100 years to gain the reins of schools and other institutions, perverting and subverting terms like freedom and love to accomplish their goals. Under the new meanings, a man is going to be seen as a hate-monger if he starts talking about reality because they hate reality. To a Leftist: Reality is a failure of Progress. McIntyre, like all of us, found he had no ground to stand upon because he had stood upon 100 years of lies. It was only scaffolding the Left had erected in their tunnels until it was time for them to be knocked down and so sap the walls of civilization (how we interact with reality). This is that time.
Shark
I first read that as “Obama and his fantastic SJWs”………LOLOL,,
Infowarrior1 –
“A lot of western insanity comes down to radical individualism one of the poison”
Well said. Great points.
Also, thanks for bringing up the issue of the Federal Headship of Adam and of Christ. Praise God for imputation! Christ bore our guilt, and gives us His righteousness.
Cane Caldo @ 1:29 am:
“It doesn’t matter. When you start talking about ranch wives shooting coyotes, 10,000 conservative feminists have to tell a story about their pony-tailed wife who is such a crackerjack shot that she puts all the boys down at the range to shame, I tell ya!”
Exactly. It’s original sin dressed up in necessity. The intent of female empowerment is covered in “Safety first” and “what if” like stucco.
@ 9:46 am:
“McIntyre, like all of us, found he had no ground to stand upon because he had stood upon 100 years of lies.”
All he had to do was say God created us male & female, therefore sodomy is evil. It looks less like a masterfully executed, century-old conspiracy of mind control than the inevitable result of replacing God with evolution.
…
infowarrior1 @ 9:05 am:
“Not only has it proven so toxic to western society as a whole but it contradicts the entire testimony of Scripture which assumes a certain collectivism. Hence nations were held collectively responsible.”
Direct contradiction: Ezekiel 18. God mansplains through the entire chapter that collectivism and hereditary guilt is wrong.
GunnerQ
Exactly. It’s original sin dressed up in necessity. The intent of female empowerment is covered in “Safety first” and “what if” like stucco.
Is it “female empowerment” to teach a housewife how to quickly extinguish a fire in the kitchen?
This is something I’ve come across a lot amongst women who are from a more rural environment. They like “FOUR WHEELIN’ AND SHOOTIN’ BUCKS” and see this as somehow attractive to men. I do like a girl who’s not afraid of the outdoors, but when they get masculinized like this it’s just.. ick. But it does fit cleanly into the American reputation for rebellion. There was an article written after the American Revolution called “American Patriotism Farther Confronted with Reason, Scripture and the Constitution: Being Observations on the Dangerous Politics Taught by Rev. Evans and Rev. Dr. Price. A Scriptural Plea for the Revolted Colonies” written by J. Fletcher (https://goo.gl/88enLb) which argued essentially that the revolution against the crown by the Americans had resulted in the father being emasculated as head of the home.
“Some illustrations may help you to understand this nice point of doctrine. Men are bound to pay God a reasonable service, whether they will or nor. A wife is bound to obey her husband in
all reasonable things, whether willingly or unwillingly. And subjects are bound to obey their sovereign in all reasonable and lawful things, however averse they may be to it. Nor is it less absurd to make a lawful sovereign’s claim to the obedience of his subjects, depend upon their will; than to make the right which a husband has of ruling his wife, depend upon her caprice; or the
right which God has to our adoration, turn upon our consent. Nevertheless if wives will absolutely
refuse to submit to their husbands, sinners to their God, and subjects to their king, they can shake
off the yoke of subjection, and assert domestic, religious, and civil independence. But then the purposes of marriage, religion and government are defeated; and a threefold rebellion takes place.”
@AR,
It is “female empowerment” to teach women to shoot. It is verbal sleight-of-hand to compare the weapons of war to a fire extinguisher.
I’m not sure I would trust a woman even that far. This is less a question of capability than natural inclination. All but the most natural instincts must be regularly programmed to be useful in an emergency. If you want your wife to use an extinguisher then make her practice with it quarterly. Two minutes of demonstration then stashing it in a closet for years, probably not going to be the first thing through her run/hide/fight mind. Ditto for guns.
Expecting a little training to make women respond as decisively as a man to an emergency is like expecting a 30-minute video on sexual harassment to counteract testosterone. It is not who we are.
…
Reede, seriously? “Your wives are rebellious today because two hundred years ago, other men didn’t let the King of England crush them under his heel.” It’s always the (little) man’s fault, isn’t it?
If you want to be a tyrant’s toy then leave the United States. You might have been born here but that obviously didn’t make you belong. Pick your favorite dictator, go there and grab your ankles already.
@Anonymous Reader
A fire in the kitchen is not the same as a determined attacker. The fire isn’t trying to get you.
And you know the messaging matters.
@Gunner Q
Evolution is a conspiracy; one of, anyway. Its adherents have both communal and individual goals, they share secrets and lies, and they meant to control the flow of information.
@Anonymous Reader
The thing to keep in mind is that you might just be trying to teach her how to put out a kitchen fire, but all of the images are of women dressed as firefighters, strutting and flexing. There is a (sometimes unintentional) case of motte and bailey going on here.
Gunner Q
It is “female empowerment” to teach women to shoot.
Please define your term “female empowerment”, then. Is it any level of competence above “totally helpless”?
It is verbal sleight-of-hand to compare the weapons of war to a fire extinguisher.
Well, to be polite, we seem to have a cultural difference here. To me, “weapon of war” starts off with “crew served”. A rifle by the back door that’s good for killing a coyote in the horse pen near a foal? Not a “weapon of war”. A shotgun suitable for killing a weasel near the chicken coop? Not a “weapon of war”. A .38 revolver plus flashlight in a suitable location for emergency use? Not a “weapon of war”.
You’re in California so some degree of hoplophobia is to be expected, but still – rifles and shotguns have been tools of farmers and ranchers in the West for well over a century. There are still plenty of farmers and ranchers in California. So why are you reacting so emotionallly to this?
Looks to me that you just don’t want to think through where your argument leads.
I’m not sure I would trust a woman even that far.
That’s your personal problem. It’s not a universal.
This is less a question of capability than natural inclination. All but the most natural instincts must be regularly programmed to be useful in an emergency.
Nonsense. I haven’t driven on ice for well over a year, yet the next time I do I fully expect my “muscle memory” will still work if I need to turn into a skid next winter some time.
You are walking up towards a strawman. I already made it clear that I don’t expect most people to be ready to repel North Korean paratroopers, but the level of competence required to respond to a smashed in back door or someone climbing through a child’s bedroom window is not nearly so complicated.
“GO AWAY NOW! I HAVE A GUN! I HAVE CALLED THE SHERIFF! GO AWAY NOW!” is not exactly storming the beaches of Iwo Jima. Yet many, many with-gun self defense situations in the US are very much like that. To step into the emotional side, apparently it’s very important to you that married women with children be totally defenseless against attack. Got to wonder why that is.
If you want your wife to use an extinguisher then make her practice with it quarterly.
Seriously? You’d hold a housewife in a kitchen or garage to a higher standard of proficiency than most volunteer firefighters who actually go into burning buildings sometimes?
You’re digging a deeper hole. Maybe you should stop.
Two minutes of demonstration then stashing it in a closet for years, probably not going to be the first thing through her run/hide/fight mind. Ditto for guns.
Shifting the goalposts proves nothing.
Expecting a little training to make women respond as decisively as a man to an emergency is like expecting a 30-minute video on sexual harassment to counteract testosterone. It is not who we are.
Nice strawman. Apparently there is a large emotional component to this issue, so you can’t even think about it, but rather just react in an emotional manner. Take some deep breaths and walk around for a while, then please try to explain why you are so upset by women using tools around the home.
Me
Is it “female empowerment” to teach a housewife how to quickly extinguish a fire in the kitchen?
Dalrock
The thing to keep in mind is that you might just be trying to teach her how to put out a kitchen fire, but all of the images are of women dressed as firefighters, strutting and flexing. There is a (sometimes unintentional) case of motte and bailey going on here.
I can see motte and bailey going on quite clearly. Not in your text, but in Gunner’s. His emotional response suggests he’d rather have his dwelling burn to the ground than “empower” a bride by showing her how to use an ordinary piece of safety gear. That’s his problem, not mine. But it has nothing to do with the OP or with teaching women to be competent in some household function.
For esample, the ranchers I have known didn’t go into emotional fits over whether their ranch wives should be able to use a 30-30 to put down an animal. Since ranchers sometimes spend all day miles away from the ranch house, this should be obvious. Those men also didn’t lose any sleep over their women learning how to use “weapons of war”. Again, for obvious reasons.
I don’t shoot pistol competitions nearly as much as I used to. However I do know what the “kickass wifey” looks like, because I’ve seen that whole drama multiple times. On the other hand, I’ve seen serious, churchgoing men who have to travel for work carefully training their wife on how to use the family .38, and it’s not all that hard to tell the difference.
The “why” of things can be as important as the “what”. If I forgot to point that out before, here it is again.
I don’t know why some men in this thread are acting like some women, but they are. It’s ironic given the topic.
@ Gunner Q,
I’m not an American, but I know Americans and I’ve dealt with Americans. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the world’s most man-hating, rebellious women are descended from the most authority-hating, rebellious colonies. They cemented this rebellious tendency with their crushing of the Southern counter-revolution we call the civil war, which was based more on putting God back into the Constitution than slavery.
Considering your democracy has devolved into domination by a hostile elite in Washington and Tell Aviv, I’d pick Gaddafi over Trump any day
@AR
I also feel that the woman should have some practical utility around the house, to include the ability to use some men’s tools, safety equipment, etc. We teach them all to drive so they can take an injured kid to the doctor or pick up groceries. We teach them to shoot because some things in life need shooting right now, not after I get home. There are so many examples like the ones you gave. Or maybe I am a conservative feminist. I’m trying not to be, but I was brought up steeped in its traditions (The FI) so maybe that’s part of it. I do get that there is a drumbeat in the background to all this that works all the time to normalize women-as-men.
We are looking through red lenses and seeing that we are arranging our domestic environment as we want it, or feel it needs to be – “you need to know how to operate this firearm”. A much broader audience, looking through blue lenses still, sees kickass gun girls achieving fempowerment. Gogirls that don’t need no man. Most react to this as they’re supposed to, “good for her!” A few say “that’s enough of this crap”, and wander off to find the men’s sphere if they’re lucky. Hopefully, a few more each time.
God doesn’t do collectivism exclusively, but it is an aspect of our existence.
Consider Achan stealing loot from Jericho. All of Israel paid for his sin until he and his household were stoned and burned.
Children do not suffer for their fathers, but they do suffer with their fathers.
I still don’t give a damn if women want to shoot, hunt , whatever..
These are not the problem, IF, repeat IF they create their own spaces rather than invading ours and demanding that we accommodate them.
Same goes for the validation of their activities. Credit goes for performance, not for simply being female while the men around you do all the heavy lifting.
I am still seeing rubbish about some fem being the “first”. Not credit for being exceptionally competent. Not credit for being the first human to actually do something, but only the first female in a field that was created and made safe and comfortable by men – and in which she still operates under the umbrella of a male-provided safety-net.
That’s feminism all over….. living in a society made safe, comfortable and prosperous , by the sweat, blood and inspiration of men – and whining about male privilege.
Anonymous Reader @ 3:06 pm:
“Please define your term “female empowerment”, then. Is it any level of competence above “totally helpless”?”
Nope, totally helpless is good. Men say “I love you”, women say “I need you”.
“Take some deep breaths and walk around for a while, then please try to explain why you are so upset by women using tools around the home.”
You want my personal motivation? Buckle up. I live in a society where women are so safe and provided for, they have zero need for unsexy men like me. Guess what? If Barbie doesn’t need me then she doesn’t want me. She marries Welfare and rides the carousel until the Wall hits and leaves her a burned-out waste of a human soul, while I starve for sex and get treated by society like a drone.
I lose. She loses. My country burns.
Does it bother you that I want to spook women into good behavior? To push their faces in the facts of how much that fish needs a bicycle? To sabotage their ability to survive without a man around? I want to do it because it works. The Democrats have been scaring women into obedience for decades with great success. Even Christ did no less when He repeatedly warned us of Hell. Women are creatures of fear. Fear motivates women in healthy directions. Taking away her fear is like taking away a man’s courage. The result is loathsome, unmotivated androgyny.
I live in Androgyny, USA. The men are allowed little chance to strive & succeed, or even trade friendly punches, eventually slouching into parodies of masculinity such as lumbersexuals. The women fear nothing and therefore stop exerting themselves, inflating like pool toys, their minds devolving to a level of stimulus-response that would shame a worm. How did we get here? Safety first! Barbie must always be safe!
Either we frighten women into marrying early and young, ripping away every “I don’t need no man” crutch possible, and in the process giving men the chance to be heroes, or the West will continue its decline into a matriarchal slum of men checked out on video games and women checked out on social media. Neither wanting to live in this Brave New World of safe spaces.
That’s why I don’t want Barbie to feel safe, to be competent in my absence. She is a woman and therefore, the price of respecting a Beta like me is living in a constant state of mild fear to which I am the answer. So be it. I will be her hero and she will be my cheerleader with benefits. I can rent domestic servants. I can’t rent admiration and respect.
That is Christ’s own attitude, right there. He doesn’t want us because we’re useful. He wants us because we’re grateful.
Thank you, that needed saying.
Behold ultimate “badass chick” (and complete fraud), Kinessa Johnson. Remember her?
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/see-the-badass-chick-who-is-hunting-poachers-pics/
Now with new-and-improved badass haircut!
@GunnarQ,
Interesting point (helpless wife is good), and I certainly agree with your larger point (husband should have wife who needs him), but — and this is an honest question, not snark — where do you draw the line? For instance, would you suggest I raise my girls to be illiterate so they need their father (and later, husband) to read for them, thus avoiding the possibility that they will read something that gives them a bad attitude? How about allowing wife to have friends? How about allowing wife to leave the house/yard? Use the internet? Watch movies?
Again, this is not snark, this is exploring your thesis, so I can further evaluate its validity. Where is the line?
Peter W: “Getting off-topic, but this is why I have rejected Libertarianism. It denies the Right of human beings to work together for a common purpose. It denies my right to help defend my neighbour, and to be defended by him. It denies that human beings are, by nature, social.
The more fanatical among them resemble lefties or religious fanatic in that purity of thought and doctrine matter more than outcomes…… and hell hath no fury like a fanatic who has just decided that a fellow-fanatic is less pure.”
Yes. What you are observing, and referencing, is Ivory Tower Lunacy.
It isn’t exclusive to Libertarianism.
If you aren’t seeing it in this thread, you aren’t paying attention.
@GunnarQ,
I’m a little unclear about your point here. Are you saying you don’t need your wife to be a useful, competent, Prov. 31-type wife? Or don’t want her to be?
Obviously God doesn’t need us or our abilitites. He manages the entire universe, down to the sub-atomic level, just fine without us. But God most certainly expects his adopted children to be useful to him. The parable of the talents, 1 Cor. 12, and a zillion other passages make that quite clear. And the fact is, that if we truly love God (and are grateful, as you mentioned), we will want to do whatever he wants us to do. God gave us the Bible to educate us about him and what he expects from us.
Because we have the Bible, we know that God did not create us as robots, waiting for instructions on how to breathe and how many steps to take in which direction. He gave us brains and physical capabilities that he expects we will learn to use in order to carry out his wishes in creative ways.
With the exception of child-bearing, I don’t need my wife to be useful to me. But I expect her to be. I am teaching my girls to be useful to their future husbands, always emphasizing that “useful” means “whatever he wants”, not “whatever you think he wants” or “whatever you think he should want.” To that end, I am teaching them numerous practical skills, and encouraging them to develop their God-given talents (such as music, art, math) so that they may better serve their husbands.
@GunnerQ
” I can rent domestic servants. I can’t rent admiration and respect.
…
That is Christ’s own attitude, right there. He doesn’t want us because we’re useful. He wants us because we’re grateful.”
I completely agree with this part. Possibly there’s a component of willing submission that is not dependent on the being our wives competent or incompetent in our absence. Each will have been raised differently and will have different abilities. They more competent they are, the more they must actively choose willing submission. How much do they actually believe the bible when it tells them to submit to her husband as unto the lord……in all things? How far will fear,pride, vanity, blue pill teachings etc allow her to believe it says otherwise?
To Splashmans point, whether we need our wives or not is largely dependent on the individual. Some are needier than others. Whether we should need them is debated on here regularly. Truth is that life is hard. Regardless of your strengths, life is easier as a team. Anyone who has lead a team knows that you want the most kickass team possible. But does she respect you enough to not commit mutiny?
Thoughts anyone?
I live and work in an environment where women are mostly aware that they need men. It’s called “farming”. I run my farm, and I don’t need women, although one would come in handy for cooking, cleaning and doing the bookwork.
My sister manages the adjoining farm for a relative. She is under no delusions about the necessity of men. She is very grateful for my help when required and hires men on a regular basis. She knows very well that there are things that she cannot do.
So no, I don’t want my woman (were I to have one ) to be totally incompetent. I want one who knows enough to be a “helpmeet” not a burden.
I look to my father’s and grandfather’s generations. Many of the women in it were well educated and capable…… but they knew very well indeed how much they owed to the men in their family who were overseas on active duty in WW1 and WW2. Growing up expecting to be invaded, raped (young and attractive) and having your life destroyed if the men in your family did. Not do what they did, tends to create that attitude.
I would not even consider marrying a woman who did not respect and value what I bring to the table.
Splashman @ April 12, 2017 at 9:30 pm:
“where do you draw the line?”
Better question, how can an unsexy Christian man like me trust a woman enough to try for lifetime monogamy? We can’t all be sexy all the time. I’m not happy about taking “she needs me” to extremes but anything less, getting cucked/frivorced is nigh inevitable these days. Yiayia no longer exists to police her.
If it helps, I’ve thought that one of the sexiest things a girl can be is afraid of the dark. Every evening like clockwork, she’ll be glad to have me around. Nothing sinister. I just need her to need me.
PeterW seems to have achieved the same result with less effort. He probably doesn’t live in Commiefornia.
…
“Are you saying you don’t need your wife to be a useful, competent, Prov. 31-type wife? Or don’t want her to be?”
I don’t want her to be. God save us from Alpha females.
#RPL -“It’s shocking to me how quickly gay marriage — and now transgenderism — gained mainstream acceptance. How quickly, and widely, even conservatives became afraid to say no to it.”
Mainstream acceptance of pedophilia is just around the corner. 5 years, tops. It will be sold to us from the perspective of it being good for kids. We will be told that they are sexual beings with needs and the slope will be well greased to its endpoint: your 9 year old boy will go out on “dates” with adult sodomites, and you will have no say in the matter, just like you have no say if your underage daughter chooses to have an abortion.
@Anonymous Reader
I’m with you on a wide range of guns just being utility tools, and the difference between the wife who is learning how not to break a gun or make it ‘accidentally go off’. Or, in my experience a woman shoots 2 or 3 shots from the shotgun to ensure basic competence after encouraging her husband and son to enjoy themselves with about 15-20 shots each for fun and skill.
But where you lost me was where you accused those who disagree with you of ‘acting like women’. That kind of rhetoric? Not okay. That is the territory of the “Alpha-male other guy” or “the only real man in the room”.
It is disingenuous shaming language designed to cause submission or provocation. If anything, it has convinced me to read over the posts of those you are arguing with, and give their points more consideration.
A while ago I watched an old movie (Giant, 1956, with James Dean, Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor) I remember to have once read about in an alt-right article about early “cultural Marxist” propaganda in (((the movies))). The alleged “cultural Marxism” lay in the fact that there is a scene in which Rock Hudson stands up to a caricature-like racist who didn’t want to serve a black man in his restaurant. Hudson then gets beaten up for this act and afterwards applauded, hugged and kissed by Elizabeth Taylor.
What I found to be much more interesting, though, was the fact that one scene of this movie was not mentioned as an element of “cultural Marxism”; namely the scene in which Elizabeth Taylor interrupts a couple of men talking about politics and refuses to leave when these men first wait patiently, then react puzzled and then outrightly angry when she refuses to leave them alone and insists on interrupting them by giving her personal political opinion on every topic that comes up. Of course, the men in this scene are depicted as stupid pigs, while Elizabeth Taylor’s stubborn defiance (and I guess rudeness for permanently interrupting others) was depicted as heroic and brave.
This got me thinking. Many modern right-wing parties are led or co-led by women and many right-wing types who complain about unmasculine men seem to have no problem at all with the political pantsuit and wouldn’t even recognize the idea of women being involved in politics as something that was introduced only recently, and did absolutely not fall out of thin air. (In 1943, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn noted in his book “The Menace of the Herd”, that “there is also a masculine tendency in National-Socialist womanhood. (…) To be a man is also the great dream of many an enthusiastic Hitler girl.”)
This is in so far surprising, as both liberals and conservatives, both right-wingers and left-wingers should actually be able to agree on the idea that masculinity and femininity are complementary properties, and that you can’t have masculine men without feminine women, and can’t have feminine women without masculine men – and yet, both liberal feminists and conservative feminists, both left-wing feminists and right-wing feminists all accept the unfeminine woman (=the pantsuit who wants to become President to lead the men of her country) but do not accept the unmasculine man. They rather accept the female politician in a pantsuit than a man literally wearing some pants that are cut in such a feminine style.
Behold ultimate “badass chick” (and complete fraud), Kinessa Johnson. Remember her?
Ugh. Those tats all over her arms and neck are utterly revolting!
@ Tarl
They scream “easy and dirty”, which is probably the point.
@ Gunner Q says:
April 13, 2017 at 10:54 am
“’Are you saying you don’t need your wife to be a useful, competent, Prov. 31-type wife? Or don’t want her to be?’
I don’t want her to be. God save us from Alpha females.”
So, the virtuous woman in Prov 31 is an “Alpha female” from whom God should save us? If so, why would He instruct men to find such a wife?
@ Gunner Q says:
April 13, 2017 at 10:54 am
“’Are you saying you don’t need your wife to be a useful, competent, Prov. 31-type wife? Or don’t want her to be?’
I don’t want her to be. God save us from Alpha females.”
There is nothing alpha about proverbs 31
Woman. She is talented enough to be alpha, but chooses to see her man as alpha. All of her effort and talent is directed to honor her husband.
Josh the Aspie
But where you lost me was where you accused those who disagree with you of ‘acting like women’. That kind of rhetoric? Not okay.
I’m not a Millennial. So your judgement of my “not okay” doesn’t bother me. Really. It doesn’t.
That is the territory of the “Alpha-male other guy” or “the only real man in the room”.
It is disingenuous shaming language designed to cause submission or provocation.
No, it is a statement of fact. Emotional arguments and attempts to shame me out of a position that I reached via reason and experience over a course of decades is exactly what women do or attempt.
If anything, it has convinced me to read over the posts of those you are arguing with, and give their points more consideration.
Cool.
By the way, Gunner, knives have been weapons of war since before history. So I guess if you were to marry, you’d be sure not to allow any knives in the kitchen, right? You wouldn’t want a woman who could actually cook food anyway, because you demand total helplessness.
I’ve attempted to assist you over the years, but the attitude you have displayed in this thread is really quite saddening.
@Anonymous Reader
bro, its simple. Protecting the home via firearm is the man’s responsibility, not the womans. Providing for the home via having a job is the man’s responsibility, not the womans. These are responsibilities, obligations, expectations. They are standards of behavior. If you’re a woman, you’re not supposed to worry about these things because it isn’t your responsibility to worry about them; and if you do worry about them, your husband’s judgment goes above your own. That doesn’t mean that a woman can’t know how to use a firearm, it just means the use of the firearm to protect the home isn’t her area of concern and she doesn’t have authority in making decisions regarding it. Only during exceptional cases when her husbands judgment isn’t there does it become her concern. Pretty fucking simple. The woman’s use of the weapon is under the husbands authority, his judgment has the final say because protecting the home is his responsibility (he’s the only primarily obligated to fulfill that task, not her) and because he’s the head of the home.
Secondly, the issue with educating woman about “firearms” and how “cool they are” is that its an obvious promotion of you-go-gurrlism. Learning how to use a firearm properly really isn’t that hard, and given that using the weapon properly isn’t an area of concern for the woman (i.e. cause its not her responsibility to protect the home), she really has no business spending hours learning to be “kickass” with her new toy. Basically, there’s a difference between shooting a firearm so that you can get better at killing bad people and shooting a firearm because “the men can do it so i must too! its the ‘great equalizer’ see so that means when i use it i’m basically equal to all of you!!!!1!” Its the symbolism behind practicing, practicing, practicing at a range, buying all this gun shit just so you can be “one of the guys” and claim that your “equal” to them just because you have some expensive weapon locked up in your bedroom closet somewhere.
“See, i’ve gotta a gun too ya know. it can equalize anything ya. that means if i wanted to kill ya i could.” is the arrogant-feminist-retardation dialogue we want to avoid.
safespaceplaypen
Protecting the home via firearm is the man’s responsibility, not the womans.
So you want women and children to be easy prey? Why?
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/homeowner-shoots-intruder-on-citys-sw-side
Plenty more where that came from here:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen
Reminds me that I watched an old Hollywood movie (Giant, 1956, with James Dean, Elizabeth Taylor and Rock Hudson) a few days ago. I also remember reading about that movie once in an alt-right article about early “cultural Marxist” propaganda in (((the movies))). The alleged “cultural Marxism” lay in the fact that there is a scene in which Rock Hudson stands up to a caricature-like racist who didn’t want to serve a black man in his restaurant. Hudson then gets beaten up for this act and afterwards applauded, hugged and kissed by Elizabeth Taylor. What I found to be much more interesting, though, was the fact that one scene of this movie was NOT mentioned as an element of “cultural Marxism”; namely the scene in which Elizabeth Taylor interrupts a couple of men talking about politics and refuses to leave when these men first wait patiently, then react puzzled and then outrightly angry when she refuses to leave them alone and insists on interrupting them by giving her personal political opinion on every topic that comes up. Of course, the men in this scene are depicted as stupid pigs, while Elizabeth Taylor’s stubborn defiance (and I guess rudeness for permanently interrupting others) was depicted as heroic and brave.
Six decades later, it is indeed noteworthy how many modern right-wing parties are led or co-led by women and how so many right-wing types who complain about unmasculine men seem to have no problem at all with the political pantsuit and wouldn’t even recognize the idea of women being involved in politics as something that was introduced only recently, and did absolutely not fall out of thin air. (Even back in 1943, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn noted in his book “The Menace of the Herd”, that “there is also a masculine tendency in National-Socialist womanhood. (…) To be a man is also the great dream of many an enthusiastic Hitler girl.”)
All of this is in so far surprising, as both liberals and conservatives, both right-wingers and left-wingers should actually be able to agree on the idea that masculinity and femininity are complementary properties, and that you can’t have masculine men without feminine women, and can’t have feminine women without masculine men. So a problem I see for men is that both liberal feminists and conservative feminists, both left-wing feminists and right-wing feminists all accept the unfeminine woman (=the pantsuit who wants to become President to lead the men of her country) but do not accept the unmasculine man. They rather accept the female politician in a pantsuit than a man literally wearing some pants that are cut in such a feminine style. It is noteworthy that even the monopolized fake news media are constantly complaining about a lack of “real men” these days. It’s not quite true to say that Western cultures have become more feminine; in some ways, the opposite is true, since neither the mainstream nor alleged “alts” accept the “feminine” man but all accept the masculine woman.
@Anonymous Reader
I’m not a Millennial. So your judgement of my “not okay” doesn’t bother me. Really. It doesn’t.
Woo. “Millennials are bad”. Haven’t seen that before, whether directed at a millennial or not. And if it doesn’t bother you, why bother with the triple insistence? Methinks someone protests too much. To paraphrase a classic. Now here’s where I could point out that the person protesting too much was a woman, and make accusations similar to your own. However, I doubt it would be productive.
@safespaceplaypen
By your own argument, if a husband who is responsible for the safety of the home chooses to have his wife learn how to use a gun, then this is his choice, under his authority that goes with his responsibility. Not yours.
If a husband decides that making sure his wife and daughters can reload his magazines and guns so he and his sons can keep casting lead down range, or so that the gals can provide covering fire, that’s his choice as to how to fulfill his responsibility of protection. That is a choice that was made fairly commonly during the days of covered wagons, when men were men and women were women, even according to most of those who want to restore the relations between the sexes to a previous state.
And dealing with foxes, weasels, etc, around a chicken pen, or taking out a groundhog when you have the chance, hardly seems like an exceptional circumstance. And sending someone out to get pa when he’s in the field, and the creature will be gone when he gets back, hardly seems realistic.
I agree that the intent of shooting for basic competence, and shooting to be a ‘yougogrrrl’ are very different. But one of the reasons civilians on sight tend to out-shoot police is due to consistent practice. And I don’t know about you, but if the wife goes out with husband and sons to watch on a shooting trip, and there’s a few shells left over, it just makes sense for her to shoot those extra shots. Repeated light training inculcates a basic skill a lot better than one or two supper-trips.
End of the day, with any marriage there is more than meets the eye. Having your wife know how to use a gun…is that under your protection for the sake of the home, or is she being a “you go girl!” Not enough info to know on the surface.
Quick story: I know a couple that the husband always drives. He is always behind the wheel in their car. Now, is he leading the way for the family, or is his wife ball-busting, and making her servant do all the work? From the surface, hard to say. It could be either (I know a few families like that and have tried to categorize them at times).
A woman using a gun. Is it you go girl? Is it simple, rural practicality? Hard to know, just from the surface. For any man reading, naturally, there will be those who try to turn your wife/daughters into “you go girls” even if that is not your desire. Understand those risks, and behave as you see fit.
@Josh the Aspie
“By your own argument, if a husband who is responsible for the safety of the home chooses to have his wife learn how to use a gun, then this is his choice, under his authority that goes with his responsibility.”
yep. pretty much. that’s what i’m going for
@ys
“For any man reading, naturally, there will be those who try to turn your wife/daughters into “you go girls” even if that is not your desire.”
^^^this. how do you prevent this when teaching your daughter that her “great equalizer” will protect her from the bad guys?
you’re daughters frame should be “my husband will be protecting me and our family because he has authority over us” rather than “this gun will protect me and our family because its the ‘great equalizer'”
“you’re daughters frame should be “my husband will be protecting me and our family because he has authority over us” rather than “this gun will protect me and our family because its the ‘great equalizer’”
“…and if he has a job outside the home, I’m SOL and so are the kids. But at least I’m docile!”
You could really switch that up with the opinion of the average liberal.
Hey, the police will protect you…even if it takes them a while to get there. And you might die, but you know, guns are bad.
@anon
“You could really switch that up with the opinion of the average liberal.
Hey, the police will protect you…even if it takes them a while to get there. And you might die, but you know, guns are bad.”
The question isn’t about guns. It is about where the wife puts her trust and faith. Her God and, by delegation of authority, her husband? Or will she put her trust and faith in guns, the state, herself, etc?
The only reason to DISARM anyone is to exert control and quell rebellion. If your wife is predisposed to rebellion, making her feel stronger will only increase rebellious action. If your wife is truly faithful to God and you, anything that makes her stronger will be used to God’s and your glory. Most people do not actually put their faith in God. They put their faith in themselves or the state and cover it in a veneer of Churchianity.
@anon
“…and if he has a job outside the home, I’m SOL and so are the kids. But at least I’m docile!”
i honestly don’t see anything wrong with the above. use better sarcasm or gtfo
“You could really switch that up with the opinion of the average liberal.
Hey, the police will protect you…even if it takes them a while to get there. ”
no, you really can’t lol. The police != your husband. so your equivalency falls flat. You’re also building a straw man, assuming i’m saying women shouldn’t be able to use weapons at all.
@Hose_B
damn that’s pretty well put. didn’t even think of that lol
“The question isn’t about guns. It is about where the wife puts her trust and faith. Her God and, by delegation of authority, her husband? Or will she put her trust and faith in guns, the state, herself, etc?”
What if the husband is away? What if he deploys for days, weeks, months at a time? He won’t be there for her because he CANNOT be there for her.
“i honestly don’t see anything wrong with the above. use better sarcasm or gift
You don’t see anything wrong with the kids and wife being attacked while the husband is gone, with no means to defend themselves? You are a horrible human being. No sarcasm there.
This places sucks I’m out.
@anon
“…and if he has a job outside the home, I’m SOL and so are the kids. But at least I’m docile!”
“The question isn’t about guns. It is about where the wife puts her trust and faith. Her God and, by delegation of authority, her husband? Or will she put her trust and faith in guns, the state, herself, etc?”
What if the husband is away? What if he deploys for days, weeks, months at a time? He won’t be there for her because he CANNOT be there for her.”
I see from the “I’m docile” that Anon is female and a mom and I hope the commentators here aren’t too hard on her. She will come at this from a “BUT I Should be allowed standpoint”. Understandable, but flawed. The urge of mama bear to protect her cubs isn’t really in question. Yet We have no problem telling men to back down and simply trust God. (or more accurately the church, state, etc.
I think the comment from Safespace on “sporty spice” fits here.
here we have, “b-b-b-b-but she needs to learn to shoot ’cause her man won’t always be there!”
next we’ll be hearing “b-b-b-b-but she needs to get a job ’cause her man won’t always be there!”
and possibly “b-b-b-b-but she needs to get fucked by other men, ’cause her man won’t always be there!”
That is Gold!!
Tried to find a way to message Dalrock but I don’t see any way to privately message him so I will do so here.
-Yes, I’m a woman with kids. My husband actually insists that I keep a loaded weapon by my bedside because the threat level is high (and specific toward our family and a couple of other families in a similar position). He is away (deployed) often. He insists that I stay current and proficient. All our kids also know how to shoot very, very well.
-There isn’t just respectful disagreement going on here. I realize it might be fun to throw metaphorical bricks and high five the bros and make fun, but at the point there is an actual security concern and the response is: “Them womenz and kidz shud jus’ diii”…you’ve crossed the line into lunacy.
It’s personal, unproductive, and frankly evil. But that’s not the bad part. The bad part is it puts a stench on the whole group and this isn’t a private forum and folks everywhere can point and say, “wow, there are really bad people in there”. Good luck to you.
@anon
“My husband actually insists that I keep a loaded weapon by my bedside because the threat level is high”
Then by all means submit to his leadership and do so.
Nothing wrong with that.
Don’t like it don’t read it. And any “evil” that you see is just guys debating stuff. If people are too weak to take it that’s their problem not ours. I frankly don’t give a crap what they think, especially pussies. Although, despite my reputation as a “misogynist” I see nothing wrong with woman having a gun to defend herself and her kids in your own home. A man can’t be everywhere at once. It beats the hell out of getting murdered by an intruder.
Oscar @ April 13, 2017 at 7:23 pm:
“So, the virtuous woman in Prov 31 is an “Alpha female” from whom God should save us? If so, why would He instruct men to find such a wife?”
God wants wives to raise her husband’s kids, obey him, be thrifty with the money he earns and respect him. But Prov. 31 is regularly interpreted to mean “she must be so capable that her husband is nothing but a cheerleader.”
…
Hose_B @ April 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm::
“She is talented enough to be alpha, but chooses to see her man as alpha.”
Is this her attitude towards Christ? “I can save myself, thank you, but it’d be fun to obey you instead.” The inevitable consequence of such an attitude is “it isn’t fun to obey you anymore and I can still save myself. Bye.”
If a girl doesn’t see me as her personal savior from spinsterhood then I don’t want her.
…
Anonymous Reader @ April 13, 2017 at 9:17 pm::
“By the way, Gunner, knives have been weapons of war since before history.”
Nonsense. They aren’t crew-served. Remember?
And if we’re going start posting links because one-off incidents are proof of anything:
Gunnar…..
If we ignored every scripture that someone has misinterpreted or misapplied – regardless of whether it is done deliberately or through incompetence – then we are unlikely to have enough left to fill a single page, and none of that will be of any importance.
Prov31 describes and praises a woman who is competent in certain fields and can get stuff done…… and praises her for it.
Deal with it.
@ Gunner Q says:
April 14, 2017 at 2:17 pm
“God wants wives to raise her husband’s kids, obey him, be thrifty with the money he earns and respect him. But Prov. 31 is regularly interpreted to mean ‘she must be so capable that her husband is nothing but a cheerleader’.”
A reasonable man does not judge a thing by its abuse. I did not ask you how people MISinterpret Prov 31. I asked, if the virtuous woman in Prov 31 is an “Alpha female” (your words) from whom God should save us, why would He instruct men to find such a wife?
” I asked, if the virtuous woman in Prov 31 is an “Alpha female” (your words) from whom God should save us, why would He instruct men to find such a wife?”
Rereading Proverbs 31, nowhere does God instruct men to find such a wife. Furthermore, nowhere in the chapter are women encouraged to competence with weapons or other masculine activities. This thread isn’t talking about women being useful around the home. It’s talking about women training to act like men because a wife shouldn’t trust her husband to be around when she needs him.
@ Gunner Q says:
April 14, 2017 at 8:33 pm
“Rereading Proverbs 31, nowhere does God instruct men to find such a wife.”
What’s the purpose of the chapter, then? Remember, it’s a chapter in a book of advice (proverbs), inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the section of the chapter about the virtuous wife begins with “An excellent wife who can find?”
“Furthermore, nowhere in the chapter are women encouraged to competence with weapons or other masculine activities…”
No one here claimed any such thing, so that is either a straw man or a red herring. Please stick to arguments actually written down. Speaking of which, this is what you wrote, including the statement to which you responded…
“‘Are you saying you don’t need your wife to be a useful, competent, Prov. 31-type wife? Or don’t want her to be?’
I don’t want her to be. God save us from Alpha females.”
Why would God need to save us from the type of woman He advises men to find? By the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, the chapter states that…
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.
Why would a man need to be saved from a wife in whom his heart trusts, and who does him good and not harm all the days of her life?
me
“By the way, Gunner, knives have been weapons of war since before history.”
Gunner
Nonsense. They aren’t crew-served. Remember?
My definition. Not yours. But it doesn’t matter, since you do not want a woman who can cook, or clean, or raise children, you want one that is helpless. You’ve painted yourself into a fear-filled emotional corner.
Since the discussion has led to Proverbs 31, I’ll just leave this here:
“Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.” Proverbs 31:3
@Anon Reader
I think so many men here grew up only dealing with Western women that they’ve never met reliable women in their lives. We had a young Ugandan woman as a boarder in my father’s house when I was a young teen, and she was a really joyful, thrifty, charming and good-natured woman to have around. She also was able to assemble, disassemble, clean and shoot an AK-47, as it’s basically standard procedure when you’re in a country like Uganda. She seriously gave me a solid understanding of what to look for as traits in a wife, even as far back as when I was 13.
I think the motif is that women are incapable of loyalty, and therefore any kind of self-reliance on their part is a threat to her man’s security. It’s understandable given what we have to deal with on a daily basis.
Pingback: Kickass conservative gals. | Dalrock - Top
Reede
I think the motif is that women are incapable of loyalty, and therefore any kind of self-reliance on their part is a threat to her man’s security. It’s understandable given what we have to deal with on a daily basis.
That’s a credible argument. There’s some larger issues lurking in the background, but it is credible.
Wariness of women is something I’m seeing in 20-something men in the last couple of years. Not outright fear, but then I’m not looking for that so could well be missing it.
Let me think. About 40% of college aged men come from divorced homes, and in the vast majority they were raised in their mother’s house with some visitation to their father; true joint custody is more common that it was, but still not the default most places. 70% of divorces are initated by women. So about 28% of college aged men saw their mothers divorce their fathers. Plus I’ve left out the entire K – 12 system that demands boys act like girls, gives visible special privileges to girls; and the university system feminism that all too often teaches “all college men are rapists”.
Now we have some number of 20-something men who have a problem trusting women. Coincidence?
You have a point. We should think about it more. Thanks.
I will second the motion that it has become – shall we say – less easy to trust women.
Even a great many of the “good” ones, seem to have accepted the doctrine that their emotions are reality. One obvious sign is the degree to which their monthly hormonal fluctuation is considered a licence to be unpleasant and not consider others. Another is their commitment to cute-and-fuzzy “causes”. Plus support for oft-refuted and unsupportable feminist theory such as the “wages gap” or “male privilege”…… or “women can fight in combat”.
How CAN you trust someone whose foundation is their ephemeral feelings rather than objective standards and evidence?
It’s not about being raised by divorcee mothers, either. I could see the generational change between my mother’s generation (my parents were the “till death us do part” kind of people, who worked on their marriage because divorce was not an option). Yet I watched my sister marry a bad-boy against their advice, because she was “sure” he was “different”.
I’ve watched so many other women do similar things, or nuke their marriage and family because “feelings”.
Why should I trust a woman without a considerable period of testing and proving?
That entire post is truth. It’s why I will always avoid marriage. Even 30-40 years down the road, when you’re at retirement age and you’re about to draw on your 401k and pension the wife says, “I want a divorce” out of the blue. Even when the marriage has been a good and everything seemed completely fine. Next thing you know your entire life savings that you worked so hard for over the decades is gone and you’ll have to work until you’re dead while the cunt of an ex-wife sits on her ass and collects the stolen property the state took from you.
And to stay somewhat on topic, if these girls were so “kick ass” they wouldn’t need daddy-thug government to come and rescue their little girl butts or steal from a man in order to supply them with free resources. Women even steal your kids and brainwash them against you. It’s amazing how many people don’t recognize how widespread child abuse is among mothers. Bitches like that could use a good….(you know what).
There is no way I’m going to trust a creature whose incapable of loyalty with a contract that basically makes me a slave. That’s just insane.
@Gunnar, your attempts to ignore scripture you disagree with are comically obvious.
Inconvenient facts from scripture:
1. Men were designed with a need for a mate/helper.
2. Women were designed as mates/helpers for men.
3. Proverbs 31 describes some qualities of a good wife, and thus some of the qualities we men should desire in a wife.
That you have a problem with any or all of those three is a reflection on you, not on Oscar, me, God, or anyone else.
@King Alfred, you might want to read a few different translations (including Amplified) of that verse and its context. God does not contradict himself.
@Anon Reader
I was born “red-pill”, as my father is (well, was) a natural Alpha, 20 years older than my mother at 50 but still very attractive. His main advice about women was to “marry a woman at least 10 years younger than you” and “any girl who calls herself a feminist is wearing an invisible chastity belt” or “is a muff-diver. Little miss muff, she loves that stuff”
He was married in the 60s and had 3 daughters in wedlock who are my half-sisters, approx 15-20 years my seniors. He had another daughter out of wedlock who is in between the ages of my in-wedlock sisters, which gives you an idea of why he was divorced.
He was a Silent Gen though so he was basically a TradCon who acted like a man and caused tingles wherever he went; he literally had women fighting over him until the day he died. A good man at heart, though, and he worked himself to the bone to keep a roof over our heads (he had sole custody of me).
I had to deal with his alcoholism though and also my aggressive, sexually abusive and over-the-top alcoholic half sister who lived downstairs intermittently (the out-of-wedlock one). There were so many points where I was on the verge of strangling her throughout my teen years that she’s lucky to be alive. That said, I’m in a much better position with girls than most Millennials, I’m 24 btw. All this “game” stuff is stuff I always did, such as “negging” or teasing girls, not tolerating bullshit (I’ve kicked said alcoholic half sister out of my house several times since then) and generally having fun and enjoying talking to girls.
I can tell you though that this crop of ladies is completely unrecognizable compared to women from other countries. I know some Iranian women, and they don’t even type words like “sex” due to the standards of modesty that they internalized. They also all had strong, stable fathers and as a result consider those (or, more generally, Islamic) values to be the most attractive.
I also talked with a Filipina woman from a more middle class region (not the hookers you find in Angeles City) about the situation in France and Germany where men couldn’t get a paternity test without dancing through the legal courts. She was incensed that a man would need such a thing and asked me why they would humiliate their wives in such a way. I told her that it’s possible the child was not his, and she was completely perplexed at the idea that a woman would have sex with a man who was not her husband. I had the same reaction from Indian Muslim girls as well.
It’s a side benefit of living in Canada where we are being destroyed demographically by immigration; you run into all these women from other cultures that actually value and have compassion for their men.
Actually I should say my half-sisters are closer to 20-25 years older… In the ballpark of my mother’s age. Yeah, my aunts and uncles warned her that Carl was a rascal but she didn’t listen.
Splashman says:
April 15, 2017 at 6:17 pm
Inconvenient facts from scripture:
1. Men were designed with a need for a mate/helper.
No argument with that statement whatsoever.
2. Women were designed as mates/helpers for men.
Yes, but how many of them today, even so-called “Christian” ones, ACTUALLY FUNCTION as such? Indeed, how many express open revulsion at the very idea, even when it is pointed out to them that the God they supposedly worship and obey mandates it as their proper role in fulfillment of His plan?
I think you and I both know that the vast majority of “Christian” wives in the western world today see themselves as their husband’s competitors (or their mommies, if they are particularly contemptuous of them) rather than their helpers and are constantly trying to undermine/usurp their husbands’ authority, frequently with not merely the tolerance of, but open endorsement of the church. What self-respecting Christian man in his right mind would put up with that? Why would he take the risk of getting stuck with one of these creatures? Maybe if the church starts to proactively remind wives of their God-ordained function and wives themselves start straightening up and flying right again, then may –MAYBE– more Christian men will start trusting them again. Of course we all know that the world’s oceans will spontaneously turn into champagne before either of these things ever happen.
3. Proverbs 31 describes some qualities of a good wife, and thus some of the qualities we men should desire in a wife.
Again, that’s true, but as has been pointed out upthread, modern churchian women and their pastorbator enablers are either ignorant of the true meaning and intent of this chapter of Proverbs, or, much more likely, are simply ignoring it in favor of the perception of its meaning that comports with modern attitudes about sex roles (i.e., “kick-ass women who can do anything any man can do”). One need not look or listen very far in today’s culture to see that the churchian interpretation is the prevalent one and that women and their pastorbator enablers quickly dissemble, equivocate, or react in, shall we say, rather ungodly ways when the truth is explained to them. For this reason Christian men are most justifiably suspicious of any modern western “Christian” woman who touts her “Proverbs 31 wife” virtues.
That you have a problem with any or all of those three is a reflection on you, not on Oscar, me, God, or anyone else.
I won’t speak for Gunner, but what most Christian men have is NOT a problem with what Proverbs 31 actually says. What we have a problem with is the interpretation of its meaning by modern western churchians, which is the meaning that almost everyone adheres to. What God actually says through Solomon in Proverbs 31 has nothing to do with how it is (mis)interpreted by today’s churchians. Putting it another way, no man can have any idea of what he’d be getting in a woman who labels herself (usually falsely) as a “Proverbs 31 wife.” I’ll let him confirm it himself, but I’m sure that Gunner’s objection is to the “modern” version of the label, NOT that which is clearly intended by the scriptural text.
Reede,
Why did you let that sister into your house the many times before you kicked her out? That doesn’t seem wise, at the least.
I also realize your father is your father, but his antics don’t impress me much. My own father had serious flaws when my parents divorced, but he repented before God when he became a Christian many years later and noted his actions were wrong. I don’t see that in what you wrote.
@Billy
I was between 13 and 16, and kicking a 34 – 40 year old woman who molested me as a child out of my house is much harder than it seems.
My father was a lapsed Catholic, and Christianity is more foreign to me than Islam or Hinduism.
Feeriker, I agree with you that the most people — both men and women — distort scripture (both macro and micro) to suit their needs. So of course you are correct to say that a woman calling herself a “Proverbs 31 woman” might as well be calling herself “Xn2lma&4bQ”, because it could mean anything. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to recognize that the vast majority of American women (I’d say >98%) are completely unsuitable to be wives in the sense that God intended, because they reject the marriage relationship which God designed (husband is head of wife as Christ is head of husband).
I’m hoping you’ll agree with me that despite these dire circumstances, God would not approve of those who give up and categorically proclaim marriage to be an unworthy goal, as many here have.
Regarding Gunner, he eventually admitted that he did desire a wife with the qualities listed in Proverbs 31. But that was only after several commenters pointed out that he repeatedly conflated my mention of “Proverbs 31-type woman” with the common abuse of that term. Instead of playing word games, he could just as easily have given a qualified agreement (e.g., “If there really was a woman who matched that description, I’d take her”).
@Splashman: I know that God does not contradict Himself, and the meaning of the scripture based on the context is inescapably clear. I don’t know what your point is.
I’m hoping you’ll agree with me that despite these dire circumstances, God would not approve of those who give up and categorically proclaim marriage to be an unworthy goal, as many here have.
I absolutely agree that BIBLICAL marriage is most certainly a worthy goal. The problem is in being able to enter into and sustain one in which not only the temporal world, but, tragically, the church that has been co-opted by the temporal world will work against you at every turn..
Marriage 2.0 (what exists today) != Biblical marriage. The difficulty for us today is in separating the two – if it can be realistically done at all.
“Inescapably clear”? Really? It wasn’t to me, especially in that translation. What’s your take?
God would not approve of those who give up and categorically proclaim marriage to be an unworthy goal, as many here have.
A clod who still thinks that Marriage 2.0 is the same as Biblical marriage is a large part of the problem.
He might as well worship the Jim Gay-ratty ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud!’ videos.
Feeriker, you and I are on the same page. I’m doing what I can to help the situation, including teaching my daughters to believe what no church I’ve encountered would tolerate, let alone teach: husband is head of wife as Christ is head of husband. I also counsel my sons, friends and employees to steer clear of any woman who does not believe this. But there are times when I’m almost in despair — will I be able to find God-fearing men for my daughters? God-fearing women for my sons? Am I succumbing to “I’m the last one”-type thinking, like Elijah, when there are more God-fearing people than I think? Or is it really as bad as it appears?
Anon, you’re making the same mistake that Gunner did — conflating my use of a term with a fallacious use of the term. That’s your problem, not mine.
Splashman….
I’m not seeing the number of people that you claim are giving up on the institution of marriage itself as “unworthy”. What I AM seeing, and that includes when I look in the mirror , are people who have come to the reasonable conclusion that finding a woman that we could have confidence in marrying, is so unlikely that we have given up looking.
I am open to marriage, but simply do not expect to find it on terms that I consider acceptable…… and yes, I do believe that the words of Jesus in Mat19 give me this option. If being single is better than being divorced, then for the sake of righteousness and my witness of the Kingdom of God, I can choose to stay single.
Incidentally, here are a couple of the things that I would look for.
One is not being overtly “hot”. Making the decision to marry is difficult enough without excessive sexual desire clouding the issue. This is not the same as saying that women should by dowdy (to use a very old-fashioned term) or repulsive but the idea that we should be getting married for sex is one of the drivers of the current divorce rate. If people marry for sex, exactly what do you expect them to do when the quantity or quality of sex drops off? Overt sexuality is an attempt to manipulate or control …… exactly the kind of thing that we are decrying in this thread. Far better to keep sex in its box so that energy and focus can be applied to issues that are actually more important in making a healthy marriage.
Another is how she speaks about the men in her family and circle of acquaintances. Allowing for the fact that there are a few genuinely abusive fathers, it’s generally true that a woman who does not respect her father is unlikely to respect her husband or her sons.
Think about that. Such a woman is not even very wise….
@ Peterw, Splashman, feeriker
You know up until recently (1960s) Christian women were expected to veil themselves? The hijab/abaya or chador that Muslim women wear now is explicitly to avoid the problem of sexual desires clouding sound judgement, and the Christian veil was designed for the same purpose. Maybe it’s time to bring that custom back?
@Splashman: The version of the Bible you accept does make a difference. I respect the fact that you may use a different version. I hold the translation by Martin Luther to be authoritative, with the English KJV as a distant second. Here is the text from the Luther Bible: Lass nicht den Frauen deine Kraft und geh nicht die Wege derer, die Könige verderben!
Both the KJV and the Luther Bibel seem pretty clear that this is a general warning to King Lemuel avoid giving women power to destroy him. I’m aware of the sexual interpretations (i.e., “don’t be a sexaholic” in other versions but the wording does not support limiting the counsel only to having mindless sex with lots of women. Rather a more broad meaning seems to be intended.
Specifically, this passage immediately calls to mind the case of Samson and Delilah, but of course it is not clear if that example would have been known to the mother of King Lemuel.
It isn’t the ability to use a firearm that makes a woman unfeminine its her attitude. Anne Oakley and others like her from the past were far more feminine than women today who don’t shoot. The problem isn’t the gun its not the ability to defend oneself. Its the I’m not a woman but an in your face wants be a man attitude that’s the problem. The fact that strong should have different definitions depending on if you’re a man or woman has been lost is the real problem.
@ Peterw, Splashman, feeriker
You know up until recently (1960s) Christian women were expected to veil themselves? The hijab/abaya or chador that Muslim women wear now is explicitly to avoid the problem of sexual desires clouding sound judgement, and the Christian veil was designed for the same purpose. Maybe it’s time to bring that custom back?
Yes, Paul makes it clear in 1st Corinthians 11 that women are to cover their heads in church. This, along with the admonition for them to be silent in church, seeking counsel from their husbands for knowledge of the Word, has been tossed out by the world-worshiping churchians as “a relic of another era and culture” (funny how they never follow that assertion to its logical conclusion, which would ultimately compel them to renounce Christianity entirely – which many [most?] might as well do anyway).
Yes, head coverings for women in church should be re-enforced, among many other things that have been allowed to slide by the heretics in charge of the modern “church.” Don’t yold your breath waiting for it to happen, though, unless oxygen is optional for your continued existence. Any church that allows its women congregants to attend services dressed like streetwalkers or strippers –and that would be most Protestant churches today– isn’t about to make them cover their heads.
@Reede says: “You know up until recently (1960s) Christian women were expected to veil themselves?”
Umm, you do know the 1960’s wasn’t that long ago? There are plenty of people alive today who remember the time. You statement is wrong. Plain and simple. Christian women were not expected to veil themselves in public.
If you want a historical perspective, look for European renaissance paintings of society, and you’ll find the women were not veiled even then.
Veiling was an ancient pagan practice (the ancient Greeks veiled the faces of women as did the ancient Persians; Romans did not). Veiling (the covering of the face) has never been a Christian practice.
Veiling was never common among Christians, but covering of almost all other skin (even the ankles, let alone knees) was mandatory.
That is why I am not too much of a fan of the old days either, since male libido was artificially kept higher through overt scarcity creation (the same reason Muslims restrict how much of women that men get to see). That is analogous to keeping a prisoner on two meals a week of white rice, so that they are happy to see the plain white rice.
Such practices are also an admission that what women bring to the table will only stay valuable if an artificial illusion of scarcity is maintained, and that women cannot stay competitive if their ‘goods’ are apparently available in a natural quantity of supply.
@Splashman
I’m hoping you’ll agree with me that despite these dire circumstances, God would not approve of those who give up and categorically proclaim marriage to be an unworthy goal, as many here have.
1 Corinthians 8But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.
…
25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28But if you should marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin should marry, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.
http://biblehub.com/nasb77/1_corinthians/7.htm Chapter link for the larger context.
While throughout history, on the whole, marriage to a good woman is of value, there are exceptions to this rule. There are times where due to some present distress, it is better not to marry than to marry, if one can avoid burning with lust.
I judge this to be one of those times, due to the distress caused by the anti-family courts, and the culture.
And while it is not right for a man to be alone, is a man who gathers together with the faithful, as we are told not to neglect, truly alone?
It is my understanding that this is the kind of head-covering that was the tradition in Christian Churches.
It is my understanding that this is the kind of head-covering that was the tradition in Christian Churches.
OK. Then it is another example of virtually every religion deliberately creating scarcity in order to artificially prop up the value of women, who would not be seen as nearly as valuable without this regulatory force creating the illusion of scarcity.
Note how as soon as women started to dress like sluts and twerk, their erotic capital eroded, and it takes much more to impress men now. There was a time when even seeing a woman’s ankle would arouse a man. Now, even nudity does little unless the woman is a 9 or higher…
To be fair, setting up conditions for a man to still be attracted to his wife, in the times before Viagra, was probably a decent ingredient for civilization stability.
Speaking of how to keep a man interested in his wife…
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/55610/get-a-husband-brunswick-stew/
“Get a Husband Brunswick Stew” recipe. At least some women out there still understand that being a strong, sassy woman with a great job a career isn’t the best way to attract a man.
Josh, you’re bending scripture on a macro-level to support your position. For those who fear God, marriage is not simply “of value” — it is part of God’s design for humans, and thus should be our goal. That is a fact supported throughout the Bible, both explicitly and implicitly.
As for Paul’s words on the subject, since they clearly conflict with God’s design, we must take them as descriptive of Paul’s position, not prescriptive of God’s position. If Paul’s words lead to you (or anyone else) asking God’s will for your life, and God tells you not to marry, I’m with you 100%. If Paul’s words lead to you encouraging other men to consider Paul’s words and ask God’s will for their life, I’m with you 100%. It is a very different thing for you to take something that God in his sovereign wisdom chooses to do in specific circumstances and arbitrarily (“I judge this…”) apply it to all of us, for a period of time you will determine.
Thanks for the recipe, Otto — it looks delicious. I’m going to have my girls try this next week. If they’re not married within a month, who do I sue? 🙂
“As for Paul’s words on the subject, since they clearly conflict with God’s design…”
You lost me there. Are you really saying the Apostle Paul, whose writings are considered inspired scripture, got some things wrong?
Paul’s advice on marriage is straightforward, there is no reason to make it complicated.
1) Christians are not required to marry, but there is no prohibition against marriage–it is your choice.
2) Sex is still limited to marriage, so if you can’t control yourself sexually, you should marry so as to avoid sexual sin (fornication).
3) Some people have been given the gift of celibacy, so they can better serve the Lord.
Marriage is optional for Christians, but fornication is not an option.
@Splashman
I cannot agree. Our goal should be to love god with all our heart and soul and mind. Marriage is meant to be a blessing from God to his creations. When it ceases to be so, due to a present distress, then the institution is not fulfilling it’s design. We should no more have marriage as our goal, than have our goal be to attend a church, any church, even if it preaches that Jesus was not resurrected, or the savior.
And yes, I do judge this to be one of those times of distress, and dysfunction. Your judgement may differ. But each of us must judge best how to serve God, relying on Scripture and the Holy Spirit. And each of us must choose how best to encourage others.
My point is, that to condemn those who choose not to wed, and claim that God will not approve, does not fit scripture. Nor does it it fit scripture to condemn those who point out the quoted passages above, and others, to encourage others both to consider how best to serve God. Nor claim that God will not approve of those who point out the flaws in declarations that all men must marry, or hold marriage as their goal, in all times.
No, he’s not. You are deliberately trying to force men to make an incredibly bad decision and get married because you think they have to. They don’t. The decision is up to them, if God comes down and tells them otherwise, that is then God’s decision, not yours.
Paul is right about marriage, a man is better off without it. It’s quite simple. God created Adam, he then created Eve as a helpmate. Then the fall happened and they were both cursed. Read Eve’s curse again, she is no longer a helpmate, she will actively try to rule him or overthrow his authority. This is a hard pill for men to swallow. Women can work against this but, by and large, they are no longer helpmates, which is made abundantly clear by current affairs.
It is not up to you, it’s not up to me, there is no one consensus on whether a man must marry or not. His life, his choice.
Otto, are you really saying that God, who is generally considered to be the sovereign ruler of the universe, got something wrong? 🙂
Seriously, are you going to argue that God did not design humans for marriage?
Not all humans. It’s that simple. Not everyone is to be married.
God has left that decision up to you, men. Don’t let Splashman tell you otherwise.
Heh, you guys have gone off the rails to support your predetermined position. You cannot support it from scripture as a whole without contradicting God himself.
For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
I find it interesting, Splashman, that you have made assertions without supporting them from scripture, but make that accusation against us.
It’s no wonder so many young men, celebrate or not, no longer go to Church, but discuss scripture among themselves, if they do so at all.
I think I’ll have a glass of wine now. — something else people twist scripture to forbid.
Jesus telling the disciples about divorce after being asked if it is better not to marry considering that Jesus just stated that – divorce, except for sexual immorality, is forbidden.
He lays it out straight. Some can accept what marriage is, others can’t and thus should remain single. It doesn’t get any clearer than that, it’s a choice. Up to each person themselves to decide.
This is not a matter of God’s design, it is a matter based on choice.
As for Paul’s words on the subject, since they clearly conflict with God’s design
…
Eh, no — the scriptures don’t contradict on a fundamental level. Paul is clearly saying celibacy in the service of God (not ourselves) is best for those who can handle it without burning with the temptation to sin — if you burn with that temptation, then it is better to marry than to burn, but celibacy in the service of God is superior. That’s what God teaches through his Apostle par excellence in the NT.
It is my understanding that this is the kind of head-covering that was the tradition in Christian Churches.
Yes, that’s known as a mantilla and was common in the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church.
In the Eastern tradition, headscarves are generally preferred, like this:
Reede,
Your post implied you were in charge of the house, I stand corrected. Though that illustrates that a woman is clearly not comparable to a man, even a young one. The strength differential is too great.
I pray you find out more about true Christianity as well. It is far from what many push. It would give you a lot more peace in whatever you face in life.
PeterW,
The Scriptures (via Paul) say men and women should marry for sex. This is another area that has been twisted, but where the core principle remains correct.
FH,
Paul’s admonition about singleness being better is in the context of being able to serve God more completely. I don’t see that in most who avoid marriage today. Their actions are not surprising, but they are not fulfilling what Paul wrote.
The modern state is outside what he was covering.
I don’t think so Billy. Paul draws directly from the state of the city, the depravity of that city, to which he is advising the people there. That depravity is also true of modern day culture. Why do you feel the need to fight what is quite apparent? Your own marriage failed, why would you feel the need to lead other men down such a path? Give them the information and let them make their own decisions.
It’s all about serving God, this doesn’t change the problem that marriage isn’t Biblical at the moment, nor that, just by the numbers, most Christian men have close to zero chance of finding the women that is talked about on this forum. There’s just not enough of them to go around, instead of telling men to keep bumping their heads against a wall, they have another avenue open to them.
You don’t like it but it’s not up to you to decide.
Reading that and not seeing the direct correlation to the present situation is being, you know, just a little bit blind. Come on.
@BillyS,
And too often, I see husbands who don’t get the sex they went to marriage for, and wind up listening to the voices of their wives rather than to God, much as Adam did. That doesn’t mean that marriage is forbidden as a choice for men. All sin, and fall short of the Glory of God.
Lol! He’s spelling it out and you won’t listen. You’re proving his point. This entire blog proves Paul’s words to be true.
@Splashman says:
April 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm
Otto, are you really saying that God, who is generally considered to be the sovereign ruler of the universe, got something wrong? 🙂
Seriously, are you going to argue that God did not design humans for marriage?
———————-
What God DESIGNED men for, and what God REQUIRES men to do are two different things.
Men and women were designed for each other. God DOES NOT require men (or women) to marry.
God designed man to eat meat, but man isn’t required to eat meat. It is not a sin to be a vegetarian.
Neither is it a sin to be a bachelor.
Josh the Aspie,
To be fair, setting up conditions for a man to still be attracted to his wife, in the times before Viagra, was probably a decent ingredient for civilization stability.
Meh…Artificially creating scarcity in order to engineer a scarcity mentality, is oppressive to the target (men, in this case). I mean, I guarantee that you will love every meal you ever eat again, even if it is only plain white rice, if you are only fed two meals per week. Is that ‘good’?
If women are inadequate to the task of retaining sufficient allure outside of a pervasive, artificial creation of scarcity, then women are just inadequate wholesale. They just don’t contribute enough to civilization relative to what they consume, once reproduction has fallen to 10-20% of the woman’s capacity.
Josh the Aspie,
To be fair, setting up conditions for a man to still be attracted to his wife, in the times before Viagra, was probably a decent ingredient for civilization stability.
Meh…Artificially creating scarcity in order to engineer a scarcity mentality, is oppressive to the target (men, in this case). I mean, I guarantee that you will love every meal you ever eat again, even if it is only plain white rice, if you are only fed two meals per week. Is that ‘good’?
If women are inadequate to the task of retaining sufficient allure outside of a pervasive, artificial creation of scarcity, then women are just inadequate wholesale. They just don’t contribute enough to civilization relative to what they consume, once reproduction has fallen to 10-20% of the woman’s capacity.
@BillyS,
I am much more learned about it than I was previously, and currently one of my favorite books is City of God by St. Augustine. Said sister got married at 39 to one of her former beta orbiters from high school, got sober for awhile and moved in with him, then figured out she was too far gone to have children and promptly relapsed into alcoholism again.
@feministhater, Novaseeker, anon et al
I don’t really understand the issue here. If someone doesn’t feel they need to get married and decides to remain celibate, there seems to be nothing wrong with it. In Orthodoxy and Catholicism the priesthood is celibate, so that’s a necessity for them.
Also, I may be giving off my beta vibes here but I would honestly find committed love and intimacy at least as valuable to a marriage as sex, if not moreso. I grew up as one of the post-internet and post-morality kids who were bombarded with sex and pornography (as young as 5, in my case). I’ve actually become far more jaded and tired of sex itself than the intimate love and happy family life I never experienced.
Your chances of finding either within marriage are growing dimmer by the second. Your blue pill nature not withstanding, it’s no sure bet that you will find such a women, but the risks of marriage are permanent. It’s up to you to weigh the supposed rewards against the probably risk and determine whether it works for you.
Women don’t love you like you love them – for your own sanity, grasp that point if nothing else. Only restrictions on a woman’s hypergamy via social measures, both community and legal, can create the illusion that she actually cares for you. They can respect you but they can’t love you in the sense you want. What you want is not obtainable, it’s the lie told to men to keep you interested.
@feministhater
Yeah you’re probably right, hence why I would never marry in the States, Canada *where I am* or any other Anglo / Western country. I don’t have such a strict view on women though. I’m lucky enough to have “natural game” based on my upbringing and traits (digit ratio is 0.91) that I can get a way with tingly vaggies and soft squishy betaness.
As I said above here, the serious distortion of our culture and economy is creating this massive imbalance. Oftentimes people refer to eastern Europe or east Asia as alternatives, but having met people from Muslim and sub-Saharan backgrounds, E Asians and E Europeans are much more like Anglos than you think.
For example in Islam polygamy is generally permitted (though not encouraged), and within the Jafari madhab of Shia Islam there is a halal form of marriage called “mu’tah” that is essentially temporary, and a man can enter a mu’tah marriage without even informing his “permanent” wife. Now, mu’tah is very much looked down upon these days in Shia culture but given that kind of background, women in these cultures are much more realistic and well rounded as to what they should expect to offer and to expect from a man.
@Splashman
>But there are times when I’m almost in despair — will I be able to find God-fearing men for my daughters?
It seems unlikely you are honestly assessing the men in church around you. Even ignoring myself, to handle the assumed bias, there were plenty of genuinely submissive-to-God men about in my various church youth groups. If you cannot see them, perhaps you suffer from AMOG syndrome, and do not *allow* yourself to see these worthy men.
How many men wear women’s clothing to church, long hair, or are visibly unselfcontrolled (obese, drunk, etc.)? Opposite question for women. Deut 22:5, 1 Cor 11, Tit 2:1-5
Your daughters will have problems only if you have failed to train them properly.
Peter W.
>If people marry for sex, exactly what do you expect them to do when the quantity or quality of sex drops off?
Rebuke the selfish partner, likely the wife, for her rebellion and sin, per 1 Cor 7. Do this first in private, then with 2 or 3 witnesses, then take it to the church, and if she will not listen even to the church, treat her as an unbeliever. See Mat 18:15. If it gets to that last step, then also remove her from your house; see Josh 24:14-15.
Of course, with what passes for “churches” today, the third and fourth step from Mat 18 will not work.
And with the immoral laws we have, the Biblical response to Josh 24:14-15 will not work either.
Hmmm… It’s almost like Satan is in charge of this world. Including the churches. I guess not much has changed in 2000 years.
I will agree that overt sexuality is not desirable in a potential bride however. That suggests her character is so bad, that she does not want you to notice anything but her body.
And your point about expecting her to respect her father is, I think, very wise. If she does not respect her father, who trained and provided for her since childhood, why would I think I will fair better?
FH,
I am not sure what I would tell a young man now. I am not even sure exactly what I will do in the future. I just do not believe that Paul’s writings can be used to assert that staying single and focusing on your own affairs is an ideal path. It may be the best path available for many, but it is not the way to fulfill God’s command to continue and transform our society.
I see no easy solution, but mankind would have died out in the early days of the church if too many had followed that path, even though those were very bad times as well.
I see a compulsion to continue a godly society (not necessarily what we have today), but doing that can come many different ways.
Any specific man can do whatever he wants of course, but he should not justify it with Paul’s writings about being more devoted to the work of the Lord.
Josh,
That is true. Walking a godly life takes a great reliance on the Holy Spirit and then effort to follow His leading. It is never an easy path, even when society is good. It can is clearly harder when a society is as corrupt as ours is. Imagine living in the final century of the Israel (northern) kingdom. Things seemed to be going very well, but were headed for destruction. The same is true today for what we have.
None of this negates the fact that sex is a key part of marriage and the appropriate place for it.
Walking out God’s will and plan may not be easy, but that never excuses us from trying, though finding out the optimal path means seeking Him, not the advice of any man, including me or anyone else.
BillyS…..
I am not at all saying that the single state is ideal, either personally, or in principle.
I am saying that it seems the best option for me (currently) and that scripture does not demand that I marry for the sake of getting married.
It’s not about focusing wholly on me….. but understanding that failed marriages are more damaging to the Kingdom than long-term bachelorhood.
I’m not sure how you are doing the maths, but you appear to be arguing that the early church grew mostly through breeding rather than evangelism. That is do obviously untrue that I suspect you might wish to rephrase your argument on that point. Yes?
Reede…. I was born in the 60s, in a country in which Christianity was the norm. Women were not veiled. Some would wear hats in church, but no more.
You would see more veils – from other cultures – on the streets of major cities now than back then.
I’ve spoken to too many divorced men who admitted that their first wife was chosen by “the little head”, not the big one. In other words, they were chosen for sex, not for their other qualities, and divorce was the ultimate consequence.
We can talk all we like about divorce being evil, but we have to deal with the reality that it exists, that women are more likely to take advantage of it than we are…… and that few churches will rebuke them for it.
Dale…..
You can talk about rebuking wives for refusing sex or using it to manipulate husbands, but which churches will back you up? Which divorce courts.?
All…..
I view marriage as being about more than just a venue for safe sex. If we take seriously the second commandment, and apply it to the woman that we seek to marry, then we better be marrying her for a better reason than JUST the sex that we can get from her.
I see nothing in the scriptures about the way that a husband and wife are to relate, that allows me to treat a woman that I marry as nothing more than a sex-toy. If I want to share a life with her that is enjoyable, beneficial and a good witness to the love of God, then I need to use wisdom in selecting her. ……… which means rejecting those that aren’t suitable.
(Cat-loving vegans are obviously out….. 😂)
You and I don’t disagree here. That hasn’t been my point. I don’t think the married or single life is the ideal path. They are both paths that can be chosen. My point is only that it is the individual man who must decide what he wants. If he worships God and lives a good life, I cannot fault him for those choices.
The question of whether or not to marry must be made knowingly by the person making it. They must know the their obligations and the restrictions placed on them within marriage, the expectations placed on them and the possible benefits a marriage might bring. They should also be made aware of the benefits of a single life lived with some purpose.
I should also note that single and celibate man need not be monks, they can and should have some hobbies and other interests, he should still find a way to contribute where he can and make do with what he has within this society.
In my eyes, both the Christian single man and married man should foremost worship God and give thanks to Jesus.
On the aspect of humanity perishing due to low birth rates. This is a problem but there are always solutions. In the past the circular nature of life would sort out this problem. Birth rates would go down and eventually you would reach a point where it would become a boon to have lots of children and the populations would generally recover. I believe we have an artificial government and global impediment to reproduction at the moment that is squashing birth rates. Namely feminism, divorce laws and the high costs of living. In the end, God sorts it out.
Those should be your focus, not the few men who have decided to live a more stable life.
Actually I would suggest that veils or at least a strongly enforced modest dress code would go very far to solving the current vanity and narcissism epidemic amongst young women. It occurred to me when I was talking to a girl originally from Poland who lives here. Nice enough girl but unfortunately is going down the alpha boyfriend route, but more importantly she is extremely gorgeous by our local standards. Blue eyes, olive skin, sharp Slavic features, quite a beauty. But she’s a real mental wreck and is convinced she is “ugly”. This is something I’ve noticed from a large number of nice looking girls (including a girlfriend of mine who was coincidentally a vegan too) and I kept trying to figure out why.
What I realized was that because they are attractive and everyone constantly notices this fact, it becomes a big part of their sense of self and their identity. As a result they are constantly terrified of becoming or being perceived as unattractive because it’s such a huge blow to their identities,band therefore are either massively insecure or are narcissistic.
In contrast, women who were veiled and modestly dressed from their teen years onwards (mostly Muslims but also some non Western Christians and conservative Hindus) are much, much more reasonable and down to earth. I would suggest interacting with some Muslim women if you want to see the difference, or if you are Islamophobic try talking with some conservative Hindus. The difference really is remarkable.
I can gain companionship from other men. I can gain support when times are low from other men. I can have longstanding and deep friendship with other men.
There are only two things, from a Christian perspective, that I am aware of that I can not get from other men, but can get from a woman. Those are Marriage, and Sex. If I were to marry a woman, would I want companionship, and an relationship where I share things I would not share with any but the closest of my true friends? Of course. And as such, I would want to choose a bride with whom I think I could share these things.
But we are instructed that if we burn with passion and cannot control our urges, we are to seek the solution in marriage. Men (or women) who are denied sex by a spouse are thus denied that remedy.
So then, what do they profit by marriage, that they cannot gain from deep friendships?
———
As for the critique of a life of singleness that is not lived for God… there are lots of married men who do not live their lives for God either. And there are single men who do live their lives for God. So I don’t really see how that’s even a critique.
———-
Islamophobic. Seriously, being used as a word here, as well? One might as well call those who use such words “phobiaphobic” or “sensiphobic”.
@Josh the Aspie
In my experience Muslims are the closest group to Christians on a moral and ethical level.
In Islam, Jesus is considered the word of God placed within the Virgin Mary.
In Judaism, Jesus is in hell, buried up to his neck in burning shit.
There is a massive campaign funded by (((neoconservatives))) to demonize Muslims in order to keep the two most powerful moral forces in the world from conspiring together for peace and morality. If you can’t recognize that, at least be aware of who your real enemies are. Look up the names behind pornography (google Bookleggers and Smut-Hounds), banking (google Barren Metal), immigration (google Slaughter of Cities) and sexual liberation (google Libido Dominandi).
@ Reede says:
April 17, 2017 at 11:33 am
“In my experience Muslims are the closest group to Christians on a moral and ethical level.”
Except for all the persecution, murder, rape, torture, crucifixions etc. of Christians by Muslims. I mean, if you overlook that insignificant detail, sure, no problem.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/06/christians-most-persecuted-group-in-world-for-second-year-study.html
@Oscar
Are you implying there is a conspiracy amongst Muslims to persecute Christians? Or is it more likely that the criminals let loose by destroying stable countries like Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan are interested in pillaging, raping and murdering anyone?
I find it interesting that the hand-wringing only happens when some middle-eastern Christians are targeted, but when a bomb detonates in Baghdad killing hundreds of people it’s just water under the bridge. Or when the US or some other putatively “Christian” country maims and slaughters innocents in countries like Afghanistan like the massive bomb that was just recently dropped. It’s almost as if there’s a narrative adopted by the media to try and keep Christians and Muslims fighting each other…
PS, the Lebanese Maronite Catholics are allied with Hezbollah against the Israelis.
@ Reede says:
April 17, 2017 at 12:05 pm
“Are you implying there is a conspiracy amongst Muslims to persecute Christians?”
con·spir·a·cy: kənˈspirəsē/Submit (noun)
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
No. You see, a conspiracy is – by definition – secret. I’m stating – not implying – that Muslims are openly acting in accordance with the behavior of their “prophet” and his companions.
Are you saying that the persecution of Christians in Muslim majority countries is false?
Reede @ 11:33 am:
“In my experience Muslims are the closest group to Christians on a moral and ethical level.”
Don’t lie, Reede. Your people were shameless murderers, slavers, liars and rapists long before the Prophet made a religion out of it. I don’t see any Coptic or Iraqi Christians going on anti-Muslim murder sprees. You dare to murder my innocent Christian brothers then claim any level of morality higher than pigs wallowing in blood?
@ 12:05pm:
“Are you implying there is a conspiracy amongst Muslims to persecute Christians?”
A hobby, not a conspiracy.
@Oscar, Gunner Q
I’m not a Muslim (?) but I would encourage you to actually meet Muslims before you start declaring how universally evil they all are. I can see you guys have made your minds up emotionally here.
Can you point to me, by the way, where Muhammad says you should murder all Christians? Last I checked it was a crime in Muslim countries to deface the Bible or the Old Testament, but pastors seem to enjoy burning Qurans in God-fearing Amurka.
Can you point to the only countries where sodomy is still a crime? Oh, they’re all Muslim countries except for the ones in sub-Saharan Africa. How about abortion? Oh dear, those demon-worshipping Muslims are at it again. Divorce? Again, this one goes to those satanic Muslims. As you guys know, our Muslim owned media (Sunmer Redstone, Aviv Nevo, Bob Greenblatt, the Sulzbergers, Mortimer Zuckerman, Terry Semel) is constantly pushing sexual decadence and depravity, and denigration of Christianity. It’s the same thing with those Muslim politicians like Jacob Javits who declared “open the floodgates” when the US immigration laws were liberalized in the 1960s.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslims-are-the-victims-of-between-82-and-97-of-terrorism-related-fatalities-us-government/5516565
Seems like these Muslims are pretty bad at genociding Christians if they end up mostly wiping out other Muslims as well – they’d better tell the Muslim hive-minds to come up with better tactics, like saturating bombing Europe and N. America.
@ Reede says:
April 17, 2017 at 12:31 pm
“I’m not a Muslim (?)… ”
I never said you were.
“… but I would encourage you to actually meet Muslims before you start declaring how universally evil they all are. I can see you guys have made your minds up emotionally here.”
I met plenty during my three years in the ME. Now, answer my question.
Are you saying that the persecution of Christians in Muslim majority countries is false?
@Oscar
No, I agree persecution of Christians is happening in Muslim countries. I also added that persecution of Muslims is happening in Muslim countries. So tell me how this invalidates any points I made?
“I’m not a Muslim”
Why not? Aren’t they at least as moral as Christians? You praise them then refuse to join them? You justify their killing yet take no side?
Either you’re a Muslim lying about being a Muslim or you’re a Communist lying about how bad Islam is for society. Doesn’t matter. Either way, you are lying. Either way, you seek the death of Christ.
@Gunner Q
So if I say that Muslims do believe in Monotheism but are not equivalent to Christians, this makes me a Communist? Gee, it kind of reminds me of all those people prancing around talking about “Judeo-“Christianity considering how radically divergent Rabbinic Judaism is from authentic Christianity.
So in yours and Oscar’s worlds, there is only good guys and bad guys, and there is no compromise in between? I’d appreciate that POV if it was consistent but the neocon Muslim-bashers also lubricate America’s anus for a good pegging by the state of Israel.
@Reede
The terms islamophobe, and islamophobic, like the terms homophobia and homophobic are both a part of a cultural-marxist tactic to paint any “problematic” behavior or belief as a debilitating mental condition, as crippling and maladjusted as alurophobia, or agorophobia, or aracnophobia.
When even the words you choose to use are manipulative and dishonest, why would I listen to anything else you say?
FH,
I don’t think we are far off in views, as I think I posted before. I just don’t like to see any Scripture misapplied. A bit of a soapbox for me, but it is what it is.
My neighbor is likely a MGTOW (mid 30s I would guess) and I haven’t wasted any time trying to “correct” his direction. I did talk briefly with him once and it seems like he fell into it rather than pursued it.
I don’t even know what I am going to do in my own life shortly, so I am certainly not going to tell others what to do. I do believe I could have avoided my own pain now if I would have headed some huge warning signs before I married. (Not the normal ones, but plenty of things would have made me back off if I knew then what I know now.)
Josh,
I believe that is another theory item. How many men really have close friendships like that? They should, but do not.
I have several posts that touch on this, but this one is the most direct:
https://billsmithvision.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/finding-a-core-group-of-male-friends/
I don’t argue with your overall point, but I suspect that having core friendships between men would help solve many other things.
BillyS,
I can’t speak for all men, but I have such friendships, some of which are longstanding. They have already survived times of upset and trouble, and have been a source of strength for me. I am glad to have other Men that I can support, and who can support me.
@ Reede says:
April 17, 2017 at 12:51 pm
“No, I agree persecution of Christians is happening in Muslim countries. I also added that persecution of Muslims is happening in Muslim countries. So tell me how this invalidates any points I made?”
Seriously? You actually have to ask? Roughly 90,000 Christians were murdered for their faith last year, more than any other religious group. About a third of them were murdered by Muslims. Muslims make up about 1/5 of the world’s population, yet of they murdered 1/3 of the world’s Christians who were martyred for their faith, which means that Muslims are more likely than any other people group to murder Christians for their faith. And you think that makes Muslims good candidates for an alliance with Christians?
Then there’s the fact that 600 million Christians who were prevented from practicing their faith, mostly in Muslim countries. And you think we should ally with them?
Infogalactic has a good write-up of Muslim persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Persecution_of_Copts
You can find similar stories in just about every majority-Muslim country. And you think that means we should ally ourselves with them?
Then there’s the matter of how Muslims behave in historically Christian countries once they become a large enough percentage of the population. Take France, for example, where Muslims make up just under 10% of the general population, but 70% of the prison population. Or the fact that currently France is tracking 15,000 Muslim terrorists within their borders.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20160912/france-needs-10000-new-prison-places-for-15000-extremists
You can find similar patterns in Germany, Sweden and the rest of Western Europe. And you think that means we should ally ourselves with Muslims?
Then there’s the fact that – as you rightly pointed out – Muslims slaughter each other by the tens of thousands with ecstatic abandon. If that’s how they treat THEIR OWN PEOPLE, how do you suppose they’ll treat “infidels” who commit the unforgivable sin of “shirk” by believing in the Trinity? And you think their violence TOWARDS EACH OTHER means we should ally ourselves with them?
What alliance can Christians make with their chief persecuters? Why would we want to ally ourselves with people who slaughter their own with the ferocity that Muslims display?
I think CS Lewises advice in the lion the witch and the wardrobe from the mouth of father Christmas to Susan and Lucy as he gives them their weapons Something along the lines of they should always be able to defend themselves but they should never purposefully risk themselves in battle
Congrats on that then Josh. My findings show that many men do not have such connections, which is definitely a bad thing and a failure of modern churches as well.
Muslims kill fellow-Muslims because they believe that their fellow-Muslims are not pure or fanatical enough. Their scriptures state tha Allah will not give them victory over the unbelievers and rule the world, if they are not pure.
Muslims kill Christians an every other kind of unbeliever, because their scripture – the words of their Prophet – instruct them to fight unbelievers until ever unbeliever submits to Allah. Not worshipping Allah and holding some form of different belief is justification for war and killing. Tolerance is not an option for Atheists and polytheists. They must be enslaved (yes, slavery is endorsed by Ismail) or killed. Christians and Jews may be permitted to live as VERY second-class citizens with few Rights, additional punitive taxes and massive restrictions on how they practice their faith.
These are not conspiracies. They are commands given by Allah, through Mohammed and supported by the historical example of Mohammed.
@Oscar
I don’t want to get into a flamewar with you so I’ll try and be reasonable.
Seriously? You actually have to ask? Roughly 90,000 Christians were murdered for their faith last year, more than any other religious group. About a third of them were murdered by Muslims
Well first let’s clarify exactly what you’re saying. You will need to clearly define “Muslims” first. If by “Muslims” you mean Daesh, then we will work with that definition. Right now the Iranians, Hezbollah, the Syrian Arab Army and allied local tribes are in a life-or-death struggle against the Muslims. Except they are Muslims too. Also the American government is seeking to topple the Syrian government which is majority Muslim and protects ethnic and religious minorities. So really, who are we talking about here? From my perspective your dreaded Muslims are the greatest US asset in undermining countries that aren’t puppets of Washington DC.
Then there’s the fact that 600 million Christians who were prevented from practicing their faith, mostly in Muslim countries. And you think we should ally with them?
There are only about 30 million Christians in the middle east. Are you referring to Africa? Christianity is negligible except in Nigeria which is has a slim majority of Christians. There is persecution in the north due to Boko Haram though, but the majority of Christians are in the south.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Middle_East
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nigeria
Never heard of Infogalactic but I’d prefer if you give some scholarly citations. Considering you gave me a laughable figure of 600 million, I’m a bit skeptical of your sources.
Then there’s the matter of how Muslims behave in historically Christian countries once they become a large enough percentage of the population. Take France, for example, where Muslims make up just under 10% of the general population, but 70% of the prison population. Or the fact that currently France is tracking 15,000 Muslim terrorists within their borders.
Yeah, Muslim immigrants were imported en masse into France because the decadent sexual culture caused a birth dearth and low-level labour was in dire need. They have been ghettoized because French culture is completely at odds with any kind of sexual morality. We were recently treated to that surreal scene where the cop was demanding a Muslim woman in a “burkini” to take her clothes off.
I don’t care about defending Europeans, because Europe is a decadent sea of secularism. The Catholic Church has come to the same conclusion, interestingly, and has no interest in backing these fake Kosher Nationalist parties like Geert’s PVV or Le Pen’s FN.
France is also the country where you have to fight in court to get a paternity test, but the French are so promiscuous that the men won’t even challenge it for fear of being slapped with the baby bill by some other man’s wife (or whatever they call them). The only parts of France with an illegitimacy rate below 50% are the Muslim majority parts. I think Europe is full of barbarians and, like the PUAs in dealing with Western women, they find themselves becoming uncivilized as a result.
“Love thy neighbour”, is a Christian commandment. Not a Muslim one.
The nearest Islam gets is to love fellow Muslims…. defined as “pure” Muslims, not those who are apostate (don’t follow pure Islamic doctrine). Anyone not actively fighting infidels can be defined as apostate.
Christianity also gave us the “just war” doctrine.
…… and no, the MOAB was not dropped on a bunch of non-combatants in Afghan any more than murdering “Christians” are following the dictates of Christian doctrine. . If you are going to engage in this argument, kindly respect reality.
Neither Islam nor Christianity is open to infinite interpretation by anyone wanting to justify their own actions. There are objective standards. Christians are those who follow the teachings of a Christ and the Apostles. Muslims are those who follow the teachings and examp,e of the prophet Mohammed. We may debate how these work out in the modern world, but we are not at liberty to do anything we bloody well want and call it “Christian”.
@Peter
Alright this is clearly not going to be a reasonable discussion. I’ll repost what I typed beforehand:
the neocon Muslim-bashers also lubricate America’s anus for a good pegging by the state of Israel
In Islam, Jesus is considered the word of God placed within the Virgin Mary.
In Judaism, Jesus is in hell, buried up to his neck in burning shit.
Can you point to me, by the way, where Muhammad says you should murder all Christians?
Can you point to the only countries where sodomy is still a crime? Oh, they’re all Muslim countries except for the ones in sub-Saharan Africa. How about abortion? Oh dear, those demon-worshipping Muslims are at it again. Divorce? Again, this one goes to those satanic Muslims.
It’s interesting that the only country the US has been unilaterally warmongering against for almost 40 years, Iran, is also the only country where divorce is extremely difficult, abortion is illegal and sodomy is a capital punishment.
@Peter
In the Muslim (and Jewish) view, the fact that certain wars are divinely sanctioned
by no means implies that they are to be fought without restraint. Indeed, the fact that a
war is fought for God is all the more reason to scrupulously obey all the rules
regarding the proper conduct of war. Although the wars described in the Torah may
appear relatively unrestrained when compared to the stylized forms of combat
between Christians that took place in some instances in the middle ages through the
eighteenth centuries, the appropriate contrast to the wars of the prophets is not
medieval warfare, but the kind of war that was fought by non-Jews during the period
of the Jewish prophets. It is only in this context that the significance of restraints on
war in Mosaic law become clear.
http://www.academia.edu/2522530/_Islam_and_Just_War_Theory_
Reede says:
April 17, 2017 at 5:31 pm
“I don’t want to get into a flamewar with you so I’ll try and be reasonable.”
Try harder. You’re the non-Christian trying to convince Christians to ally themselves with people who persecute them, remember?
“Well first let’s clarify exactly what you’re saying. You will need to clearly define ‘Muslims’ first.”
People who adhere to the five pillars of Islam. Is that a clear enough definition for you?
“If by ‘Muslims’ you mean Daesh, then we will work with that definition.”
Did Muslim persecution of Christians exist prior to the Islamic State? Does it currently exist in majority Muslim areas outside of the Islamic State’s control?
“Right now the Iranians, Hezbollah, the Syrian Arab Army and allied local tribes are in a life-or-death struggle against the Muslims. Except they are Muslims too.”
Yes, we’ve already noted how Muslims slaughter each other by the tens of thousands with ecstatic abandon. How, exactly, does that make them viable allies? Why would we want to ally ourselves with people who slaughter their own by the tens of thousands?
“There are only about 30 million Christians in the middle east.”
You do realize that there are Muslim countries outside the Middle East, right? Also, I did not state that ALL 600 million persecuted Christians were persecuted by Muslims.
“Never heard of Infogalactic but I’d prefer if you give some scholarly citations.”
Like the Wikipedia links you posted? You could have clicked on the supporting links in the Infogalactic article on Muslim persecution of Egyptian Coptic Christians (not by the Islamic State, by the way). You didn’t because you’re not interested in the facts.
“Considering you gave me a laughable figure of 600 million, I’m a bit skeptical of your sources.”
Considering that you can’t even click on a link, your skepticism is meaningless.
“I don’t care about defending Europeans…”
So what? Where did I advocate defending Europeans? I presented France as an example of how Muslims behave in a historically Christian country when they become a significant portion of the population. France, Sweden, Germany and the rest of Western Europe are a cautionary tale. You did absolutely nothing to refute – or even address – that cautionary tale.
Why do you want 15,000 Muslim terrorists in the US, as France is tracking right now?
And those are just the ones of which they’re aware. And their numbers are growing. Why do you want that for the US?
@Oscar
Seeing as you didn’t defend your ridiculous “600 million” statement and proceed to indulge your hamster instead of deal with reason, I’ll end the Muslim discussion now.
If this is what the US marines’ standards have sunk to, it’s no wonder you guys have been reamed by a bunch of lightly armed Taliban.
Sorry, Reede, but I see little, if anything, to respect in your argument.
I told you exactly what the core doctrine of Islam – as presented by the highest authority in Islam, Mohammed – is toward Christians, and your response is to repeat a straw-man about killing every Christian?
You think we should ally ourselves with a cult whose core doctrine includes denial of human rights, including the Right of Christians to freely practice our faith? That is Islam, not some minor sect of the religion.
Almost all of the countries in the Middle-East, Eastern Europe and Northern Africa that are now Islamic, are now Muslim. They BECAME Muslim by military invasion and forced conversion. Oh? You don’t think that the threat of slavery and ruinous taxation constitutes “force”????
No wonder you don’t want to continue this conversation.
And for the record, you are arguing that a religion that insists people join it by choice and not by government decree (seperation of church and state is based firmly on the teaching of Christ) should ally itself with one that believes in beheading unbelievers.
You are apparently so gullible that you take at face value the Islamic claim to honour the Torah and Jesus, yet you ignore the fact that Islam is dishonest about the teaching of Jesus and totally ignores the Mosaic standard for determining a true prophet. A standard which, if applied accurately, reveals Mohammed to be a false prophet.
Conflating the two faiths requires ignoring fundamental differences.
Reede,
Infogalactic is a fork of Wikipedia without the SJW bias restraining the truth. You might want to check it out, as it is aimed at information, not bias. It is a fork as well (allowed per Wikipedia’s license) so it will have everything Wikipedia has and then some, without the tyrannical editors.
OT for everyone else:
I just signed my divorce decree today. I should be legally divorced by the end of the week.
I should be glad to be past this limbo stage, but it is still incredibly sad. Not the best time to be between jobs too, but having extra time to relax (in the midst of the job search) is not a bad thing.
(I got laid of a few weeks back. Annoying, but likely a good thing as I am almost certain to get a very decent pay raise out of the deal because I was under the market for my position in my field.
Billy…
All the best. I may not agree with you on some points, but we have more in common than that which we don’t share.
God speed.
@ Reede says:
April 17, 2017 at 10:01 pm
“Seeing as you didn’t defend your ridiculous ‘600 million’ statement and proceed to indulge your hamster instead of deal with reason, I’ll end the Muslim discussion now.”
I provided you with the evidence. You refused to read it. That’s on you, not me.
You’ve yet to explain why you want the USA to end up like France, with 15,000 known terror suspects (how many unknown?), with multiple terrorist attacks within a year’s time, with 70% of the prison population made up of Muslims being radicalized by their chaplains and fellow inmates, etc.
You’ve yet to explain why you want the USA to end up like Sweden, the rape capital of Europe, with a growing trend of grenade attacks, thanks to the Muslims with whom you want us to ally.
You’ve yet to explain why you want the USA to end up like Germany, also with multiple terrorist attacks within the span of one year. One Muslim terrorist attack targeted a CHRISTmas market. Golly, gee, freaking whiz… I wonder why Muslims would target a CHRISTmas market…
You’ve yet to explain why you want American Christians to end up like Egyptian Coptic Christians, who once made up a majority of Egypt’s population, but are now a persecuted minority, whose churches Muslims bomb on CHRSTmas and Easter. Golly, gee, freaking whiz… I wonder why Muslims would target churches on CHRISTmas and Easter… Also, if Muslims are so wonderful, how did Egyptian Coptic Christians go from the majority of Egypt’s population to a persecuted minority?
Go ahead. Explain all that.
“If this is what the US marines’ standards have sunk to… ”
I’m not a Marine, genius.
@ BillyS says:
April 18, 2017 at 12:18 am
“Reede,
Infogalactic is a fork of Wikipedia without the SJW bias restraining the truth. You might want to check it out, as it is aimed at information, not bias.”
If he wanted information, not bias, he would have checked it out. He didn’t check it out because he doesn’t want information that contradicts his bias.
@BillyS,
Thank you. Whether other men are able to find these important relationships or not, though, this does not justify a mandate for marriage.
Back to my original point for pointing out what deep male friendships can provide. People have pointed out that the reason for marriage is for sex for those who are seeking to avoid fornication. Others complained that obviously this means those men want to treat women as souless sex-toys. My post pointing out that no, it just means that’s the only thing that can’t be gained out of friendships in a Christian manner. Therefore it is the defining difference, and thus the reason for a man to have a marriage instead of a friendship.
And before anyone claims there are financial benefits to having a lasting marriage that doesn’t end in divorce… I’ll point out that there are financial benefits to winning big at the craps table too. But that doesn’t mean that craps or marriage are reasonable financial strategies.
True Oscar. Infogalactic is a better source now and in the future. I have a Chrome plug in that redirects things there for me now.
PeterW,
Thanks. God will carry me through. It is just a sad ride.
I agree Josh. I believe more churches should be working on such strong connections, even for married men. My marriage connection was not great, but I didn’t realize how much it was the extent of things until it was gone.
My former church has no clue in this area, unfortunately, and couldn’t even do anything to help with that when I was going through the very painful time.
Josh,
I would argue that a man-wife bond can be very deep, but that is really hard to obtain today. God didn’t give Adam a Steve to be with him….
Male relationships are different than those with a wife. Both have their place and fill slightly different roles. Both are vital, even though many of us struggle through without the first, and sometimes the latter.
@BillyS
“Male relationships are different than those with a wife. Both have their place and fill slightly different roles.”
In male relationships there will always be an alpha rivalry. The point of a wife is that I should not have to compete for alpha status. Not against her or against others in her view. The husband may be the most beta man in every other relationship in his life, but he should be his wifes alpha. It is a choice that most women don’t understand.
I am sure that I will hear a lot about “being” an alpha, or game, or AT’s “fit to rule” but what it comes down to is that a Man has to fight everyone else in his world for alpha status, and in most of these he will lose. His boss is alpha, the cops are alpha, his pastor competes for alpha, etc…….He SHOULD NOT have to fight his wife for alpha status. All most men need for a “safe space” is his woman viewing him as her personal alpha, regardless of how he is looked at by the rest of the world. Regardless of whether she is utterly helpless or completely capable, a man NEEDS to be his womans alpha. Most men can accept being less than alpha in any other area. When his woman sees him or treats him as beta, it doesn’t matter who else sees him as alpha, he will see himself as a failure………….
@BillyS, Hose_B,
Let’s assume for the moment that there are times / cultures in which women can do things other than sex that male friends cannot… that there is a special role that they can take on.
The question then becomes: Are they now? In this time of no fault divorce, and the over-whelming shadow of the state, do they reliably provide that role enough to justify the risk to gain what they can provide, that a strong friendship among men cannot?
I doubt it.
And while God gave us many kinds of food to eat, I’m fairly sure that eating a rotten piece of food that will do more damage to our bodies than good is not commanded.
Hose_B,
In male relationships there will always be an alpha rivalry. The point of a wife is that I should not have to compete for alpha status. Not against her or against others in her view. The husband may be the most beta man in every other relationship in his life, but he should be his wifes alpha. It is a choice that most women don’t understand.
Not necessarily. See the relationship between David and Johnathan as an example. You could argue David was the alpha, but it was not a contest. Both were tied tightly to each other.
Josh,
A man will never get a loving touch from a man, even with the perversion of sex that is so popular today.
I am not arguing that modern women live up to commitments, but that still fits a niche that only a woman can fill. That is God’s original design and intent.
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/04/16) - Social Matter
Josh….
If you believe that sex is THE reason for marriage – to avoid fornication – the corollary is that you believe that sex is somehow wrong and that marriage is a dispensation that allows you to get away with it.
If we use the same standard that Jesus did – “In the beginning” – God did not present Eve to Adam for the purposes of sex. The stated functions of the wife were companionship (It is not good for the man to be alone ) a helper “meet” or fit for Adam’s purposes, and for reproduction (Fill the earth).
Sex is secondary to these, and focusing on sex in the choosing of a partner obscures both the primary functions of the relationship, and our ability to choose someone fitting for the purpose.
The difference between marriage and male companionship is not merely sex.
In male companionship, there will always be conflicting priorities. My friends, no matter how close, have their own work, family and children. My wife, I would expect, has as her first priorities, supporting me in MY work, MY home and MY family.
Then there is the issue of authority. I do not have authority over my friends. If there is some alpha/beta dynamic in the relationship, it is a matter or negotiation. In marriage there should always be just one dynamic. I lead, she follows.
Thirdly, friendship is generally a matter of feelings. We are free to drift in and out of friendships as feelings and priorities dictate. I have friends that I have not seen for years. I do not hold that against them and see it is no reason to break the friendship Marriage is a covenant… a contract that should not be broken. It is for life, pretty much regardless of how we feel at any given moment.
BillyS, PeterW,
Reproduction requires sex. And if one burns, one is to marry to get sex, to avoid burning. Thus, since the act is the same, this collapses to the same minimum requirement. If a man is not getting sex from his wife, he will not be reproducing with her, baring relatively recent medical interventions.
Further, women are not fertile after menopause, but the husband and wife are still wed. Sex is not forbidden the couple, even when one or both is infertile, barren, sterile, (or other synonyms). So reproduction can not be the only permissible use or goal of sex within a marriage.
Companionship, and aid can be gained from men as well as women. Otherwise, gentlemen’s clubs (in the traditional sense), and male sports leagues would not exist. Similarly, squads of soldiers or groups of workers would all be lead entirely by men, and staffed entirely by women.
I am sure that in many cultures through time, women have been able to reliably fulfill the needs for companionship and aid in different ways than men.
Even today, there are a few. Outside of clinical/sterile environment of massage therapy, one is unlikely to get an arm or back massaged or rubbed in a caring way, and this will not have the emotional component of receiving comfort from a mother, wife, or sister.
But then the caress of a mother or wife is unlikely to have quite the same emotional impact as the strong, reassuring hand of a father, brother, or male friend / comrade in arms.
I’m not entirely sure that these gestures do not fulfill many of the same needs in their own different ways.
But, to get off this side track, and back to the main point — even if we assume there is some assistance outside of sex that only a woman can give to a man, the incremental difference must be weighed against the risk not only of being flatly denied that aid, but the potential for additional harm to come from the relationship.
Or to put it another way: Even if the ideal day to day helper for a man is the ideal woman, a low quality woman (or a woman who later becomes low quality) can still do far more harm than good. And as a result, when the risk of these circumstances are high, a fellow can be better off hanging out with and asking for help from his friends than wedding.
Who here is going to tell me that the risk to men of being harmed in or out of a marriage more than he gains by it is currently low in the west?
Analogy: A lean, grass feed organic steak may be better for you than high fat ground up hamburger. But if the steak has been left to rot for 2 weeks in the jungle air, and the hamburger was on ice, it’s probably better to grill up the burger instead.
Josh…
Your primary argument is to ignore the stated ends for which God created woman and brought her to Adam ….. and assume that the means used to achieve one of those, has become the primary end. That does not hold up. Not even slightly.
The name for that – putting pleasure before purpose – is hedonism.
Just as sex does not cease post reproduction, so the marriage does not cease if sex does. Therefore, sex is neither the purpose nor the justification of marriage.
These are the universal bases of marriage, not the time-specific teaching of Paul , given with a view to coming persecution.
The argument that a man is better off single than in a bad marriage, I most emphatically agree support.
Peter Webb,
First off, thank you for acknowledging the area we agree on. This is my main argument/point through out this entire thread, one with which many others have argued against, claiming that all men must or should marry if able, even in our present time. For my purpose, all other arguments are supporting arguments for this point.
That said, it appears that you dispute one of the supporting arguments, and view it as important to hash out. Out of respect for you, I intend to clarify.
I acknowledge that the stated end for which God created Eve was to be a help-meet for Adam. Thus, by extension, he created woman to be a help-meet for man.
My argument is that man can gain most of those forms of help from other acceptable relationships, in my examples, explicitly to include relationships with men — since many men who wish to avoid sex with women due to risk will wish to reduce contact with women period.
As such, it is important to look at explicit differences between the help a man can get from other men (or, really, other women besides a wife) without sinning, and the help a man can get from a wife. Thus far, aside from needs that may be able to be filled in different ways, the differences boil down to sex, and things which require sex to obtain (progeny).
As such, while there are many benefits that can be gained through marriage, and many ways through which a wife can be a help-meet, sex is the only avenue of help out of those many which is unique to her condition as a wife. This is the case whatever the use, and purpose that avenue that sex is put to. Including, explicitly, the end goal of reproduction. But also to include physical and emotional intimacy, expression of affection, burning of calories, and release of pent up sexual energy.
If a husband and wife are wed, and they both suffer debilitating weasel attack to the crotch, leaving them permanently unable to copulate, are they still married? Yes. Should the man still provide for her and any existing children if able? Yes. Should she still serve as a help-meet to him in this regard? Yes.
That does not negate the earlier point.
Further, there is one explicit circumstance in which we are still explicitly commanded to marry in the new testament. This is when we would otherwise burn with lust, unable to control ourselves, and commit fornication.
A woman who denies her husband sex (or visa versa) when able to provide it is violating the unique benefit of marriage, this unique way to provide assistance to one’s spouse. As such, this is to deny the unique benefit of marriage, and thus the unique nature of marriage.
Again, to summarize. I claim that the avenue of support of one’s spouse through sexual intercourse that is not fornication, while not the only purpose or benefit of marriage, is the only one unique to that institution. And as such, it is what defines that relationship as unique from other relationships which God endorses. Unique != only.
I may have spoken clumsily or crudely before, causing a misunderstanding. If so I apologize.
Josh….
WRT sex, unique does not mean “absolutely necessary” . Paul’s exception for those who “burn” is an acknowledgement of human sinfulness, not an divine statement that sex is an irresistible force. Each of us is an individual capable of making that choice.
Remember – again – that Paul was giving direction to those with a specific set of circumstances – imminent persecution – in mind.
To reiterate.
God did not create woman to be ONLY a helpmeet.
God created woman because the man was alone, not just because he wasn’t having sex.
God created women to procreate, not merely for “assisted masturbation”.
Nor – and I seem to be saying a lot of things again – have you acknowledged the uniqueness of the relationship of marriage and what the wife brings to it. It is not simply about assisted masturbation, but about an indissoluble partnership with somebody for whom my priorities become hers, my leadership is non-negotiable and has a loyalty and commitment to me EXCLUSIVELY that none of my male friends can provide.
You are not distinguishing between a “helper” – and anyone can be helpful – and a helpmeet – one fit for a specific purpose.
Please….. in taking the words of Paul as you primary text on this subject, you are taking him out of context and using it to refute the larger body of scripture on the subject. Not to mention the observable reality of the way that God has made us to function.
PeterW,
Despite my attempts to clarify, you are continuing to impute meaning on my statements, and the longer this discussion goes on, the more force you attempt to exert through rhetoric. If you want to say that statement A implies statement B, which implies statement C, and so on to G, then show how, and own that argument, rather than assigning to me position G without the intervening steps.
For example. I will give you a starting point, with a specific argument. If you want to draw conclusions from this, show how you reach those conclusions.
Argument: A man with many companions is not alone.
If you care to continue this conversation, then please address the argument above as it is written, without imputing other meaning. Otherwise, I see no reason to continue.
A further observation from scripture is that when God originally invented marriage, it was before the fall. There was no sin, no lust.
Therefore, marriage cannot be regarded as something to fix the “problem” of people being unable to control their sexual appetites.
Note the response of Jesus when asked about Moses’ teaching on divorce. It was an EXCEPTION given due the human sinfulness, not God’s purpose from the beginning.
Likewise, the advice of Paul that “it is better to marry than to burn” must be regarded as an EXCEPTION. We cannot regard it as a general rule without aso taking as a rule the advice given at the same time that it was better not to marry at all.
That does not fit with God’s original creation of marriage or Jesus’ reference to that creation when discussing how marriage is to function. So we are left to understand that Paul was giving ADVICE about dealing with EXCEPTIONAL. circumstances….. and it is bad scriptural interpretation to make a rule out of an exception.
I would also like to ask why, if the purpose of marriage is sex, why selecting a wife on the basis of sexual desirability has such an appallingly low success rate? Common core values are a far higher predictor of a successful marriage than sexual desirability. Why has God made us this way?
Josh….
It should be clear enough.
There are aspects of companionship and belonging that a good spouse provides, that no group of friends does, no matter how large.
I am a single man. I have many friends, but I am still LONELY.
There is no person for whom I am the highest priority in their life.
There is no person for whom my welfare is their highest concern.
There is no person for whom my goals are automatically theirs.
For life. For better and for worse. For richer or poorer, In sickness and in health.
PeterW. says:
April 20, 2017 at 10:49 pm
“I am a single man. I have many friends, but I am still LONELY.
There is no person for whom I am the highest priority in their life.
There is no person for whom my welfare is their highest concern.
There is no person for whom my goals are automatically theirs.
For life. For better and for worse. For richer or poorer, In sickness and in health.”
Guess what? You’re not going to find that in a marriage in current-day America to an American woman. Briffault’s Law (which a wife, no less than any other woman, consults constantly) describes this fully:
“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”
The Corollaries to Briffault’s Law:
1 – Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
2 – Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)
3 – A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2006/01/hypergamy-and-briffaults-law.html
PeterW,
God says that it is not right for man to be alone (an objective state), when he created Eve for Adam.
I pointed out a way besides marriage for a man not to be alone, the way the world currently works (since there are many people in it).
You then made a claim about being lonely, an emotional state.
This of course neglects the fact that men have said that they have never been more lonely, or felt more alone than when with their wives. Thus, failing to draw a distinction in function between marriage and friendship, based on your own subjective feelings.
This is the difference between the command to husbands that they love their wives, and the modern church demanding that men make their husbands feel loved.
I would suggest that you read the following post by Dalrock. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/reframing-christian-marriage/
Either way, I’m done here.
Pingback: She’s got balls. | Dalrock
Pingback: Chivalry and the kickass conservative gal. | Dalrock
Pingback: Revisiting the subject of women and the draft. | Dalrock
Pingback: Freeing the universe from microaggressions. | Dalrock