Lesson 1: Your only job as a husband is to sacrifice yourself for her, not lead her. Don’t ever tell her what her role is or what to do. That would be subjugation:
Subjugation is defined as “defeating or gaining control of a person for their obedience.” Submission is when a person voluntarily places themselves under the authority and guidance of another.
The Bible teaches women to submit to the God-given leadership of their husbands in the same way that Christ submitted to the will of God the Father. But here’s a reminder, guys: God doesn’t command a husband to remind his wife to submit. Instead He calls the husband to unconditionally love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave his entire life for her.
Lesson 2: If she assumes headship, or otherwise sins, it is your fault. You forced her to sin, by not leading her and reminding her that she should submit (emphasis mine):
He leads courageously. He doesn’t force women to step in to fill the vacuum of leadership left by passive men. But he also recognizes that his leadership is a position of voluntary submission to Christ, who voluntarily submits Himself to the Father.
In Summary:
- She’ll do what she wants. Mind your own business.
- When she sins, it is your fault.
Note: Servant Leadership should not be confused with headship.
See Also:
Succinct and true.
Pingback: Servant Leadership in two easy lessons. | @the_arv
I always wondered what these feminists would think of Jesus saying this:
John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Sounds like some requirements/demands from Jesus to His followers on what he expects from them and reminder that they should submit to Him.
I would be interested in your thoughts on “The Handmaiden’s” tale. Either the older movie, or the newer series. I already know it’s anti-white and anti Christian, but maybe there’s something deeper.
Damned if you don’t and damned if she does. It’s a miracle any Christian marriages survive these days with all the bad teaching in the Church and culture.
The words that we use shape our thinking. When we use terms such as “subjugation” or “oppression” for normal household functioning that’s going to leave a mark.
Notice all the equalism assumed in the steppingup rant. Women are assumed to have the same emotional l;andscape as men, the same degree of self awareness and agency as men, yet at the same time they are not expected to “own” their actions or the results of them. It’s just more pedestalization of the sort that is very common in churches now.
I can’t prove it, but strongly suspect that the term ‘servant leader’ is getting a real bad reputation among the younger (under 25) men nowadays. It’s going to be more and more difficult to sell that in the future. Because “servant leader” and “doormat” are becoming synonyms.
By the way, that steppingup blog seems to have gone comatose last years, the most recent posting is from March 2, 2016.
Dalrock, you seem to be a devil in a sheeps clothing. What do you yourself think you are creating here with this blog? Do you create value? Do you create something that helps someone? Do you feel good, when you posted this post right now?
Bad tree gives bad fruit, Dalrock. Your commentariums are full of hate, degeneracy and mocking. You ridicule what you dont understand or like. You dislike feminism, so you mock it with this post, and another post and another post. And the people reading your posts will write hateful, mocking comments and will bathe in their feeling of anger and discontentment.
Pharisees tried to bring Jesus down, just like your feminism tries to bring you down. Did Jesus mock them? Or preach them? Did Jesus talk about them behind their back?
In the end you will only answer to God, you are no better than any feminist, and as such you deserve feminists, just as feminists deserve you.
All the best with writing the blog and putting up with hate!
[D: You are so angry you can’t make a coherent point. The rage you are accusing me of is pure projection.]
@Recovering Beta, “Handmaid’s Tale” is a classic piece of feminist fiction, something they like to comfort themselves with because there’s no possibility of such a thing actually happening. Like a ghost story, it’s vicarious thrills. I have not viewed the series and it’s been some years since I tried to read the book – Atwood isn’t that good a writer in my opinion. It is conspicuously misandric, portraying men in as bad a light as possible.
I’ll have to re-skim it to confirm, but with The Glasses on I think I spy more than a little projection. Not just “this is how a feminist woman imagines men would act if they could”, but “this is what feminist women would do to men if they could”. A bit of the old Mary Daly “90%” rule at work.
A disgusting (and common, among these types) bait-and-switch. Wives are to submit to husbands the way Church submits to Christ, NOT the way Jesus submitted to the Father. That error is seen so often, I wonder how deliberate it is.
I can’t prove it, but strongly suspect that the term ‘servant leader’ is getting a real bad reputation among the younger (under 25) men nowadays. It’s going to be more and more difficult to sell that in the future. Because “servant leader” and “doormat” are becoming synonyms.
For this and a variety of other reasons it’s becoming difficult to sell men, of any age, on the idea that any aspect of “church” is worth bothering with if they have any self-respect.
Heads she wins, tails you lose!
She CAN have it all!!!
@Bruce:
Pretty much.
I see Dalrock got a live one.
Anastasia, this blog provides a perspective and a conversation missing from other venues. Personally, I find it helpful, as it has made me look at men, women, and relationships in a different (more accurate) way. It has helped me identify feminist assumptions in myself that I didn’t know existed, and to ask God to help me subdue rebellion within myself.
There is a lot of anger in the blog and in the comments. Can you see why that might be? (Try reading posts on divorce and child custody, for starters.)
Especially when the ones consuming the chosen words are female. A work around lexicon has been created, first to be able to not trigger evangelical feminists into histrionics, but secondly and more insidiously, to start to slowly define concepts that are rigid into more squishy blobs of emotional interpretations. Doesn’t matter that words mean things, and words together mean things according to their combinations, what matters is that the feelings the meanings generate be the right feelings.
This is how the sum total of a girl become woman’s church life experience includes teaching with metaphorically correct topic headings at all ages from childhood to adult hood, but somehow communicate nearly the perfect opposite. The thin veneer of right teaching coupled with the teeth gnashing done by secular forces that are apoplectic at the notion of any kind of distinction between men and women is enough to offer cover to Mr Pastor, and keep his male parishioners claiming that their church is decidedly NOT feminized.
A divorce filing offers them a free set of They Live glasses for truth seeing, but most choose to have pockets full of bubble gum rather than kicking ass because they ran out.
Did Jesus mock them? Or preach them? Did Jesus talk about them behind their back?
Yes.
@Dalrock
It seems you’ve dropped the payload directly over the target (Anastassia). Mission accomplished.
@RecoveringBeta,
I find Soylent Green’s furniture sub-plot to be more compelling and interesting.
He correctly showed that what is stated is pure horseshit. Don’t like it, do you?! Too bad, no one here cares. Go shame somewhere else, cupcake.
And after releasing his article, Mr Williams wonders why no men are ‘manning up’ and getting married. He just can’t for the life of him put his finger on the problem… lol, time to double or triple down on their rants.
Mind your own business.
Wasn’t too long ago I heard exactly this in a Sunday morning homily. The subject was Paul’s correspondence to the church at Colossae. Wives submit to your own husbands was stated (read out loud from the text), then quickly buffered by instruction to husbands that they had no right to inquire into this as a practical matter. It’s between her and The Lord.
Wives were told that if he asks, she is to say “honey, mind your own business”. Exact quote.
RE: Anastassia: Love what is good. Hate what is evil. It’s your inability to hate evil that blinds you. To be fair, it’s not just you, it’s a huge problem in Western society right now. Jesus was clearly capable of righteous anger and hatred, like when he drove the money changers out of the temple. Read a book for Christ’s sake! 😛
Cognitive dissonance. There is no responsibility without authority.
Regarding “The Handmaid’s Tale:” I’m old enough to remember that this was a flop movie that starred Natasha Richardson, Faye Dunaway, and Robert Duvall in 1990. The $13 million budget didn’t even make back half that in returns. Nor was it a critical success.
So it really surprised me that Hollywood exhumed the idea for a miniseries. I’d comment further, but I don’t plan on seeing this. I find most things after about the year 2000 unwatchable.
@YS
“Wives are to submit to husbands the way Church submits to Christ, NOT the way Jesus submitted to the Father. That error is seen so often, I wonder how deliberate it is.”
It HAS to be deliberate……..or the best trick Satan has……..one of the two.
I first noticed this when my sunday school viewed FOF’s “The Truth Project”. Our facilitator basically dismissed the idea and we “ran” on with the long winded “Study”. Ray Stedman also made that error in “what Every Wife Should Know” (which was otherwise a very intelligent article. https://www.raystedman.org/thematic-studies/christian-living/what-every-wife-should-know
As Stedman writes ” Wives are to submit to their husbands as Christ submitted to the Father in accepting the circumstances in which the Father had placed him. He did not quarrel with his circumstances, he took them as from the Father’s hand.” ” Paul puts it in the same way, “Wives, be subject to your husbands as unto the Lord,” (Ephesians 5:22). That does not mean “as though the husband were the Lord,” it means that the Lord in his sovereignty is pleased when the wife is subject to her husband.” “Using the example of Christ, it is clearly evident there is to be no moral departure on the wife’s part from that which would offend her conscience. No husband has the right to ask his wife to disobey her conscience. The Lord Jesus Christ never wrested his conscience in his submission to the circumstances the Father had placed him in.”
This view is consistent with the theory that a wife is her own moral agency and is responsible for protecting herself from being lead into sin. It is popular because it seems reasonable to a normal person, regardless of whether it matches scripture. By making the wife Christ and the Husband God, they have elevated her to equal (as in the Trinity) and supplicated her desire to be her own moral agent.
With the example of the wife being the Chruch and the Husband being Christ, coupled with the direction to submit to him in all things, as unto the Lord, it removes the separate moral agency from the wife and applies it to her husband. She is judged by God for her submission, even to his “sinful” leadership. (“sinful” is only defined by God) She is not judged on the rightousness of the course of action, only on her submission to that course. Her husband is judged on the righteousness of the leadership he provides. And he should be judged ONLY by God.
Two Examples.
Abraham=church=wife is told by God=Christ=Husband to sacrifice his only son. This is a clear “sin” yet Abraham submits to Gods will. He submits and earns God’s Praise.
Sarah is told by Abraham to lie (sin) and be part of the Pharoah’s Harem (adultery). She submits to his requests and EARNS GODS PRAISE!
(No mention on whether Abraham was punished for leading Sarah into sinning. But it does say that he did it twice and gained riches for his ploy both times)
@Lost Patrol
“Wives submit to your own husbands was stated (read out loud from the text), then quickly buffered by instruction to husbands that they had no right to inquire into this as a practical matter. It’s between her and The Lord.
Wives were told that if he asks, she is to say “honey, mind your own business”. Exact quote.”
This is exactly the point behind 1 Corith 14:34
34Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. 35If they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.
And ESPECIALLY coupled with 2 Tim 3:5
“5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. 6For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.”
It is all to easy for a wife to SUBMIT to her Pastor rather than her HUSBAND.
From the blog’s bio of Scott Williams:
I will Mention again that this view makes a perverse sense if we choose to believe that these men view wives as adult-life mothers. I mean: Sure she’s you’re wife, but you can’t command Momma what to do. That’s just wrong!
Momma-boys rule the Christian leadership and media.
RE: Anastassia: To the extent anyone within the church is aware of Dalrock, this is what passes for a rebuttal. I would desperately love for Dalrock to have worthy intellectual opponents because I enjoy a substantive debate. I generally agree with Dalrock and may quibble on the margins, but when I use his arguments to friends and family they act like I’m speaking Swahili or Esperanto. And this reaction makes me worry that I am missing some fatal flaw in the whole red pill perspective. Maybe the rest of the world is just gaslighting me. Or maybe the blue pill is the path to truth. Hmmm.
RE: Servant Leadership: My son goes to a Christian college that emphasizes “servant leadership.” In that context, it is a worthy endeavor in that it is about giving to communities and to advance the kingdom of God. Within the context of marriage, however, Dalrock is right that it is used in a passive aggressive way to undermine headship.
@Recovering Beta,
The book itself reads as heavy handed propaganda. It’s like one long lecture.
Really, I think Atwood desperately wanted American men to desire her to point of wanting to keep her captive to sure children. It’s definitely got an edge of fantasy fulfillment to it.
Even as the feminists point and shriek that this is what the evil religious Christians are trying to create with a theocracy …
They import Muslims who actually will create it.
Their “No!” is really a “Yes!”, and the Handmaiden’s Tale is their secret rape fantasy.
@Annastasia
Your hypocritical squealing is music to my patriarchal ears, you entitled whining piece of malice. I laugh at you and your kind. And sincerely hope that reading this post gave you indigestion for the rest of the day. Bullseye!
“Jesus, mind your own business!”
A quick-witted man should heckle the pastor with that.
@ SirHamster says:
May 24, 2017 at 1:04 pm
“Even as the feminists point and shriek that this is what the evil religious Christians are trying to create with a theocracy …
They import Muslims who actually will create it.”
Bingo! Everything feminists (and Leftists in general) accuse Christianity of being, Islam actually is, yet they embrace Islam and hate Christianity. Makes perfect sense, right?
It does if you realize that the root cause is spiritual, not intellectual. There are – ultimately – only two kingdoms; the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Darkness. Feminists and Muslims both belong to the Kingdom of Darkness. They’re on the same team.
Granted, it’s an evil team, so if they were to overwhelm Christianity in a country, they’d promptly turn on each other (Europe, anyone?). In the meantime, however, they’re perfectly happy to attack their common enemy.
Suzanne Venker: “Son, Don’t Marry a Feminist”
https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2017/05/24/son-dont-marry-a-feminist/
Obvious, but still good advice.
Pingback: Servant Leadership in two easy lessons. | Reaction Times
I think I’ve derailed the thread a bit, so I apologize. Basically everything in response to me is what I figured the story to be.
Anyway, more on topic, I tried to utilize some form of servant leadership during my time in the military, having heard it all my life and it didn’t work. Men value strength, not…whatever it was I tried.
If a husband and father provides for his family, is he serving them? What if he sacrifices in order to provide for them? What if he works a job he hates, or a dangerous job, or a physically demanding job that wears his body down over time in order to provide for his family? Does that count as serving his family?
What if he coaches his kids’ sports teams? What if he takes his kids camping, or hunting or on other outings they enjoy? Does that count as serving his family?
What if a man does yard work, home improvement projects, and/or DIY repairs on the family home and vehicles? Does that count as serving his family?
What if he grills and BBQs for them on the weekends? Does that count as serving his family?
Of course, they all count as serving ones family!
Does any of what I wrote sound the least bit unusual? Of course not! The examples above are things married fathers do every day.
There is no epidemic of married fathers failing to serve their families while attempting to lead them. There is, however, an epidemic of wives rebelling against their husbands. So, why do Christian “leaders” keep browbeating married fathers with “servant leadership” as though they’re not leading, instead of confronting wives for rebelling against their husbands?
So it really surprised me that Hollywood exhumed the idea for a miniseries.
Aside from the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood (they’re remaking everything), there is the Lefty politics angle.
The point of the original (written in 1985) was to crap all over Reagan.
The point of the new series is to crap all over Trump.
Projection much? What’s the matter, pissed that we’re not kissing your hippobottomus? Take your cunty entitlement elsewhere.
Anonymous Reader @ 10:54 am:
“The words that we use shape our thinking. When we use terms such as “subjugation” or “oppression” for normal household functioning that’s going to leave a mark.”
One wonders what words they will use when the real thing comes along.
@ Gunner Q says:
May 24, 2017 at 3:16 pm
“One wonders what words they will use when the real thing comes along.”
Allahu akbar.
Ah. Of course.
hippobottomus
There are some words you just know are going to come in handy later.
“The point of the new series is to crap all over Trump.”
No, it had to have been produced back when it was obvious to all educated people that Trump had no chance. Most likely it was agitprop coordinated with the Hillary! team for the feminist reign of terror that they already had penciled in for 2017.
They’ve been hard at work normalizing Women in Power since the 2012 election finished. This is just part of that push, because the only way to get your idea funded is to provide the one that fits the narrative.
When I first read Anastassia’s comment, I thought it was sarcastic or satirical. Surely no one with that little sense would come across this blog.
Hose_B quotes a Ray Stedman as saying “He did not quarrel with his circumstances, he took them as from the Father’s hand.”
Stedman is wrong. Jesus had more than one quarrel with the Father. Christ’s humanity wasn’t too keen on facing the Cross at first. He had to bend His will to the Father’s. Who’d want to endure crucifixion, after all?
“a devil in a sheeps clothing”
That’s not a very good disguise. Maybe that’s why it’s usually one used by wolves.
“They import Muslims who actually will create it.”
What the what?! They only import the “good” and “moderate” Muslims.
“So it really surprised me that Hollywood exhumed the idea for a miniseries.”
If it weren’t for recycling old, bad ideas, Hollywood would have no ideas at all.
A humble request is not a quarrel.
Some of the ideas in “servant leadership” are quite valid, but the wrapper is not the content of the package inside, especially when applied to a marriage.
@BillyS
The combination of egalitarian assumptions and the concept of authority being abusive inherently especially if male.
Pretty much sums it up Dalrock…..part of the reason why MGTOW (for lack of a better term) is now reaching the boiling point with the single men who are in the church now……….and if this continues…..men are indeed going to leave the physical Sunday-morning-nightclub / popularity contest that is called “church” and worship God on their own or with the small group thing / home group study and fellowship. It’s happening now, but it’s being ignored by the pastor, elders, and deacons.
They will say “but, the Bible says you are to “not forsake the gathering….” but they forget that in the early church and countless people in the dark reaches of early Medieval Europe didn’t have a “local church” nearby. They waited for the mysterious crowled monks that would appear here and there…or the rare priest that traveled through. Most (if not all the people) were illiterate, but many knew how to pray, and knew His prayer. Many knew the stories, parables and lessons; committed them to memory. They taught their children these precepts. They “kept the Sabbath” and didn’t need a “church” to provide this for them. Today we can read. Ten trillion different “translations” of the Bible into “contemporary” English. Books, devotionals, online materials, podcasts, radio, TV….you don’t need a physical church with a cool teen room, and amazing nursery, and a “sanctuary” with drums, electric guitars, smoke machines, remote microphones, projection screens…………the early church had none of this and they turned the world upside down!
Like I have said before, men……..real men…….don’t go where they are needed, and the church today is doing exactly what it shouldn’t. But don’t you dare as a man….mention this 😉
@SirHamster
I honestly don’t know what you’re saying. Are you saying that Jesus never struggled with the will of the Father?
Once again our host quotes someone hint that is only vomit inducing. But we need to square it with Jesus instruction that the greatest among you should be your servent. These loony pastors smear leadership because they don’t understand it, but it’s impossible to be a husband without assuming the role of servent. Walking the line of headship and being a servent to others and a leader to others as Christ was does not seem straightforward or easy to me. The pastors are showing me what not do. How to do it- that’s harder.
I am only saying that there is no record of Jesus quarreling with the Father.
A quarrel is defined as “an angry dispute or altercation; a disagreement marked by a temporary or permanent break in friendly relations.”
Did he struggle? It is fair to say he did at some points.
I was fortunate to marry a woman who believed that she should submit to her husband (our church taught this). But, wifely submission is not a “one and done” decision. Wifely submission is a journey for the wife. There have been at least 3 occasions where I have reminded my wife that God put me in charge as the husband and we are going to do X and she needs to submit. One time she was so emotionally distraught that I stomped my foot on the floor to get her attention before I reminded her that I had made a final decision and she needed to submit. Each of these times she was upset for one or two hours but I held frame and she got over it and moved on. These situations have not caused long term problems in our marriage.
@Kevin, a person cannot be both a leader and servant to another person — the two roles are opposites. A servant cannot be a leader, because he has no agenda independent of his master’s. You are confusing role of servant with attitude of service. Jesus was never (and never will be) our servant, yet he served us (benefitted us) through his sacrifice.
And Matt. 23:11 (greatest among you) is not about leaders vs. servants.
I suspect ‘Anastassia’ may not even be a woman, but rather a cuckservative (perhaps Williams himself), who thinks that sockpuppeting as a woman lends greater credibility to his misandry.
Why? Because the comment is written with proper paragraphs. As we have seen countless times before, actual women who frequent here to express outrage about how they are getting gina tingles for what they were taught to oppose usually cannot write in paragraphs.
The bitterness of the cuckservative who runs that ‘MenSteppingUp’ blog would surely induce him to behave this way. I notice that in addition to his cowardly banning of any comment that exposes his inadequancy, he really has almost *no* comments. It is possible that almost no one ever visits his blog, as evidenced by no comments in agreement with him either.
craig says:
May 24, 2017 at 4:46 pm
“The point of the new series is to crap all over Trump.”
No, it had to have been produced back when it was obvious to all educated people that Trump had no chance. Most likely it was agitprop coordinated with the Hillary! team for the feminist reign of terror that they already had penciled in for 2017.
This woman is from Eastern Canada which is one of the main bastions of liberalism in North America. Not that it’s much better in the West.
If you can’t remember Alluha Akbaar(the moon god), you can always use Aloha Snackbar!
As I see it, the only hope for the church and more broadly Western civilisation, is the early marriage model.
Without early marriage and the subsequent escape from the sexual market, young men, especially Christians, find out women are a massive disappointment that marriage is a terrible deal. I the age of the Internet, the “servant leadership” scam just won’t last. Not that its just the Internet: divorce is now big enough to scar half of the population and men are reluctant – because they are being smart.
For the early marriage model to work, then, parents need to start telling their daughters that they should prepare for marriage early, find a young man early and encourage both to stay together.
This might work if it weren’t so fragile: young girl’s peers are the nastiest most spiteful creatures when gipped by jealousy. Fathers now want their daughters “to get an education” – even when it is shown that careers and education have NOT made women happier.
Mother will not play her part. Mother will tell her to “enjoy her freedom”, and the institutions of no-fault divorce and child support remain ever present to remain as constant temptations to pull the plug for no reason – the major cause of divorce in the West.
“Really, I think Atwood desperately wanted American men to desire her to point of wanting to keep her captive to sure children. It’s definitely got an edge of fantasy fulfillment to it.”
it’s not too late for her to import a Muslim to subdue her.
Personally, I find that my willingness to submit to my husband is a helpful diagnostic tool for how well I am walking with the Spirit.
The more I am struggling to submit, the more likely it is that I have been out of God’s word and prayer.
My husband seems to know this too, as if I am getting contentious, he will ask me, “How’s your walk with the Lord going?”
I’m super thankful he didn’t get (or take on) any of this advice about how husband’s mustn’t remind their wives to submit!
At first, I thought you were describing the Texas Family Courts.
Bee,
It did in my marriage. My wife always fought my leadership, but it became worse over time until it finally resulted in divorce last fall.
It is far too easy to overlook feminism elements and rebellion if your eyes have not been opened to it.
Kevin,
Jesus washed His disciples’ feet once and these men build a doctrine on that, though I have yet to meet such a man who then follows through with his own service to those he leads. It is always the husband who must act like a slave, not the leader preaching that message.
Two OT links:
8 Deep Mistakes You Make With Him That KILL His Attraction To You
http://www.yourtango.com/experts/elizabethstone/mistakes-women-make-men
If Your Guy Has These 21 Habits, Marry Him Right Now
http://www.yourtango.com/2015282054/if-your-guy-has-these-21-habits-marry-him-right-now
Not very good overall, but they gave me a laugh.
@BillyS
From the 21 article
“He knows better than to start pressing buttons when you’re in this state and he’ll always take your side, even if you’re wrong.”
This along with 20 other “me” centered traits. I wonder if the author thinks those would be good qualities to For women to show that they are “marriageable”?
Worth posting a section from Practical Female Psychology.
Double Bind
The emotional Double Bind is one of the primary means used by females to manipulate males. It’s a powerful psychological mechanism by which the female of our species commonly binds the mind of the male so as to have him invest his energy into her, with the ultimate purpose of procreation and the safe upbringing of her children. The primary effect of the Double Bind on a man’s mind is to have him puzzled. A man will naturally try to solve any puzzle that is presented to him, and particularly if it involves a female that he is sexually attracted to. By so doing, he invests more and more of his psychological energy into the particular female. Another way to describe the effect of the Double Bind on the male mind is to induce “paralysis of analysis”. In cruder terms, you can also think of the colloquialism, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” when it comes to the Double Bind.
Think, for example, of the following words, dreaded by men everywhere: “Does this dress make me look fat?” The correct, logical answer is probably yes, it does make her look fat; otherwise, she wouldn’t be asking. If it does make her look fat, stating the fact insults her, but declaring that it doesn’t make her look fat exposes you as a liar. Now you’re in trouble; you’re damned either way.
Description of the Double Bind
The Double Bind concept was first introduced to the scientific world by Gregory Bateson (9 May 1904-4 July 1980). Bateson was a British anthropologist, social scientist, linguist, and cy-berneticist whose work intersected that of many other fields, including psychiatry. Bateson described the Double Bind as a communication paradox, first observed in families with a schizophrenic member. A true Double Bind requires several conditions to be met:
1. The victim of the Double Bind receives contradictory injunctions, or emotional messages on different levels of communication (for example, love is expressed by words, while hate or detachment is expressed by nonverbal behavior; or a child is encouraged to speak freely, but criticised or silenced whenever he or she actually does so).
2. No meta-communication is made possible; for example, it is not permissible to ask which of the two messages is valid or to describe the communication as making no sense.
3. The victim cannot leave the communication field.
4. Failing to fulfill the contradictory injunctions is punished, for example by the withdrawal of love.
Double Bind
An Example of a Double Bind in Action
A woman will often say — in a dramatic and emotional manner — something along the lines of, “you don’t understand my feelings!”
If the male qualifies himself to her and tries to understand why she would say such a thing, then she will invariably keep on repeating the frame: “You don’t understand my feelings”. She will do so in many different ways, so that the man will feel compelled to put more and more of his mental energy into her.
On the other hand, if the male does not qualify himself to her, she may repeat, over and over, something like: “You see, I told you, you do not understand my feelings!”
As Bateson describes, what will happen in such a case will be as follows:
1. Contradictory injunctions. No matter what the man says within the woman’s frame of “understanding emotions,” he loses. In fact, his attempt to even engage her on the topic in a logical manner demonstrates to the her he lacks fundamental emotional skills.
2. No meta-communication possible. Meta-communication is the psychological skill of analyzing and discussing different models of communication used between individuals. This skill is usually taken for granted among psychologically healthy adults, but as the woman shuts this possibility off from the male, he will face her Double Bind without any chance of discussing its content with her.
3. The victim (feels he) cannot leave the communication field. This is because the Double Bind causes the victim to invest ever-increasing amounts of psychological energy into the person delivering the Double Bind.
4. Failing to fulfill the contradictory injunctions is punished, for example by the withdrawal of love. This is counterintuitive.
When the Double Bind is used within the context of a romantic relationship, it assumes important biological and physical aspects. Human males are strongly driven towards the female by both visual sexual attraction and the need for affection. Therefore, when a woman uses a Double Bind, the man is not usually motivated to withdraw; instead, he often becomes motivated to invest even more energy into the relationship.
Once a woman has caused a man to invest his psychological energy into her by means of the Double Bind, he is now in a very vulnerable position. She can now easily make the man do whatever she wants, and she can punish non-compliance with the withdrawal of her affection and sex.
In the long run, allowing Double Binds to proliferate within a relationship is enormously destructive. Failure to understand and properly handle double bind manipulation can have an extremely-destructive effect on male self-esteem. Repeated use of the Double Bind by the female becomes a lose/lose situation for both parties: he loses his self-esteem, while she loses respect for him. Over time, a woman can become completely demotivated to be altruistic to the man in any way, because by dominating the man’s mind, he progressively loses any evolutionary value he may have had in her eyes.
@mitch
What you describe is common, and has nothing to do with the efficacy of your points. It has everything to do with the fact that you are effectively informing the fish that it is wet…..for the very first time the fish is being told it is immersed in water, and relegated to same.
They say you’re the head when you marry,
“til they pull the connubial switch.
All her sins are my problem, so I serve and I grovel,
But it sure makes me feel like a b*tch.
“I suspect ‘Anastassia’ may not even be a woman, but rather a cuckservative (perhaps Williams himself), who thinks that sockpuppeting as a woman lends greater credibility to his misandry.”
When the text is plugged into a gender writing style analyzer it returns a result of male.
Speaking of that:
I participated in an online job fair the other day. One of the video clips from one of the companies involved had someone who was almost certainly a male to female transgender individual. It is also possible someone like Anastasia is such.
I wonder what impact the drugs involved have on writing styles in such cases. Well, I don’t wonder too much, but it might be nice to know if anyone knows.
The emotional Double Bind is one of the primary means used by females to manipulate males.
In Game circles, this is known as a “shit test” — a way women have of subconsciously testing your leadership fitness. You fail if you get pulled into her frame or if you become angry, frazzled, dicombobulated and so on. You pass if you resist getting pulled into her frame in a way that demonstrates that you are calm and confident, and perhaps even see it as funny. Yes, she’s trying to manipulate you, but it’s subconscious, and it’s intended as a test to see if you are strong enough to resist it without becoming frazzled or upset. It’s a test of your mettle, essentially.
Once equal to a man, a woman becomes his superior. –Socrates
I don’t buy that. Sure, it’s a shit test but it’s not done to test your mettle or any other such ‘noble’ ideals. No, it is done for one reason only, to rate you against another man she fancies. That’s it, she is comparing you to the real object of her desire, whether real or fake, it matters not. This idea that women are testing men and you just need to show yourself as the best man in the room in order to pass plays straight into the female frame.
Women don’t know what is good for them, therefore they cannot test in a way that would show if a man was capable of leading or not. Instead they nag on you for stupid shit and they try to push your buttons. It’s a usurpation of the husband’s rightful role. The shit test is merely Eve and her curse coming into play.
If they knew how to test for the so called ‘proper man’, we wouldn’t have these issues. In fact, the exact idea you’ve stated is exactly the same as those that Dalrock as called out in this article and many before. It just makes her pussy the divination rod. Lol!
@ feminist hater:
“Sure, it’s a shit test but it’s not done to test your mettle or any other such ‘noble’ ideals. No, it is done for one reason only, to rate you against another man she fancies. That’s it, she is comparing you to the real object of her desire, whether real or fake, it matters not.”
Eh, that’s only one reason women have for shit testing men. Women do shit test men to see how they stack up against other men, but that’s only one reason. Women will shit test men to see how they react in a given situation. They’ll shit test men just to see if he can stand up to her and stand his ground and not give in to her. She wants to see how strong he is and whether she can manipulate him.
The rationale behind it is “if he can’t stand up to me, a little woman, how the hell is he going to stand up to other men who try to rob him, steal from him or kill him? If they kill him, who’s going to stop them from killing me? If he can’t tell me ‘no’, how the hell is he going to say ‘no’ to a man or a group of men or other people? If he caves in to pressure so easily, if he can be so easily manipulated, that means I’m not safe and my kids aren’t safe.”
“If he reacts like a girl to me, a woman, he’s going to react like a girl when the sh*t really hits the fan. If he overreacts emotionally when I do something, he’ll emotionally overreact when it really hits the fan, and that could get him, me, and the kids robbed, raped, stolen from or killed. I need him to act like a man, not a woman. I want to be with a man, not another woman. I need to make sure he can keep his shit together and be calm, cool and collected under extreme stress and pressure.”
I don’t believe it. When they want to monkey branch to the next guy, they will shit test you. You’re trying to imply some noble element to a nasty behaviour. It’s their curse, it’s not a gift. Stop treating it as such.
If what you were saying were true, they would ask simple questions like. “Have we got enough food, water and supplies if there are riots?” Or, “Do we have enough ammo and guns to hold off a bunch of robbers trying to enter the property and do you know how to use them?”. The would also be supportive in helping you set that up.
Instead they give you shit tests for doing such things. You know, the old guns are dangerous, we don’t need them. They will shit test you when you are doing the right things merely because they like drama.
After what has happened in Germany, France and England, how can you even still think this. After men telling them for decades of the problems associated with immigration from 3rd world nations, women still invited the enemy in and started to vilify any man who said the truth. It’s all a giant shit test, so giant in fact that when men stand up and say how stupidly bad it will be in future, the women still choose to shit test them so more and invite the enemy into the gates, even at their own peril.
Women can’t and don’t understand what is good for them. They don’t understand self-defense or nation states, they don’t understand why countries have borders or why countries have law.
I don’t believe any of the ideals associated with a shit test. Nothing good comes from it.
“If what you were saying were true, they would ask simple questions like. “Have we got enough food, water and supplies if there are riots?” Or, “Do we have enough ammo and guns to hold off a bunch of robbers trying to enter the property and do you know how to use them?”. The would also be supportive in helping you set that up.”
FH, you’ve been around here long enough to not make this rookie mistake.
You’re expecting women to act like men. You’re expecting women to approach everything rationally and logically, and to communicate overtly. That’s not what women do, particularly when they’re under pressure or they need to find out the “real truth” about something.
This isn’t to say women are completely unable to bring reason and logic to bear on a situation, or that they can’t communicate clearly and overtly. They can and do. But it’s not their default setting. Their default is emotions, feelings, and covert communication.
Women lead with their emotions. They don’t always THINK about things; what is most important to them is HOW THEY FEEL about those things. When under pressure they usually revert to their feelings and emotions, not to reason or logic. Women also are masters at covert communication, at “reading between the lines”, and at using covert communication for manipulation. Women have to be snapped out of their feelings and brought into the facts of a situation before they start thinking logically. For most, that takes a minute or two. For others a few hours or days; and a few can’t ever get into the facts.
Knowing this about women, they’re not going to lead with asking about logistics or provisioning. They’re going to say “are we safe? A REAL man would make sure we’re safe and provided for.” And they’ll talk about how they feel about the situation so as to seek his reassurances. THEN, when their feelings are sufficiently assuaged, they’ll get into the logic of it.
Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see what this
“After what has happened in Germany, France and England, how can you even still think this. After men telling them for decades of the problems associated with immigration from 3rd world nations, women still invited the enemy in and started to vilify any man who said the truth. It’s all a giant shit test, so giant in fact that when men stand up and say how stupidly bad it will be in future, the women still choose to shit test them so more and invite the enemy into the gates, even at their own peril.”
has to do with this
“I need him to act like a man, not a woman. I want to be with a man, not another woman. I need to make sure he can keep his shit together and be calm, cool and collected under extreme stress and pressure.”
Women “inviting the enemy in” and vilifying men who oppose it – are you talking about immigration of rapefugees into Western Europe and Muslim immigration? Again, that’s “how they feel” about it. Keeping out immigrants offends women’s sense of “fairness” – it gives them bad feelings. And, well, um, how to put this kindly – some women are attracted to muslim immigrants because theirs is a brand of masculinity that is considerably more robust, aggressive and unapologetic than most Western men’s is.
I’ve been around long enough to know that I don’t prescribe women a ‘get out of jail free’ card. If they don’t have the ability to be logical and ask simple questions, then they don’t have the ability to shit test a man properly to ‘test his ability to provide for them’. Take your pick but I simply don’t believe there is one ounce of goodness in a shit test. It’s a shit test after all.
Women had an entire culture that provided for them, protected them and gave them almost everything they ever needed to shit test for in the first place……. and then shit tested their way into destroying that culture.
The very need that you prescribe the shit test for is proven false by the very action women take when they have gotten what they need. And if someone says that women don’t understand cause and effect very well then they cannot shit test a man in the means you describe.
https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Ambiguity-Development-Behaviour-Procedural/dp/1901240169
For wimminz, all politics is personal. We need to start taking them seriously, already.
Women can’t and don’t understand what is good for them. They don’t understand self-defense or nation states, they don’t understand why countries have borders or why countries have law.
Women now shit-test men against Daddy Government, a fight no individual man can win. DG will always be the ‘fitter’ man to these women.
Okay, I know it’s yet another HuffPo divorce piece, but geez, it perfectly illustrates Dalrock’s category of divorced mothers who profit off of putting their kids through the meat grinder:
“To My Toddler: Whatever Pillow Your Head Rests On Tonight, We Both Love You”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/to-my-toddler-whatever-head-your-pillow-rests-on-tonight_us_5925c66be4b0ed5eed132436?section=us_parents
“When I shut the door tonight and you yelled “daddy,” my heart broke a little (a lot) too.”
“Please know that mommy made this choice for our family out of love for everyone involved, because we all deserve happiness, peace and respect.”
Poor little kid.
“No, it is done for one reason only, to rate you against another man she fancies. That’s it, she is comparing you to the real object of her desire, whether real or fake, it matters not. This idea that women are testing men and you just need to show yourself as the best man in the room in order to pass plays straight into the female frame.”
You seem to have said one thing and then the opposite.
Yes, the tests are to rate one guy against others. Yes, assuming you’re interested in her attention or affection, you do need to show yourself to be the better/best. But playing into her frame is failure (the ‘losing respect’ bit from the Practical Fem Psych section) which is why it also fails with her. Passing means maintaining your frame and bringing her into it.
“I don’t believe it. When they want to monkey branch to the next guy, they will shit test you. You’re trying to imply some noble element to a nasty behaviour. It’s their curse, it’s not a gift. Stop treating it as such.”
It is not a curse nor a gift. It is just the way it is. It is their nature. If she starts thinking about the next guy then she will unconsciously decide to ramp up the shit tests. Pass the test and she’ll start to lose interest in the next guy. Fail the test and her feelings/mind start justifying the righteousness of the move before she’s even decided what she’ll try to blame it on.
“I’ve been around long enough to know that I don’t prescribe women a ‘get out of jail free’ card. If they don’t have the ability to be logical and ask simple questions, then they don’t have the ability to shit test a man properly to ‘test his ability to provide for them’. Take your pick but I simply don’t believe there is one ounce of goodness in a shit test. It’s a shit test after all.”
There’s no ‘get out of jail free’ card. There is a simple acceptance that women shit test because they’re women. It’s what they do and we should expect it. And they usually don’t even do it on purpose.
“Women had an entire culture that provided for them, protected them and gave them almost everything they ever needed to shit test for in the first place……. and then shit tested their way into destroying that culture.”
This sounds like your problem is expecting something different or more rational to have come from women. It is useless to be angry about their nature. Be angry their men were pushovers who failed the shit tests and enabled women’s emotional behavior.
“It is not a curse nor a gift. It is just the way it is. It is their nature.”
It’s the way it is, yes, but it’s also unacceptable. Lifetime monogamy, raising healthy kids and maintaining Western civilization all require a far higher standard of self-discipline. That is FH’s point. Wives shit-testing their men to destruction is every bit as natural and moral as a husband trading in his wife for a younger woman when her looks fade.
Shall we dance, Barbie?
@BillyS,
“It did in my marriage. My wife always fought my leadership, but it became worse over time until it finally resulted in divorce last fall.”
I am sorry that your wife rebelled and blew up you marriage. I hope the days ahead get better and better for you; physically, emotionally, spiritually, and financially.
I believe that young, single Christian men need to hear your story. I know guys that went to the same church I did, they married girls active in the same church and they are now divorced. Just because a girl is active in your church does not mean she is good wife material. I believe that all church girls need to be vetted.
I also believe that young, single Christian men need to hear my story. It is proper for Christian men to remind and even teach their wives to submit. Husbands are supposed to wash their wives with the Word. The Word includes teachings on wifely submission with several examples.
There is risk when a husband “ups the Alpha”. Athol Kay (Married Man Sex Life) gets emails from men who begin to up their alpha and as soon as their wives notice the change, the wives initiate a divorce.
Even the most disciplined are likely to have their moments. As I said: their nature. We can’t just say it is unacceptable for puppies to chew the furniture or the scorpion to sting the frog.
Just as men’s natural behaviors are suppressed, channeled, or turned lose to varying degrees in different cultures or individuals. The difference being who is ultimately responsible for the discipline.
@Joe Ego
The Christian is to walk in the spirit and resist the lusts of the flesh
A peculiar people. A holy nation. A kingdom of Priests unto the most High. Set apart from the world. A Christian will have 2 natures within him the regenerate man because of the power of the Holy Spirit and the old sinful man. He who does not have this internal struggle within himself is no Christian. Who must beg the God of Heaven for mercy and believe in his son whose blood will save him.
3. You’re not called to have amazing sex.
https://relevantmagazine.com/article/christians-are-not-called-to-have-amazing-sex/
Tell me again why any man, churched or unchurched would sign up for this? Christian men have it bad. At least secular guys can believe the pretty lies about marriage for a time, Christian men see it coming and still force themselves to indenturement.
‘A nasti ass’ — heh.
Q: […] What do you yourself think you are creating here with this blog? Do you create value? […]
A: Yep. Quoted all over the Androsphere for the Truth it contains and for the way it shines a bright light on shadow-guarded societal bullsh*t of various kinds, together with all kinds of rare, hard statistical data to back up the important points it makes.
Q: Do you create something that helps someone?
A: Yep. Indeed, lots o’
peoplemen are helped by this blog. I’ve been reading Dalrock for — what? — four years now, or something — and can’t be more than five or six weeks go by that there isn’t yet another testimonial here, about how this blog and its contents have, basically, saved another man from suicide, alcoholism, or hard drugs. And from a sh*tload of pain, too.Q: Do you feel good, when you posted this post right now?
A: I sure hope so. Wouldn’t want a man to feel bad about helping his fellow man by pointing out important, ignored, core civilizational truths.
Q: Anastiass, would you kindly go f*ck yourself?
Athol Kay (Married Man Sex Life) gets emails from men who begin to up their alpha and as soon as their wives notice the change, the wives initiate a divorce.
Speaking from experience in this area, those men’s soon-to-be-ex wives are doing them a very big favor and themselves an unimaginable disservice.
AnonS:
BusterB wrote an enlightening article about the gaslighting technique you call the Double Bind. It’s called “Women, Head Games, and the Sensitive Man” and it’s archived at the Feminist Apocalypse blog (failures for godesses blogspot com), January 30, 2010.
@Rollo
The authoress of that piece:
Rachel Pietka is working on her Ph.D. in English at Baylor University, where she also teaches freshman composition, coordinates the Graduate Writing Center and develops spiritual life programs for graduate students. When not studying, she enjoys running on the country roads of Texas and spending time with her husband and their golden retriever.
Grad student, teaching bonehead English at an historically religious uni with a wet blanket in her hand. She couldn’t have married the “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” dude, she’s not that old chronologically. No kids, anyone surprised?
You’re expecting women to act like men. You’re expecting women to approach everything rationally and logically, and to communicate overtly. That’s not what women do, particularly when they’re under pressure or they need to find out the “real truth” about something.
This is an easy trap for all of us to fall into. It’s also important for us to remember it the next time we see a woman in a position of authority (that she obviously isn’t suited for and shouldn’t be occupying) go into one of her regular meltdowns. It shouldn’t just be condoned, but she also can’t help it either.
@Heidi
Demonstrates how empathetic women are, even to their children, when it comes down to it.
Women can be sympathetic. Not empathetic. Because of the expensive eggs.
Otto Lamp,
When the text is plugged into a gender writing style analyzer it returns a result of male.
Yes. The proper use of paragraphs itself was a giveaway.
It is safe to say that it is a cuckservative (probably that coward Williams himself) who thinks posing as a woman adds gravitas, since he himself cannot imagine any existence other than deferring to women at all times.
What a cowardly cuckservative.
Rollo Tomassi says:
May 25, 2017 at 9:59 pm
I am guessing your question is rhetorical… Because if it isn’t the answer is simple:
You will never find a better deal than eternal life. Nobody can deliver on this deal except Jesus.
Carrying the cross isn’t fun but the rewards are better than anything else.
Most Christian men want to work within the confines of scripture because of the rewards after life, not during life.
Paul said: If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Are you a Christian? One of the possible beliefs surrounding’s the eating of the fruit, is the curse placed on Eve that she would try and usurp her husband’s authority.
However, everything you have just said is exactly what I was getting at. Deti was saying that a wife’s shit tests are to test her husband’s mettle. I said I don’t believe it as that would imply some ‘noble’ element to their shit testing. She’s using the shit tests to justify something evil and wrong, to monkey branch to a different man.
My problem wasn’t the nature of women. My problem was the idea that their shit testing their husband was to determine his mettle. I don’t believe it for a second. I mentioned the destruction of Western society as an example of a society that has provided everything to women, only to have women turn the backs on it and demand special treatment as a further shit test, thus eroding the idea that it had anything to do with anything so noble as to test the worth of men.
You’re playing into the frame of women. There is no way for a lone man to pass the society wide shit test that feminists in Western Society played. It’s him vs a government. In essence, women ramped up a shit test on a society that provided them with all the comforts they could ask for precisely because that society gave them all those comforts. That was the disagreement with Deti’s argument. If his argument was merely that women shit test to feel attraction to the men that pass or to lose attraction for those that don’t, I wouldn’t have disagreed in the first place.
No, it is done for one reason only, to rate you against another man she fancies.
No. That’s one context in which it can happen, sure, but it isn’t the main one. The shit test happens *all the time* in male/female relationships. It is not conscious, it reflects women’s fundamental insecurity with their situation in life. Hence “does this dress make me look fat?” is the classic shit test. There is no “other guy” in the wings in the typical situation when this question is asked — it is simply her insecurities, which are legion, acting out and testing to see if you are easily rattled, because if you are, that makes her even MORE insecure than she already is.
As the man, you bear the burden of making her feel secure. She will test that, unconsciously, in order to assuage the insecurity that is always present in her self-awareness (women are filled with fears and insecurities to an extent most men simply cannot fathom, and all of the “SIW” propaganda is designed to hide this).
If a woman suddenly increases the volume and severity of shit tests, yes that could be a red flag that she’s actively comparing you to someone specific. But the general context is not that, and all wives shit test their husbands, in all cultures. It is innate. It may be fallen, but it is innate in the fallen nature, and it’s something men need to deal with if they want successful relationships and marriages with women.
“The Bible teaches women to submit to the God-given leadership of their husbands in the same way that Christ submitted to the will of God the Father.”
I guess it’s just a minor nit-pick on my part, but to what scripture is Williams referring, specifically? It seems like another writer, a woman, whose writings Dalrock has written about before, made this same kind of statement and also failed to mention that scripture actually states that wives should submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.
This is where you and I part ways in this dilemma. I expect men to control their innate ideals to trade in their old wives for a new younger wife. I expect the man to control his desire to sin. I also expect the woman to control her desire to shit test her husband.
Let’s be frank gentlemen. For close to one hundred years, Western women have wanted for nothing. They have zero good reason for a shit test, none. So stop trying to give them one and place the onus on them to control their urges. None of this shit stops until you do.
Anastassia mentions “hate” three times, and as is common among feminists, Anastassia conflates hate for behavior with hate for people.
“Let’s be frank gentlemen. For close to one hundred years, Western women have wanted for nothing. They have zero good reason for a shit test, none. So stop trying to give them one and place the onus on them to control their urges. None of this shit stops until you do.”
FH, you’re tilting at windmills. You might as well tell men to stop liking women with big breasts, tight butts and long legs. Can’t do it. I have no good reason to like girls with big boobs. But I do. I just do. I can’t help it.
A girl doesn’t need big boobs to be a functioning woman. We’ve advanced to the point where you can feed a newborn with formula and supplements and a woman need not breastfeed one minute of her entire life. But women still have boobs. Some women have big boobs. Even though in modern society, women don’t really need to have ANY boobs. But they still do. And I like the way those women look. as do most men.
Men are visually sexual in a way most women just don’t get. We get visually aroused. All it takes is looking at the body of a hot girl, and an 18 year old man at the height of his sexual prowess is at attention and ready to go in about 10 seconds. He doesn’t have to love. He doesn’t have to feel secure. He doesn’t have to care about her. He doesn’t have to feel ANYTHING. All he knows is that she’s physically appealing to him, and he wants, he NEEDS, to deposit his semen into her. Women – most women – just do not understand that.
Women shit test. Because they have a need for safety and security that I just don’t get. They shit test because they’ve been doing it for thousands of years. They do it because they just need to know the man they’re with has their back, doesn’t get easily disturbed, can keep it together, and won’t buckle under pressure and stress.
Stop banging your head against a wall expecting women to do something they couldn’t do even if they tried. Women have demanded for decades now that men be attracted to unattractive women and fat women, and men just can’t do it. Women have tried mightily to “change their attraction triggers” to be sexually attracted to betas (HUS, I’m looking at you), to no avail whatsoever. Women have tried to change men into women with penises, and it’s not working. It created the Red Pill.
Some of the best depictions of shit testing and comfort testing in media are in Mad Men, where Betty brings some concern to Don. Some concerns are serious; some are frivolous and trivial. Almost all the time, Don faces her and says something like “Bets, you’re tired. You’re upset. And it’s all understandable. It’ll be OK. Just go get some sleep, and we’ll figure it out in the morning.” And that’s all Betty needed to hear. Don has it under control. He explains to her what’s going on, and says he (or they) will get it taken care of.
That’s passing comfort tests with flying colors.
A shit test is depicted where Megan (his second wife) is cleaning their apartment in her bra and panties. She taunts him, saying “you can’t have any of this”, while on hands and knees in a clearly sexually provocative position, all the while looking back at him to gauge his response. He then proceeds to pull her to her feet, kisses her, and has sex with her on the living room floor. She willingly submits to him.
That’s passing a shit test with flying colors. And that really is a shit test – she’s being a total bitch to Don and stating a literal challenge to his masculinity. It’s “I’m here, calling you less than a man and depriving you of something we both know you want. You don’t have what it takes to stand up to me. What are you gonna do about it?”
So you dumped her wife and went after the chick with big breasts, right?
Should be ‘your wife’…
I also expect the woman to control her desire to shit test her husband.
It’s unconscious. It isn’t akin to finding a side piece, which is a conscious act. I think that’s where the disconnect is — you believe these are conscious, deliberate tests. They’re not. These are largely unconscious, autopilot type actions that arise from a woman’s innate insecurities. If your wife is *consciously* testing you, that isn’t a shit test, it’s just being bitchy, and should be called out accordingly because that is a deliberate action within her control, and she’s just being a bitch. Shit tests, by contrast, are unconscious — they just come out as the way her insecurity is being expressed. So, she’s feeling insecure for some reason and next thing you know she blurts out the question about whether you think she looks fat. It isn’t planned, it just blurts out on the spur of the moment as an expression of her insecurities.
It isn’t that hard to tell the difference between that, on the one hand, and deliberate bitchiness, on the other, because unconscious shit tests just come up out of the blue about ordinary things that are happening at the time for the most part — it’s pretty easy to tell the difference between them and something that is planned/deliberate/premeditated in most cases if you have any kind of read on your wife at all, really.
Of course, with practice, wives *can* learn to read themselves better and shit test their husbands less by catching themselves when they are doing it. But in order to do that they have to (1) know what a shit test is, (2) know their triggers, (3) know the impact it has on you, (4) be able to control themselves and (5) want to do all of the above. In most cases it’s just easier to deal with the shit test in the proper way, which is really just another way of saying deal with her insecurities in the proper way, than try to get your wife to have that degree of self-awareness in most cases. But there are exceptions, of course.
“So you dumped your wife and went after the chick with big breasts, right?”
Of course not. The point is that I like big boobs (and I cannot lie.) The point is that I can’t change that about myself. I’ve tried to. I tried to be attracted to women I didn’t really find all that physically appealing. I just can’t do it. I can’t like skinny athletic girls with flat asses and no boobs. That’s just not what I like. I like looking at women who are built differently. I’m physically attracted to them. I just really really like them. A whole lot.
Same thing with shit testing. Women can’t avoid doing this. It’s unconscious. They need to do it. They can’t stop themselves from doing it.
Don Quixote @ 2:53 am:
“I am guessing your question is rhetorical… Because if it isn’t the answer is simple:
You will never find a better deal than eternal life”
Nobody who follows this twat will find eternal life. She’s a textbook example of why women don’t teach men. “Don’t follow God’s command to keep sex only in marriage because you won’t be able to sample enough cock to know if you’re compatible! Don’t expect great sex because she might judge you unworthy!”
Hell isn’t a lake of burning sulfur, it’s a one-and-done wife who has a headache for seventy years.
Pingback: Why I Am Not A Christian #2 – v5k2c2
FeministHater, I think you greatly overestimate the hostility and resentment long-married men feel towards their wives. Most are not faced with this overwhelming urge to “trade in” their wives after years of marriage as you describe.
Shit tests are more akin to the urge to be distracted by 20 year old women than to take up with one. A cute young girl walks by, I look, and sometimes, my imagination takes me places it shouldn’t. For the sake of the Kingdom and my vows, I do my best to fight this. But it’s natural, engrained, and serves a purpose in the continuation of the human race.
Shit tests are natural, engrained, serve a purpose, and are something women should resist for the sake of God’s commandments and their marriage vows. But failure to do so is no more evil or out of the ordinary than ogling. Blowing up a marriage for someone younger and hotter is much more on par with blowing up a marriage for self-fulfillment and adventure than it is shit tests.
Dear Rollo & Don Quixote:
LOL! The Dalrock Research Team never fails to deliver.
This is a priceless article. Despite the title, the authoress clearly feels that Christians are called to have amazing premarital sex, and that they’re also entitled to divorce their spouses after the wedding if the sex with the spouse isn’t amazing.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/why-i-am-not-a-christian-2/
Thanks for posting it.
Boxer
I am all for that Bee, but doing so is much harder than many claim in comments here. The system is designed to ruin even those who start correctly. How many red flags are enough to bail? That is a tough question.
FH,
Some shit tests are just that, no other specific man is required. Some women are just contentious.
My wife headed toward her own selfishness, not another branch (man).
I would agree with the core of your comments that no noble intent is present however.
PokeSalad,
Daddy government will likely be her end branch, but I don’t think it is her intended target. She did expect to be able to extort more resources for herself though, so that idea might have some value in considering it.
Heidi,
My mother divorced my father many years ago because “he wasn’t spending enough time” with my sister and I. Not a high level of thinking on her part. (My father was far from perfect, but she definitely did not accomplish her goal.)
Deti,
Why do they do casual sex with someone they just met if they really need safety and security? I think that aspect in many (most?) women indicates safety and security is not as key as we may think.
Though perhaps most have enough of a feeling of overall safety and security (however illogical) no matter what they do that it allows them to be dumber than they would have been if such actions carried more consequences.
I would rather have the thin type Deti. A decent chest is definitely nice, but relatively thin can be stimulating for some of us. I will be seeing how that plays out in reality myself in the coming time.
General comment on something I noticed yesterday:
I was talking with a friend of my wife and I that we saw a couple of times a year at a large event. I was asking her some questions about her own marriage and she noted she was madly in love with her husband (who was significantly older than she was).
It is very ironic that this women, who is not a Christian as far as I know, is far more tied to her marriage than my wife was, in spite of my wife claiming to have a personal relationship with Jesus. (And having done many “righteous activities” in the past.)
I don’t want to argue whether my ex-wife is really “saved,” but I thought it ironic that women who act like her are giving a very bad witness for the Lord they claim to serve.
thedeti@ 9:09 am:
“A shit test is depicted where Megan (his second wife) is cleaning their apartment in her bra and panties. She taunts him, saying “you can’t have any of this”, while on hands and knees in a clearly sexually provocative position, all the while looking back at him to gauge his response. He then proceeds to pull her to her feet, kisses her, and has sex with her on the living room floor”
That’s what the Alpha does, yes. If a modern Delta’s wife pulled that shit test, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if he quietly walked out of the room and she woke up the next morning to find her husband had fled to Mexico with the family’s savings. It would be a reasonable and proportionate response to her conduct.
The trust between sexes is DEAD DEAD DEAD. This is womens’ fault, womens’ problem and by the Lord, women will either be the solution or they will die as unloved spinsters. We unsexy men are not going to suck it up anymore. We can’t afford to.
@ BillyS
My parents were not practicing Christians. Culturally, yes. We were a ‘Christmas and Easter’ type of family. My parents were not ‘hostile’ to Christianity or the church in general. They were ‘married’ in a church. We never attended church except for those two holidays.
They met in 1964, after eight months of dating, they got married in 1965 and had a very, very solid marriage. A loving, helpful, uplifting and working as a “team” marriage.
So when Pastors and busy-body church-folk tell me that you have to have ‘Jesus’ in order to have a “good” marriage…….I sometimes wince and think “well, that’s not really true”
Plenty of Christians I have met have been married several times, been through messy divorces, or their marriage is a “yo go girl” wife and brow beaten husband……
Remember too, even in the early days of the church……even the ‘pagan’ Romans, many had good marriages and they loved each other without “Jesus”. For the most part, evangelical-protestant Christianity somehow made marriage “their” invention with zero proof and most of the sheeple in the church have just swallowed it and accepted this.
@ Billy S:
“Why do they do casual sex with someone they just met if they really need safety and security? I think that aspect in many (most?) women indicates safety and security is not as key as we may think.”
1) Because her “safety and security” is provided for in a job, or because she lives with parents who pay her bills. Because she isn’t worried about money.
2) Because the guy is really hot, she’s a little drunk/high/stoned, she hasn’t had sex in a month (she’s having a REALLY bad dry spell), she just feels like it, and she likes him and feels comfortable with him. The “safety and security” she needs in that circumstance is provided by his making her feel at ease and comfortable. The safety and security in that circumstance is basically “if I have sex with him, he won’t make me feel like a slut. Plus, no one else will know unless he or I tell them, so no one else will make me feel like a slut for having sex with him.”
It also helps that the guy is really hot.
Far too true Jason. Being a Christian doesn’t make you perfect in deeds, no matter how much some proclaim it to be true. It SHOULD be different, but humans walk out salvation and thus fail far more often than they should.
3) Because she knows that if anything bad goes down, all she will have to do is mewl “I feel unsafe”, and numerous white knights will intervene on her behalf, for free, and she will not have to sleep with them to gain their protection. Or, she can call the police and tell them she feels unsafe or that he tried to rape her, and very large men in blue uniforms carrying guns will shortly arrive to stomp his guts out, arrest him, and jam him up for a very long time.
Also a form of “safety and security”.
NFP: Dalrock, I am a woman who reads and enjoys your blog very much. The latest series of posts have been interesting and I have no disagreement with your opinion. I respect your basic “this is a male space” comment philosophy, but am sending this comment in a bit of desperation. I’ve tried diligently to respect my boyfriend in our relationship. I’ve tried not to be “bossy” and “opinionated” as I was at one time prior to a complete disavowal of feminism. The other day, he showed up and said didn’t like it that I was always looking to him to make decisions and he found this boring.
I won’t bore you with more details, other than we are both in our 50’s, both divorced, and so having children is not part of the plan. We have our own houses. We used to go to church together, but he seems bored with church lately and so we haven’t been going. I talk about things I read and learn in the “manosphere” (which I must say is intriguing).
Do you think you could direct me to some blog posts you have written in regards to this matter? I was kind of shocked when he said he wanted me to be more decisive. I enjoyed letting him make decisions, since I have a high pressure job and make decisions all day. I suppose the income inequality between us is part of the problem, but it doesn’t bother me that he is self-employed and makes very little money. I’m comfortable in my own financial situation and not looking for a man to support me at this stage in life. Just seems like my attempts to honor his masculinity and manhood have met with a strange response. I hate to say “well, maybe he’s a Beta” or a “cuck.”
True Deti. Saw this frequently in college and grad school (early 1990’s). Way above average looking guy at a party. Girl suddenly “decides” he’s everything she has been looking for in a guy….even though he talked to her ‘once’ for a few seconds and he “made her laugh”
This is how so many women think and deduce. Even at my age now (late forties), I have heard women my age who are WAY past their prime telling me “If a guy doesn’t make me laugh when I first meet him, he’s not worth my time!” Usually “making them laugh” has to contain some “sort-of-dirty-joke-or-pun”
Too many single Christian women behave no better than their secular sisters in matter like this. Young or old.
So anyway, she’s throwing herself at said guy. It’s really pathetic watching it happen. She’s drunk or stoned. He of course plays it cool, pumps and dumps her…..she’s then “heartbroken” because said guy “used” her. She had this plan that he was perfect for her, and he blew it! She’s then in my dorm room for DAYS complaining about “men” and “guys like him” and the “why can’t guys be like you?” questions. It took a LONG time for me to learn the real translation and meaning of this, which is: “Why can’t you be really, really HOT?”
If I had to do it again, I just would have told her to get out or “when you’re done feeling sorry for yourself, there’s the door.”
Security. She’s on birth control of some sort. Her parents, or family pay the bills. She’s not living in “danger” of roaming gangs that would cause her harm. She’s pretty. She calls the shots. She has the plan. She has the backing of the administration for her bad choices, and the culture at large…..even in the church if she attends one.
Jason:
For women and sex, the amount of hotness he needs to have and the amount of comfort he needs to show bear an inverse relationship to each other.
The hotter he is, the less comfort he needs to bring. The less hot he is, the more comfort he needs to bring.
If he is hot, she doesn’t need a lot of comfort. She just needs to know she won’t be judged negatively and that a certain amount of discretion will be employed, and that’s enough.
If he is not so hot, she needs more comfort. She needs not only positive judgment and discretion. She needs him to prove provider bona fides. She needs investment. She needs him to pay for things. She needs him to show he won’t pump and dump her. She needs him to show he is nice and kind and that he will stick around.
For men, if you’re leading with comfort, you’ll be expected to give up everything and commit and go all in before sex happens. She calls the shots in the relationship. If you’re leading with hotness, you won’t have to give up much of anything and you don’t have to commit to anything. You call the shots in the relationship.
___________
“She’s then in my dorm room for DAYS complaining about “men” and “guys like him” and the “why can’t guys be like you?” questions. It took a LONG time for me to learn the real translation and meaning of this, which is: “Why can’t you be really, really HOT?””
I’m glad you’ve learned your lesson. Don’t do that again. No emotional investment for women you’re not married to or in a relationship with. They get NO time, money, attention or resources. NONE.
Even back then (this situation was in 1991, one of countless situations I witnessed and lived back then), I KNEW something was very wrong……and somehow I was being “played” or my kind demeanor was being taken advantage of whenever this happened to so many women I was ‘friends’ with. I didn’t know what to do. I wasn’t raised to be be a guy who just had random sex, and I really wanted a girlfriend. (I wasn’t a Christian then, but I was hardly a saint…my adventures on LSD back then would make for a good novel about the early 1990’s). I wasn’t blessed with a circus-freakshow of good looks on cultural norm or standard. No, I was not ugly. Plenty of attractive women did hang with me, talk with me….but something even then I knew was wrong, or just out of step. Was it confidence? Was it a lack of arrogance (LSD does cut a persons Ego to shreds……especially men at that age when the DO need a posi, comfortable, and healthly sense of self and Ego).
I just ended up accepting that “the real world would be different” and I quickly found out it wasn’t.
Lessons learned. Time passed. Regrets had. Amends made. Today, I DO believe I did dodge a bullet in many situations regarding women, and fortunately Christ can heal, and mend. Even in my walk today though, I really don’t see many Christian women my age or around my age behaving in a Christ-like manner. They are just an older version of themselves with the same behaviors they had back in 1990, 1991, 1994……….I see attendance, but zero repentance and no Holiness.
Call it what you like but there is a boundary at play here. If you are expected to control your innate urges, the same expectation should be placed on women. This is the ‘get out of jail free’ card I am talking about. It is there, you all give it to women without a second thought and it will be your undoing. If they cannot control it, then you must agree with the prevailing thought across the Churches. That thought being that when a woman sins there is a man somewhere to blame.
I asked Deti if that is what he feels when he sees a nice looking woman walking across the street, he should go ahead and dump his nag of a wife and pursue her instead. His biology, his very nature calls on him to do it. Oh, but he has to control himself for the sake of his marriage, children and society at large, right? Then apply that to women and stop letting them off the hook. It might be their nature, it might be hard for them to control but they better had learn to control it, for their own good and their family’s. If a shit test is doing bad to a marriage or society at large, it is by its own nature not a good thing and should not be condoned. It should be shut down. Perhaps that is the ‘passing of the shit test’ you are all meaning?
It all boils down to two different sets of beliefs. I believe women have a moral compass, I believe they have lost said moral compass because for many generations they have not been taught to keep it by society, Church or their family. I believe it best to sort this out so married women can be content and stable in their marriages and their husbands not troubled by every feeling their wife has.
Others here believe that women do not have the ability to be moral, that they cannot control themselves anymore than a dog can control its innate instinct to bark. I’m not so easily taken and will never give women or anyone for that matter such an easy way out.
“Even back then (this situation was in 1991, one of countless situations I witnessed and lived back then), I KNEW something was very wrong……and somehow I was being “played””
Yes, you were being played. That’s a description of “The Secret Society”, which the attractive men and pretty much all women are in on; and unattractive men, Christian men, and other “undesirables” are excluded or self-exclude. It’s pretty much this: attractive men and all women know and understand how attraction works, male nature, female nature, etc. There’s no discussion or conspiracy here. They all “just know” this stuff; they “just get” it. And they all sleep with each other.
But unattractive men? Christian men? They’re excluded. They don’t know this stuff. They don’t “just get it”. Or they choose not to know it or “figure it out”. So attractive men don’t tell them or talk to them about it because to them it’s a waste of time. And women certainly don’t tell them about it because it would shatter these men’s illusions of these women. Those women might need those excluded men later when the attractive men invariably move on to other women. Those women need those excluded men now as orbiters and emotional tampons. But most importantly, they don’t want those men judging them. Women hate negative judgment. And they don’t want those men talking negatively about them.
Those women were using you. And you didn’t know any better. To you, and your parents, and those around you who weren’t “in the know”, that’s just how life is. That’s just how it works.
You were probably also told “there’s no such thing. Women don’t act like this. Women aren’t attracted to guys like this. Those men are tricking and duping those women into sex. Women don’t like being treated this way. Women are invariably good, kind, pure, and incentivized by love and marriage and family. They all just want boyfriends and husbands and families. And if women are acting like this, it’s because they’re broken, damaged, slutty, stupid or crazy. And bad men are tricking and duping them into sex. It’s the fault of bad men, not women. And you’re not a bad man, ARE YOU??!”
Here’s a better description of The Secret Society:
http://bristollair.com/2008/inner-game/nature-reality/secret-society/
Funny how it always comes to that isn’t it? It’s ok when women do it but not guys.
Well of course. We can’t have people worshiping God now can we? We’re supposed to bow and worship at Queen Cunt. Don’t you know that’s what being a good “Christian” is about these days? We’re supposed to throw out those “neanderthal” and icky parts from the bible that don’t properly worship our almighty goddesses.
Remember boys and girls when you don’t throw out the parts of God’s Word that “belittle” women then you’re an evil misogynist. I wonder if these brainless morons realize they’re calling God evil?
@ Jason says:
May 26, 2017 at 11:52 am
“She’s not living in ‘danger’ of roaming gangs that would cause her harm.”
Yet.
FH: Demanding women not shit test is like demanding men don’t gaze lustfully at women. Both are wrong, but both are natural, inevitable crosses to bear throughout life.
The urge you accuse Deti of having to leave his wife is much like the urge women have to leave their betas for sexy, exciting alphas. Those are much more serious temptations and sins than shit tests and lust, and not everyone struggles with them. I can assure you that despite seeing many smoking hot women in my life, I have no desire to “trade in” my wife. My wife, like all women, shit tests. I live with her in understanding of her nature, as she lives in understanding of mine. Making a mountain out of the molehill of shit tests is like pastors encouraging wives to leave because of porn. It’s wrong and destructive.
Shit tests and blowing up marriage are not comparable at all.
feministhater, being stuck in the anger phase of learning is not a good thing. That’s where you are, though, and that’s why you equate normal fitness testing of the “does this make me look fat” form with the Kobyashi Maru type no-win destructive tests of a woman who is about to leave.
It is like saying that a woman who slams a glass down in a tantrum at dinner is the same as a woman who stabs a man 20 times. They’re not the same at all, both need correction but the seriousness is clearly different. A man should not react to a childish female temper tantrum the same as he would react to a threat of grave bodily harm or death.
You are being very binary about this, possibly because you have not accepted how women are and keep on demanding what they should be. In the Bible based context, women sin just as much as men do, they just tend towards different forms of sin.
Too bad you are so stuck. Your pattern recognizer is in “enemy spotted!” mode, seeing all women as potential threats. It will be good for you when you get a bit past that stage.
Mich,
True, but not the entire picture. Too many shit tests will lead to a divorce in many/most cases. They create ongoing unhappiness if they are too frequent.
True, but not the entire picture. Too many shit tests will lead to a divorce in many/most cases. They create ongoing unhappiness if they are too frequent.
Generally when things are going well, shit tests are not coming along every day. They still come along, women are emotional and cyclical and insecure and so it bubbles up and needs venting from time to time. If you are getting a lot of tests, then things are not going well, or she is looking for a reason to leave, or she is comparing you to someone else, etc. — it’s a sign of a problem which is leading to the endless testing. I think it’s important to note that there is a difference between shit tests, which every woman, even submissive ones, will do from time to time as a means of venting their underlying insecurities, and outright rebellion and defiance, where it isn’t a test, but simply defiance. Distinguishing the two is important, I think.
Also, as we all know, if you fail tests, then more tests will come, and that leads to a downward spiral.
Novaseeker,
Generally when things are going well, shit tests are not coming along every day. They still come along, women are emotional and cyclical and insecure and so it bubbles up and needs venting from time to time.
Also, as we all know, if you fail tests, then more tests will come, and that leads to a downward spiral.
Yes. The problem is that some men, if not already married, and if otherwise highly logical or have a low tolerance for female drama, might contend that outside of the 20% of women who are very attractive or otherwise have some highly desirable attribute, relationships with women are just not worth it.
I think a growing number of men are subconsciously coming to this conclusion to varying degrees. This is not exactly MGTOW, but a related phenomenon.
Anon……no, it’s not exactly MGTOW, especially in the protestant church right now…..but MGTOW or these ‘related phenomenon’ as you put it…..are appearing.
I was heard it said somewhere “You know……..some man in our day and age and culture is going to read The Bible and actually believe it!”
Well, many men are reading it, and believing it, and then in church (in general) we see and hear very weak ‘mr.coffee’ sermons. We see single motherhood rewarded (because Jesus loves little babies). We see just awful. I mean really bad “performance praise” music today….come on everybody you know it 🙂
“You are worthy, and I will worship you!” (repeated twenty times) and you are just saying to yourself “Oh Lord, can this song PLEASE end…” because most are just swaying to the music and then the leader is holding out the last “yoooooouuuuuuu!” making “o-face” and says “Come on church!” and of course the ritual with the music stopping and us singing it AGAIN another dozen times………
You’re feeling like you are in the audience of “Christian American Idol”
Then a slow song or solo during the collection. Applause and cheers (for who? the singer or Jesus?) and the soloist is usually the pastors (cough) ‘virginal’ college-aged daughter, or relative, or the praise leaders son or daughter.
Then a “new” song we’re “all” going to learn. Always a song about a storm. A desert. Chains. Darkness….and then of course “we’re standing on His promises” or some such line and the chorus is the same usual “I was made to worship you” or something like this repeated another twenty times…………
The sermon is weak, and most of the service was spent in watching a “performance” and with church announcements, a short lecture about “tithing” (again), and suddenly it’s time to leave and honk horns and to yell at “fellow believers” fighting to get out of the parking lot first!
Is it any wonder why no man would want to endure this? No boldness, well…..yes, be bold…but not “that” bold! Convict yourself of sin? Being brought to tears at the Mercy Seat? No….real men don’t do that because you are weak if you do that. Have skills as a man to work with YOUNG children? No….no, only women nurture…men are to lead, but not really.
The married guys are all………faux manliness……talking tough, but doing little for Christ or in their own lives. This is a huge turn off for men that actually read and believe The Bible.
They will blame the times, wring their hands, come up with a “New workbook / book that is only 25.00 in the church bookstore…and what is 25.00 bucks worth if it will save your marriage / church / family?”
Answer? There is a book that does all of that. It’s called The Bible. Why are aspects of this MGTOW growing???? Men are reading the Bible and believing it.
Lest we forget.
Gunner Q says:
May 26, 2017 at 9:56 am
I was addressing Rollo’s question, not the article.
Rollo’s question implies that he doesn’t understand the reward that the cross purchased. It can be difficult to understand why Christian men put up with so much if you don’t understand the price of salvation.
I have _no_ interest in whatever that woman said. I will not listen her rubbish. Please don’t berate me for her words.
thedeti,
You were probably also told “there’s no such thing. Women don’t act like this. Women aren’t attracted to guys like this. Those men are tricking and duping those women into sex. Women don’t like being treated this way. Women are invariably good, kind, pure, and incentivized by love and marriage and family. They all just want boyfriends and husbands and families. And if women are acting like this, it’s because they’re broken, damaged, slutty, stupid or crazy. And bad men are tricking and duping them into sex. It’s the fault of bad men, not women. And you’re not a bad man, ARE YOU??!”
Yep, and as has been pointed out many times on this blog, such attitudes come from both conservatives like and feminists alike.
It’s funny to watch how this lady from The View is probably some kind of feminist talks about ladies’ men (e.g. “They prey on unsuspecting women to get them into the bedroom…”) versus how she hits on and makes sexual jokes to a handsome guy herself:
(starting at 4:50)
Maybe the truth is hiding in plain sight: The sex-activating module inside the human female hind brain works on the assumption that its owner will raise the resulting offspring by herself and that “provision & protection, etc” does not enter into its primalcalculations. After all, all of her animal fore-mothers worked on that assumption. Single motherhood is the rule in the animal kingdom (even among apes), not the exception. Males are picked for the excitement of the moment, not for the liklihood of them sticking around as individuals.
I mean, if human females really wanted a provider, they would pay close attention to which kind of guy is actually most likely to stick around with them afterwards — and obvious alpha players would be instinctively rejected.
(women are filled with fears and insecurities to an extent most men simply cannot fathom, and all of the “SIW” propaganda is designed to hide this).
I know it’s wrong and something I’ll be judged for, but I’ve come to find it irresistibly satisfying when I can sow even more fear, doubt, angst, burdens, worry, and anxiety in the life of a SIW. After all, it’s what she signed up for when she decided to become her own beta, so give her as many helpings of “a man’s life” as she can stand.
I watched some short sci-fi films on YouTube, the kind that play at film festivals. I’ve discovered over the years that MOST of the lead characters, in MOST sci-fi shorts, are women. Brilliant scientists, brave astronauts, tough space marines — mostly women.
One sci-fi short drama, This Is Andromeda, begins with the wife — a brilliant quantum physicist — leaving for a major experiment at a Swiss super-collider. She “lovingly” asks her dufus husband if he knows what she does for a living. He sputters out an idiotic description of her work. She smiles tolerantly at her silly, lesser half, before leaving for her Big Science Experiment.
I used to like science fiction as a youth. But now I’m sick of all these brilliant female scientists and astronauts — who are often single moms — single-handedly saving the world.
She’ll do what she wants. Mind your own business.
When she sins, it is your fault.
I wonder if these sychophants realise they are working in the service of the temple of the prostitute goddess ensuring beta Bucks tow the party line and worship at the altar of the feminine.
It’s an interesting coincidence that goddess worship required castrated men to serve in the inner temple and the sudden rise of transgendered men.
I guess sugar daddy websites are the modern incarnation of the temple of Delphi, funny that, the internet is ushering in the matriarchy by stealth.
Mich says:
May 26, 2017 at 12:56 pm
FH: Demanding women not shit test is like demanding men don’t gaze lustfully at women. Both are wrong, but both are natural, inevitable crosses to bear throughout life.
The urge you accuse Deti of having to leave his wife is much like the urge women have to leave their betas for sexy, exciting alphas. Those are much more serious temptations and sins than shit tests and lust, and not everyone struggles with them. I can assure you that despite seeing many smoking hot women in my life, I have no desire to “trade in” my wife. My wife, like all women, shit tests. I live with her in understanding of her nature, as she lives in understanding of mine. Making a mountain out of the molehill of shit tests is like pastors encouraging wives to leave because of porn. It’s wrong and destructive.
Shit tests and blowing up marriage are not comparable at all.
The really ironic thing is that you are doing one of the same things you are rebuking FH for doing. You get after him for equating two unequal things. You then proceed to equate FH saying “I will hold women responsible for their actions” with pastors saying “I encourage women to blow up their marriages because their partner is not perfect.”
FH has not (in this thread, at any rate) encouraged men to abandon their wives because they shit test. All he’s said is that it is on the woman’s head, it is wrong, and that it is ultimately her responsibility to fix her own behavior.
I wonder if these sychophants realise they are working in the service of the temple of the prostitute goddess ensuring beta Bucks tow the party line and worship at the altar of the feminine.
They’re in service to Satan himself. I used to think that this was involuntary and subconscious until I brought it up to a few of them, showing them where in Scripture, specifically, they were spitting in God’s face by declaring, through action and word, that His plan for men and women was wrong and that it was to be at best ignored and at worst disobeyed.
Their violent reactions to doses of truth and light demonstrate that they aren’t the least bit interested in what God really has to say. Satan’s whisperings, which accord fully with the World that they are so proudly part of, are much sweeter and easier to succumb to. Giving society’s current ttrajectory, it won’t be long before they drop any remaining pretense of being Bible believers and take their masks off for all the World to see who and what they really are.
Pingback: Successful marriage and good marriage | Christianity and masculinity
The Red Pill: How radical feminism is demeaning to men
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1053320
Full intention to sign prenuptial agreement on finances
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1051910
The Red Pill: How radical feminism is demeaning to men
Exactly who over at CAF would care about that?
Full intention to sign prenuptial agreement on finances
Well, sure, why not? Some judge is just going to tear it up anyway once she decides to pull the divorce trigger, so what does SHE have to lose?
I haven’t been angry in this thread at all.
I only said that I hold women to account where you chaps will not. That is the entirety of my disagreement. If Deti wants to say that the shit test is used to determine a man’s mettle in marriage then likewise he must prove that women can be logical enough to determine said characteristics. I don’t subscribe to that belief. The shit test is just the rebellious nature of women, that’s all it is. If left to continue it will destroy a marriage, destroy a community and eventually destroy a country.
It’s not a good or noble thing. It is evil and part of the fall and should be controlled by Christian women.
He’s only trying to attach some malicious connotation to what I said rather than see that what I said was merely the continuation of the comparison that Deti had started. Deti compared a woman’s shit testing her husband to a husband looking and admiring a younger, fitter and more attractive woman. I continued that to its logical conclusion where both parties are not expected to control their base natures. In other words, the women will shit test her marriage to break down and the man would dump his older wife for a younger one.
I asked Deti that question because I expected him to answer that he couldn’t leave his wife because that would be breaking his vows, a position I expect from all married couples, including women…
The Handmaid’s Tale is basically erotic fiction and also a giant fitness test to see if many men will be man enough to say “I don’t see what’s so wrong with that.”
I expect it to be the fuel for many feminists’ concupiscant sessions of self-abuse, much as my feminist, leftist-NGO-employee ex-lover used to pleasure herself watching Game of Thrones during scenes portraying violence against women or incest. As a man deluded by the offer of easy fornication from the Red Pill, I of course appreciated this external stimulation which got her ready for whatever I myself wanted.
The parallels between the attire in the Handmaid’s Tale and those that conservative, modest women in religious communities in America wear cannot be missed, right down to the different head coverings worn in public and in private and the design and cut of the dresses. (The fact they are all red is an allusion to the fact such communities generally avoid red.)
The people who write such filth cannot create; they can only destroy. Birth control, sodomy, Truvada, and full blown AIDS are appropriate sacraments for their religion. Thank God we have been here longer than they have been, and we will continue to be here when they are dead and gone.
Pingback: Against Women’s Rights | Smultronstället
If he leads, the husband is wrong. If he doesn’t lead he is wrong. Dear pop-christian pastor, how is a husband to do right outside of not being a husband?
The “pastors” saying this crap are not Christian they’re feminists. Their god is women. Just paganism wrapped in a Christian package. It’s worse than a pagan.
They don’t say it that clearly though. You have to unwrap what they say to get the full implication and I have personally talked with several that don’t even think about the implications of what they say and do.
OT:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/265991/
Read the comments. Lots of white knights and other idiots. I have little compassion for the guy, as he is a slut as well, but claiming him having a vasectomy is wrong shows at least some responses lack any common sense.
I would agree that it is idiocy to let women trap men and complain about it if that doesn’t work, but making sleeping around favorable in any way is destructive to a society as well. Idiocy all around.
You have to unwrap what they say to get the full implication and I have personally talked with several that don’t even think about the implications of what they say and do.
Pretty terrifying, that bolded part. That people commanded to preach the Word, to lead people to Christ and guide them in their quest for spiritual nourishment don’t carefully think about the implications of what they say and do and don’t vet it against Scripture explains volumes about the state of the church today. These people have ZE-RO business leading other Christians. Indeed, the fact that they let their emotions and worldly impulses rule their tongues and pens serves as proof positive that they themselves are still suckling spiritual “milk” and cannot yet digest solid “meat.”
That sounds like a feminist God.
“You’re a stupid, worthless jerk.”
“Don’t even try to instruct your wife, you stupid, worthless jerk.”
“You’re wife fell short because you did what I told you, you stupid, worthless jerk.”
Do I have that about right?
@Splashman
Sorry from way up thread about leadership and service I think what you said is nonsense. There is nothing mutually exclusive about the words service/servant and leader/leadership and Christ explicitly rejects the idea that they are. Above Oscar lists all the way a father and husband serves his family.
Christ washed the apostles feet. I think it’s pretty clear he was doing them a service and teaching him them this was the example. Just because the world is crazy doesn’t mean we reject service as part of leadership.
Very true feeriker. One visiting speaker (who was in a “leadership role” above the church in a sort) started his sermon by telling all the husbands to turn to their wives and say “I am sorry”. (Or “I was wrong” – I am a bit fuzzy now.) I expressed how ungodly that was and the pastor noted he didn’t see anything wrong with that.
It would be idiocy under any situation, but was especially bad in the current environment.
The March continues:
Things I learned from feminism I wish I’d learned from Christianity
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1053428
Perhaps things like:
“Women have their faults,
men have only two:
everything they say,
everything they do.” – Anonymous feminist (typically cited as being feminist graffiti)
The “pastors” saying this crap are not Christian they’re feminists. Their god is women. Just paganism wrapped in a Christian package. It’s worse than a pagan.
Completely agree.
Pingback: Servant Leadership in two easy lessons. - Top
The question is… when and where does the self-destruction stop with the church and with society? The road we’re on, if we’re at the point where matriarchy is doubling down, is there an ‘after’?
It seems that if the majority of women have been made parasitic, they must eventually destroy the host. But in terms of humanity, if a man avoids a parasitic woman, he may live a happier life, but he’s just as destroyed as the man consumed by a parasitic women in regards to being a father.
Will the number of the minority of good women hold, or be quickly eroded within a generation? If the latter happens, will it be something humanity to come back from? Or will humanity die out before any meteor or red giant sun or other extiction event ever posed a risk?
Vanity of vanities I guess.
@MarcusD:
CAF (Catholic Answers Forum) is a feminist sewer. A lot of the discourse there is as far from Catholic doctrine as it gets, which is not surprising since feminism is satanism, and Satan loves to confuse and deceive by pretending to be a good person dispensing Christian advice. CAF is what you’d expect when Churchian women get together without adult supervision.
@Dalrock and @RolloTomassi are correct that the Catholic Church is in the grip of the Feminine Imperative, as is Churchianity (evangelical Protestantism). Nonetheless, I sense that this dire situation might be about to turn, as the energy/money to keep the pumps running is drying up. The key is drying up the supply of thirsty men: PUA (I understand the behavior while not approving of the morality), MGTOW, Married Red Pill, etc., and the teachings of the manosphere are key to educating men that they are the prize and their mission must be their focus. Christian men need to stop worshipping women/family in place of God.
The “Stepping Up” series is an admission by cuck Baby Boomer evangelicals that they did a bad job raising the next generation of men and are now trying to fix it in their own helpless way. They played this at the men’s breakfast at our church and I thought it was laughable. Most people opining on manhood were guys like Matt Chandler, Russell Moore, and Voddie Baucham. The latter has some interesting things to say, but none of these men have had to get a job in the private sector the way they charge younger men to in their videos. Truly, the blind are leading the blind.
Why do Baby Boomers believe that men should not remind their wives of their duty to submit and obey? The Bible routinely admonishes all believers to submit and obey to both God and lesser authorities appointed over them. Why shouldn’t husbands remind their wives of their place if needed?
@Julie
My apologies for the delay in responding. I held your comment in moderation until I could respond, but ended up taking far longer to do so than I had planned.
I did write a post in response to a similar question a wife sent me back in 2011 titled: How to encourage a husband to show more leadership. However I don’t think it fits your specific situation since he has already stated he wants you to make the decisions. If you were married, I would say that he has already indicated what he wants, and (ironically) submission would mean you making the decisions, with the following caveats:
1) Doing your best to honor what you know of his desires and preferences (while avoiding sin).
2) Doing this with the attitude that he is still the leader, even though he has delegated the day to day decisions to you.
Bullet two would seem to be the most difficult. But since you aren’t married, you don’t have to submit to him.
Julie
I won’t bore you with more details, other than we are both in our 50’s, both divorced, and so having children is not part of the plan. We have our own houses.
Has he been this way as long as you have known him? If not, if he’s gotten different, then when was the last time he had a medical exam, specifically including blood work? Blood sugar, testosterone, inflammation markers, etc. Maybe he’s just a really laid back man, maybe he was burned in his divorce, lots and lots of maybes. But also maybe he’s got health issues. This is my add-on to Dalrock’s reply.
Dear Fellas:
You really ought to apologize to all Satanists for lumping them in with trashy feminists like Blue Eyed Lady and Xanthippe over at CAF.
(I meant to be sarcastic, but it’s serious, too. I doubt any card-carrying Church of Satan member would spend all day encouraging troubled people to get divorces and abortions, pretending to be Catholics while dispensing bad advice. Only loser feminists do such things.)
Regards,
Boxer
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/05/28) - Social Matter
Pingback: Servant Leadership in two easy lessons. — Dalrock – Leadership
Servant leadership initially (I think) was an attempt to say that leaders are, in fact, servants of those they lead. I.e. They are trying to give benefit. Now it has been twisted to mean that the leader obeys, serves, the other. It is a play on words, a leader who, by definition, does not lead.
In this culture, few wives will even attempt to obey their husbands. It never occurs to them that God wants limits on them, for love reasons. That is abhorent to e modern woman, who doesn’t understand what it means to be really loved and not just “liked” or lusted after or princess-attentioned. Guardrails are considered good on the road, evil in marriage.
Love is not a feeling. It is a commitment and desire to benefit the other. And God knows that women need male leadership. Their ability to make wise choices is hindered by their emotional makeup. That’s not mysogyny, that’s biology. God knew it would be best for men to lead, women to respond and submit, and both to find lasting love and peace through tis relationship.
Very true Tc.
I also find that most of those (all?) who preach “servant leadership” rarely practice what they command on others. I don’t see them literally serving those they preach to. They only proclaim it to make husbands weak, which is a very evil thing.
I thoroughly believe a wife should submit. I am all for restoring biblical marital roles. While love is commitment, a woman does need affection. I’ve noticed there are men in the masculine movement that do not believe a man should give his wife affection. They think just providing for her needs and having sex with her is enough. I don’t think most women need a man to bring her flowers and other gifts every day. But they do know that their husband cares about them as a person, sees them as special and is considerate of their problems. I mean Ephesians 5 implies a love so deep you would die for her.
@pamelaparizo
I don’t think many of the Christian husbands in the sphere would say a husband should not give his wife flowers. I’m not aware of any. The issue is why you are giving her flowers in the first place. You give her flowers because you want her to feel loved. Otherwise, why do it? But if you give her flowers in the wrong context, you will create the opposite effect. The objective isn’t to be stingy, but to make her truly feel loved.
Pam,
I would ask as well as Dalrock how you know the husband is mentioned on forums like this is not willing to lay down his life for his wife? That does not mean he must cater to her own feelings and what she think she needs, but he must meet what she really needs. This is just like Christ does for the Church. The Church doesn’t always get what it wants, but it does always get what it needs.