There is a well loved refrain, especially among complementarians, that men need to “step up”. This is a deceptive phrase, because in reality the objective is to allow men to avoid what is difficult and uncomfortable. It is false bravado used to mask paralyzing fear. What is being avoided is addressing the feminist elephant in the middle of the room.
For example, over the past decades we have witnessed an explosion in out of wedlock births. Feminists have been entirely open about their desire to make single motherhood an attractive option for women, and after decades of social and legal “progress” 40% of all children are now born out of wedlock in the US.
For feminist Christians this isn’t a problem, as they can simply celebrate their victory while pushing for even more “progress”. But for complementarians and other conservative Christians, this poses a huge challenge. How can they appear to take biblical morality (and the welfare of innocent children) seriously while avoiding upsetting women in our thoroughly feminized culture? There is only one answer, no matter how absurd it is. The answer is to pretend that feminists aren’t really in the final mopping up stages in the culture war, and assert instead that what we are experiencing is a sudden and mysterious change in men. Here is how Glenn Stanton, the Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family (FotF), explains the incredible increase we are seeing in out of wedlock births*:
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies. But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well… Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.
The level of denial here is astonishing, and would be laughable if it weren’t entirely commonplace. Even more astounding, often times the denial of feminism is expressed using feminist terminology, and even includes calls to join feminists in their push to re order our society**:
Whatever our views on specific economic policies, we must recognize that much economic hardship of women in our age is the result of men who abandon their commitments. We should eschew obnoxious “welfare queen” rhetoric and work with others of goodwill to seek economic and social measures to provide a safety net for single mothers and abused women in jeopardy. We should join with others, including secular feminists, in seeking legal protections against such manifestations of a rape culture as sexual harassment, prostitution, and sex slavery.
The quote above is from Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. As Moore himself explains, this makes him the head of:
the moral and public policy agency of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination
Previously Moore was the Chairman of the Board for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
As astonishing as the above two examples are, they merely scratch the surface. The pattern exists across complementarian/conservative Christian organizations, and across the full spectrum of issues where a Christian approach would offend feminists. In response to women demanding to be allowed to join all units of our armed forces (just as they have demanded in the civilian world), conservative Christians deny the very open feminist rebellion, and pretend instead that cowardly men are forcing brave women to serve in their place. Doug Phillips’ now defunct Vision Forum offers a perfect example with America the Barbarous: New Pentagon Policy Sanctions Women in Combat:
…our nation’s leaders — in the name of “empowering” women — are now self-consciously placing women in combat units to be shot at and killed as men.
…Does this “enlightened policy” represent the fullest expression of Woman, as feminists would have us believe?
Not hardly. It represents an abolition of womanhood and the perversion of God’s design. It represents a deeply-rooted rebellion against the natural roles and functions by which God has distinguished manhood from womanhood.
Women are to be cherished as the weaker sex, not exploited to fill the roster of an army. Combat is the province of men, and God calls on men to protect women and children. Men fight when their homes and communities are threatened by wicked regimes and lawless rogues who would despoil their loved ones. When necessary, men carry weapons into battle and give their lives to preserve the liberty and sanctity of those they hold dear.
It is barbarians who place their women in the midst of war’s brutalities to fight as men. This is what pagan tribes in Scotland did before they were Christianized and embraced the “Law of the Innocents,” written by the evangelist Adomnan, which forbade sending women into battle.
Though America possesses advanced weaponry and great military might, we have become a nation of barbarians.
It is high time that we as a people repent of our barbarism — that we cherish our women as women, and call on our men to act as men.
Bizarrely, the piece implicitly acknowledges that feminist women in rebellion against God’s role for them are the ones who have insisted on this change for decades. Yet Vision Forum’s solution to women’s rebellion against God is not to confront the rebellion (something terrifying). The closing call to action is for men to act as men and stop insisting that women fight in their place. The idea that women aren’t insisting to join the military, but that cowardly men are forcing women to do so is absurd. It is laughable to everyone who isn’t a complementarian Christian. But in the complementarian Christian world this fantasy land approach to women’s overt rebellion is a closely held doctrine.
Women in combat should be the easiest part of feminism for conservative Christian leaders to oppose, and that even here conservative Christians are terrified of offending rebellious women is most telling.
While very few women in conservative Christian circles want to dress as men and serve in combat, nearly all of them have married or hope to marry. Not surprisingly, the same ridiculous gymnastics are used to deny the much more proximate mass rebellion against the biblical instruction to wives. If a wife is frigid and defrauds her husband, it is not a sin but a sign that God is angry with the husband (Pastor Dave Wilson, and Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.). If a wife throws a tantrum in order to get her way, it is not rebellion but a form of submission called a Godly tantrum (Pastor Tim Keller, co-founder and vice president of The Gospel Coalition). If a wife is contentious, it is proof that her husband is not communicating enough (Dr. Clarke & FotF president Jim Daly) or loving her enough (Pastor Strauss). If a wife fornicated before marriage, it is her husband’s fault (Dr. Russell Moore).
Pastor Chandler, President of the complementarian Acts 29 Network of churches, takes it a step further and offers a blanket statement on all possible areas a wife might be tempted into feminist rebellion. If a wife ever feels the temptation of feminist rebellion, it means her husband is oppressing her:
Really, men, here is a great way to gauge how you’re serving, loving, and practicing your headship. If the most secularized feminist in the world showed up in your home and began to kind of coach your wife toward freedom and liberation from your tyranny, our wives should be so well cared for, so nourished, so sowed into and loved, they would say, “What you’re describing is actually tyranny. I love where I am. I am honored. I am encouraged. My man sacrifices so that I might grow in my gifts. He will oftentimes lay down his own desires in order to serve me more. My husband goes to bed tired at night. He pours in to our children. He encourages me. All that comes out of his mouth, sans a couple of little times here and there, is him building me up in love.”
Men, here is a good opportunity. If you’re like, “Well, gosh, I don’t think she would say that at all,” then, men, I think on the way home, you should probably repent and confess before the Lord to your wife.
See also: Step up, so they don’t have to (part 2).
*Glenn Stanton, Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity
**HT Darwinian Arminian
Hey Dalrock, this is what Mr. Moore said he was looking for in a wife:
“I needed a partner who was a Mississippi version of (at least the 1990s version of) Hillary Rodham Clinton, I guess I was thinking.”
http://www.russellmoore.com/2009/11/04/what-my-wife-taught-me-about-glory-and-power/
The complementarians can shriek all they want. Men are walking away from marriage because it’s become a raw deal for them. Telling them to “man up” or “step up” and marry a slut and raise another man’s kids is risible. Once the women realize that the Churchian pastors can’t help them reel in a sucker (go ahead, Mark Driscoll, scream “how dare you?”, we’ll see if anyone still cares) they will move on, and most likely become agnostics.
The world wants to enslave us with whatever it can and a man’s greatest challenge is to remain sovereign over his own mind. Men are still wrestling with this after countless times we have stated our desire to be left alone and as far away from the sinful and mischievous as possible.
To maintain one’s integrity requires endurance, solid ethical grounding and a healthy dose of diplomatic skills. To show weakness in order to push past the weak.
Sigh……….where to begin?
“…our nation’s leaders — in the name of “empowering” women — are now self-consciously placing women in combat units to be shot at and killed as men.”
This is what women asked for, nay…….DEMANDED!
“Not hardly. It represents an abolition of womanhood and the perversion of God’s design. It represents a deeply-rooted rebellion against the natural roles and functions by which God has distinguished manhood from womanhood.”
As already entered into the records, (by feminists, LGBQT, and other leftists), there is no discernible difference between MEN and WOMEN. Gender is a social construct.
“Women are to be cherished as the weaker sex, not exploited to fill the roster of an army.”
Please remember this when you are filling out an application to be a ‘checkbox hire’ for any of Fire, Police, Paramedic, or Military service
“Combat is the province of men, and God calls on men to protect women and children.”
……and what exactly does God call upon WOMEN to do? Anything at all?
There is no reasoning with the current crop of women. That ship left port decades ago.
Only societal collapse will even begin to unravel this tangled web of lies women tell themselves.
There is a reason why the serpent spoke into Eve’s ear, and not Adam’s
Pingback: Step up, so they don’t have to (part 1). | @the_arv
I do need to step up….the escalator to the airport departure terminal so I can go to Brazil and away from this mess.
I’m not sure there is anyplace left to run away, unless Mt. Athos is taking applicants for the novitiate,
There’s no real running anymore. Which means we all know what comes next.
Dalrock, I’m still trying to figure out if you aim to have any influence on churchian leaders. This post seems to aim in their direction…are you seeing any evidence of success?
Actually, I’ve read a National Geographic article about Mt Athos. I’m not religious myself, but I do like the constant work, discipline, and camaraderie among the monks. And we must add, since I believe the mount itself is dedicated to the Virgin Mary herself, women are off limits. So I wouldn’t mind doing a season of work up there.
And yes, marriage is becoming a raw deal for men. My own brother is actually going through a particularly bad divorce. It came to the point where he really thought it was his fault until I reminded him that he did give his wife a house, a car, and a dignified life for her and his kids, and he should be proud of that. And if that wasn’t enough for her to go see Chad McJackass, then frankly, that is her fault. What I’ve learned from this and many other examples of men divorcing and those like me who had to break off engagements is, one must assume that it’s always going to be his fault.
Consider for instance, the income situation. Most women will make a fuss if you make good money but have to spend time away from home to do so. So fine, you leave your job for one that pays less so at least you spend more time with family and be happy. Fair enough. But then, there will be no more IPhones, no brand new Dodge Chargers, no fancy dinners once a week, no trips to Starbucks, no Coach purses, no Hoverboards for the kids, no trips to Disneyland, and on and on. And that’s where the problem gets bigger, because these ladies feel entitled to what you make by default, and if you can’t give them what they think they deserve, it will be your fault and will look elsewhere. And it gets worse in an emergency, i.e., a child gets sick and you can’t cover costs, so you will be held accountable. So yes, unfortunately, whatever choice you, or your woman makes for you, it’ll be your fault no matter what. And that’s why men like me are refusing to marry.
Simply amazing that no conservative Christian leaders notice what Dalrock rightly notices. Is there a single example of a well-known Christian leader who calls out feminist rebellion? Seriously, have you ever found one example?
We used to attend a very conservative Lutheran Church. More conservative than LCMS. Time and again they would proudly announce how so –and-so’s daughter just got accepted into the Army, Marines, Naval Academy, whatever. I remember thinking “this should be a source of shame, not pride.” Even if they don’t publically shame them, they shouldn’t openly brag about it in service.
” Is there a single example of a well-known Christian leader who calls out feminist rebellion?”
IIRC, JP2 did. Francis? Not so much.
I can’t remember a time at my Parish when the priest announced that so and so’s daughter was in the military. I do recall hearing that she was taking vows and becoming a sister or a nun (not the same thing). Our parish has a pretty good track record of sending young men to the seminary, so I suppose we aren’t typical.
I love it when women are treated like objects and lack all sense of moral responsibility within Christian theological institutions.
It’s like watching communists discuss economics or libertarians talk about morality. You know they’re wrong, but you’re fascinated by the absurdity of it all.
Slight correction to the above, with a one word removal, his words reflect the reality of what he means to say
@theasdgamer
I’m not aiming to influence churchian leaders. The group I’m trying to influence are in fact the Christian men who want to “step up” (or if you prefer “man up”), the same target audience of the “step up” deception. The problem with Moore, Chandler, etc. is not that they are telling men to man up. It is not, fundamentally, even that they are blaming men for the sins of women. The fundamental problem is the deception they are using to prevent men from actually stepping up.
The deception prevents men from stepping up in two different ways. The men who are most prone to being deceived are channeled away from anything that would threaten the feminist rebellion. They really believe the “man up” programs are serious business, and devote themselves to the charade. Another group of men feels the absurdity of this in their guts. This stuff is profoundly unserious and unmanly, and they can feel it even if they can’t articulate it. Since conservative Christians everywhere swear that this is what Christianity is about, they understandably conclude that Christianity (as Christians present it) is nothing but sillyness, an exercise in false bravado.
To add a bit more regarding the target audience, the audience I’m targeting most specifically is the group of men in between the first and second groups I described above. They want to man up, but are tempted to take the easy way out and merely pretend. But they also at some level sense the absurdity, the unmanliness of it. These are the men I think we can best hope to break through to.
Frank K. :”I can’t remember a time at my Parish when the priest announced that so and so’s daughter was in the military.”
Novus Ordo mass? Tridentine? Just curious.
@Dalrock
The group I’m trying to influence are in fact the Christian men who want to “step up” (or if you prefer “man up”), the same target audience of the “step up” deception.
Would they be new readers of your blog?
These “Tweeners”, what are their characteristics? What is “taking the easy way out”? Does that mean swallowing the Purple Pill? The skin of the Truth wrapping a big fat lie? Trying to run a marriage based on egalitarianism and communication and pedestalization?
Are you advocating marriage? I cannot do that. If someone who was a friend was planning on marrying despite my warnings, I would suggest that he read The Taming of the Shrew and all of Rollo’s posts about Dread and my post about Dread in the Song of Solomon and your posts on Dread. I would suggest that he have a trusted, respected man in his family vet the prospective bride for him to avoid his emotions confusing the analysis…comprehensive background checks.
The last two paragraphs are truly sickening. True betatude; it will encourage her in her rebellion, and she’ll hate you (even more) for it. Women are just not worth the squeeze. MGTOW for life.
asdgamer,
You repeatedly ask: “Why are you writing?”
A more relevant question is: “Why are you reading?”
@Bruce
Simply amazing that no conservative Christian leaders notice what Dalrock rightly notices. Is there a single example of a well-known Christian leader who calls out feminist rebellion? Seriously, have you ever found one example?
You might give a look to a guy named C. R. Wiley; He runs a blog on Patheos centered around building up fathers, and one of his better posts (written around the time the Vice President was getting run up the flagpole for adhering to the so-called “Billy Graham rule”) is here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/gloryseed/2017/04/mike-pence-and-the-crazy-lady-problem/
I don’t know how he’d rank as a “conservative Christian leader;” He runs a relatively small church, and I’d never even heard of him before finding his blog. He’s not always as red-pill as I’d like to see, and most of his posts tend to focus on calling men to action rather than calling women out on their rebellion. But he does acknowledge that the rebellion exists, that it’s a problem Christianity will have to deal with, and given the state of the church today that’s not nothing. I don’t know if he’s aware of Dalrock, but I was surprised to find that he devoted a recent post to Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men, which makes him the first Christian pastor I know of to have read it — and he even had some good things to say about the ideas behind it (though still harboring some reservations). If nothing else, there’s something to be said for a preacher who’s willing to write a blog titled, “How Ordaining Women Harms Ministry to Men,” as well as another containing a passage like this:
For the life of me, I just can’t quite imagine the likes of gutless Russell Moore ever being able to pen something like that.
BTW, My thanks to Dalrock for the hat tip.
Dalrock
The deception prevents men from stepping up in two different ways. The men who are most prone to being deceived are channeled away from anything that would threaten the feminist rebellion. They really believe the “man up” programs are serious business, and devote themselves to the charade.
Promise Keepers, etc. serve the Female Imperative by tapping on righteous male anger and re-directing it to policing other men to not think. Those men would be far better served by seeing women clearly through The Glasses and taking appropriate action – in the context of this blog, that would be “Proverbs women EXCEPT for 31”.
(Yes, ladies, women are mentioned in multiple places in Proverbs, y’all just luv that 31 girl and don’t want to see the others, like “Better a tent on the roof than a fancy house with a contentious woman”. )
Another group of men feels the absurdity of this in their guts. This stuff is profoundly unserious and unmanly, and they can feel it even if they can’t articulate it. Since conservative Christians everywhere swear that this is what Christianity is about, they understandably conclude that Christianity (as Christians present it) is nothing but sillyness, an exercise in false bravado.
Yup. Feminizing the churches hasn’t worked out at all the way it was supposed to. Selling figureheadship is going to be more and more difficult, because the number of church going men under 40 who are likely to buy into that is shrinking. This leads me to observe that a lot of church leaders don’t really take a long view. By catering to women while bashing men, they are eating their seed corn, and guaranteeing future failure for a lot of churches.
Note to ADSgamer: Dalrock’s handing out free Glasses to the ordinary men, the men who do all the grunt work in the churches. Not to the preachers, who are blind. Pushing back against feminism is not a top-down activity, there’s been enough failures on that score in the last 30 years. Really pushing back is a grassroots approach. One household, one couple, one young man at a time.
That’s really how the Warsaw Pact fell, one person at a time realized it was a charade, and when the Berlin Wall came down many people for a brief moment could turn to their neighbor and say “This is cack!” only to get “Yeah. Wait, you too? I thought I was the only one who could see that!” in reply.
Some men can’t be taught. That’s ok. There’s always others who can. And if it means that some churches dwindle down to a handful of granny ladies, lesbians and babymommas, oh, well. Other churches won’t, because there will be a core group of men wearing The Glasses who can see.
Bruce @ 2:42 pm:
“Simply amazing that no conservative Christian leaders notice what Dalrock rightly notices.”
Not when you combine an ivory-tower education with the idea that only a licensed professional can truly understand Christianity… and women threw themselves at you during seminary because you were an easy path to Queen PastorWife. The end result is a clergyman who can’t identify with ordinary folk, has no real-world experience, is prescreened to trust all authority, really does believe that all girls are nice and pretty and only want to get married as quickly as possible… and who will lose his entire life and everything in it the moment he admits your complaints are valid.
Add to that the fact that journalism is so centralized and polarized that you cannot hear the witch hunts unless they want you to.
…
Jeremy VanGelder @ 1:29 pm:
Russell Moore: “I needed a partner who was a Mississippi version of (at least the 1990s version of) Hillary Rodham Clinton, I guess I was thinking.”
That should have been the SBC’s tornado siren of incoming convergence.
Lurkers and new readers:
By the way, when Dalrock first referred to The Glasses years ago he was using the film “They LIve” as an analogy. Here are The Glasses in that movie context. See the parallels?
You know, reading all those versions of “man up” and “she just needs you to be a Real Man™, all I can see is “stop making her hurt you!”
Of course, it can’t be true since only men use the “stop making me hurt you” tactic for abuse, right? Right??
GunnerQ
That should have been the SBC’s tornado siren of incoming convergence.
Some places on the West Coast have tidal wave sirens. That’s the sound you are thinking of.
Novus Ordo
I survived a hell that would make women break down screaming just to even imagine.
I already did my time, I stepped up. if women can’t even meet an average man, let alone me, half way, they can go enjoy their rapist refugees and ever diminishing welfare handouts.
Does birth equal marriage?
Hey, Dalrock. FYI, Facebook is saying they can’t post this because there’s a problem with the URL. Thought that was weird.
Fakebook probably has this blog tagged as “hate speech” or some other rubbish.
Pingback: Step up, so they don’t have to (part 1). | Reaction Times
Who cares what FB thinks? It’s on its’ last legs. Every year I drop off of FB during Lent. Each year when I return, I see that the amount of traffic is down, and I’m reminded that but for a handful of friends around the world, I’d leave it and never return.
p l says, “they can go enjoy their rapist refugees and ever diminishing welfare handouts.”
You might know more than me about it, but as far as I’m aware their welfare handouts are still as big and as comprehensive as ever, if not growing; that’s here in Australia at least. Sure, Big Daddy Gubment (and the supposed “opposition” – controlled opposition, that is) puts on the occasional song-and-dance routine about tightening the purse strings, but it never happens.
And if it means that some churches dwindle down to a handful of granny ladies, lesbians and babymommas…
…that means that they’re no longer/never were churches.
Eventually, as Margaret Thatcher used to say, they will run out of other people’s money to spend,
In fact, this is in large part what’s behind the super low interest rates. Big daddy gubments around the globe can’t squeeze anymore dough out of taxpayers, so they resort to deficit spending. Eventually, the day of reckoning will arrive, though they can still kick the can for an indeterminate amount of time.
What will be especially interesting is when robots an AI’s displace hundred of millions of low skilled workers around the globe. The welfare rolls are only going to swell more, as the displaced will lack the talent and the aptitude to move up the employment food chain. You can’t retrain retail clerks or trash collectors to be engineers or molecular biologists.
“Who cares what FB thinks?”
I cancelled my account years ago. When I tell people I don’t have one, I get the weirdest looks. Like if I had told them that I don’t have cable (which I don’t). Guys ask me “But what about ESPN?”
What about it?
the audience I’m targeting most specifically is the group of men in between the first and second groups I described above.
Or as I like to think of them – Me. Followed the prescribed formula of exalt women, admonish men, sensed the weaknesses in it but couldn’t place it all in a usable context until some men who had already done the analysis published it here at Dalrock’s.
AR notes:
Pushing back against feminism is not a top-down activity, there’s been enough failures on that score in the last 30 years. Really pushing back is a grassroots approach. One household, one couple, one young man at a time.
This is the way forward. It was my grown son that introduced me to the men’s sphere (probably following one of my sarcastic rants about the bible account of men being created to assist the woman in all her endeavors). He talks to his peer group about these issues. The “take rate” is very low, with most of them still being buried deep in a feminine primary social (and church) order, but it is not zero. I went right to a senior elder with some of this material and alarmed him greatly, so have backed off to a one-on-one approach with men I know a little better. The take rate here has also been near zero, but cracks have appeared in the edifice. There is one old timer in particular that “gets it” 100 percent. He’s not going to do anything about it or challenge the system, but he gets a lot of amusement from it all even though he fits the pattern to a T and admits it. Just having him as a verifier is encouraging.
I should point out that airing any of the points brought out in a post like this around church men will tend to make one an object of suspicion.
This is me now:
guerrilla
n.
A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary force operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.
“Promise Keepers, etc. serve the Female Imperative by tapping on righteous male anger and re-directing it to policing other men to not think.”
I wish I had a dollar for every time some churchian tried to shame me into attending a Promise Keepers event,
Promise Keepers was a legitimate movement that died because everyone could see there was a problem, but had no clue how to form a solution. That would have taken listening closer to God and rendered deep change upon the leaders. Couldn’t have that.
Courts grants lesbian “husband rights” in child custody dispute: http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2017/05/10/knox-county-judge-grants-woman-rights-husband-tennessee-first-same-sex-divorce/314540001/
Looking Glass correct me if I’m wrong, but so far as I can tell, Promise Keepers was based on the premise that all marriage failures of any sort were completely, totally, utterly the fault of men, full stop. Therefore ManUP! & etc.
@RPL:
We’re supposed to go “how horrible!”, but since Insane & Evil is the nature of the day, I’m not quite sure how to react.
I think they should pass laws naming the Lesbian “partner” as parent, so they get the full brunt of the CS system. No benefits without the consequences. The system has to be burnt down, so helping it along is a good idea.
everyone could see there was a problem, but had no clue how to form a solution.
Because the solution involved holding people accountable for their part in the failing family, even if they were women.
@Frank
The job market (for men) is extremely tight here. It’s an employer’s paradise. Employers can afford to be picky to the Nth degree, and they are, even for shitkicker’s jobs. Different story for women, of course, but surely something’s got to give, eventually.
Even the jobs most women fill are nothing short of welfare, in reality. They’re either taking the place a man would have filled in the past (likely a father trying to support his family), displacing the man who would have been happy to work that menial job for life, just so he could support his beloved family, or they are in some crappy, useless, make-work job (and there are PLENTY of those).
The unemployment benefit (UB) for single men is kept so low that you can’t survive on it indefinitely. If I don’t get work in the next week or two, I’ll be hitting up the soup kitchens and camping in the long grass, as savings evaporate to nothing, and UB doesn’t even cover the cost of food and basic human needs (and that’s while living in my vehicle). Forget about trying to cover minimal loan repayments of $96 per week on the vehicle, let alone put fuel in it and maintain it. I will have lasted about ten weeks on very meagre savings, and UB, and that’s living very miserly.
Meanwhile, the girls in the unemployment office have nothing to do but sit around drinking coffee and talking shit every time I go in: make-work; unemployment is itself an industry (just not particularly industrious). None of it bodes particularly well, but it’s all fantastic impetus for me to complete my startup business plans, somehow miraculously drum up the capital needed, and get into it. Looking forward to being my own boss, anyway.
@AR:
By “legitimate movement”, I mean there was 10s of thousands of Men attending the events. The event at the Mall in D.C., in 1997, was massive. This was a big, but under the radar, series of events over several years.
However, if you’ve come across my comments on previous “movements of the Spirit”, there’s a fairly specific pattern over the last 150 years. Small group working hard, then a Big event happens. Lots of people moved in the Spirit, many amazing things happen and lives are changed. Then the slow decline into irrelevance.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Promise_Keepers
The “problem”, as always, is they can see the Problem. The issue is they never have any understanding of the solution. No one wants to go out to the Wilderness and fight the devil, either literally or figuratively. No one wants Wisdom, which takes time, effort and the blessing of the Spirit.
Promise Keepers also, in many ways, wasn’t too far off of the problem. They saw there was something really wrong with the Men in church. They did recognize there was a big leadership issue. Sexual desire plays a key role. However, like all blue pilled, they couldn’t get beyond the programming, which means it was all analysis and not Wisdom. The issue is little different than a Works Righteousness theology: one is attempting to make the Divine happen through sheer human effort.
@Snowy:
Best of luck & godspeed.
@Scott:
Yup. When you can’t discuss the problem staring you in the face, your solutions are pretty worthless. Social Stigma would still work on all of the Promise Keeper leaders, thus there is no way for them to ever get beyond it.
Hey Dalrock ..
Here’s how they are gonna finally get more “fathers” child custody .. future statistics will never be the same ..
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2017/05/10/knox-county-judge-grants-woman-rights-husband-tennessee-first-same-sex-divorce/314540001/
I wonder if she will be sent to prison if she refuses to pay child support .. I will not hold my breathe.
Thanks Looking Glass.
I know all will be well in the long run (in fact better), it’s just the interim that gives the mostly sleepless nights. Many thanks, mate.
I never attended a Promise Keepers rally but a lot of guys I knew did. It was a big deal in the 90s. I was a young married guy very involved in evangelical circles and a leader in my church.
Promise keepers held the basic premise that men were not keeping their promises. (Basically marriage vows of fidelity, sacrifice etc.)
This was the conventional wisdom and as we see by dalrocks op still the same.
I couldn’t articulate it then, but they always seemed like giant, stadium sized group therapy sessions which are deeply grotesque to me.
30,000 men raising their hands to the air, sobbing over the guilt of not trying hard enough and resolving to do “better” while never occurring to them that sacraments require both parties to keep promises.
A few years later, I was being frivorced, just like them.
30,000 men raising their hands to the air, sobbing over the guilt of not trying hard enough and resolving to do “better”
Wow. Actual nausea. Thanks for that Scott.
Brutal.
If you’ve got ears to hear, there’s the truth.
What a shivving of churchian leaders.
Thanks for putting this out there Dalrock.
Scott
30,000 men raising their hands to the air, sobbing over the guilt of not trying hard enough and resolving to do “better”
Like the farm horse Boxer in Animal Farm, proclaiming “Napoleon is always right! I must work harder!”.
Looking Glass
By “legitimate movement”, I mean there was 10s of thousands of Men attending the events. The event at the Mall in D.C., in 1997, was massive. This was a big, but under the radar, series of events over several years.
I’m aware of the size of Promise Keepers rallies. I’m just pointing out that the whole premise of PK was “it’s all MEN’S FAULT”. Going a bit further, in my opinion, It’s not legitimate to proclaim that all marriage problems are the fault of men, thereby absolving women of any responsibility whatsoever. Pretty much a version of 1970’s feminism, in fact.
It should be no suprirse the movement collapsed. Because the premise was false, the things they taught to men would not work. Because the things they taught to men did not work, eventuallly men lost interest in the movement. Choreplay is choreplay no matter how it’s dressed up, and it doesn’t work as we all know, either first hand or second hand or third hand.
“My man sacrifices so that I might grow in my gifts. He will oftentimes lay down his own desires in order to serve me more”
It’s telling she says ‘man’. For she’s describing a servant, a slave, not a husband. Classic upending of the creation order.
Manning up here means accepting your servitude. A Godly manning up would involve becoming a leader and crushing the rebellion.
Like Scott, Promise Keepers was something that happened “around” me, so I have no real deep insight into all of the background. All I saw was the post-experience results. And, like most Spiritual Movements, there was something there, however, there can’t be any follow through when it’s just the emotional highs. When you’re not willing to cut to the bone to get at the problem, you’ll never find a solution.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html
Worth a read, in this context.
“Courts grants lesbian “husband rights” in child custody dispute”
Husbands rights? Never heard of them,
“Promise keepers held the basic premise that men were not keeping their promises. (Basically marriage vows of fidelity, sacrifice etc.)”
Which is why I couldn’t be bothered to attend one, I didn’t need some blowhard to tell that I wasn’t doing my job, when I was most certainly was. Not to mention the suffocating Evangelical proselytizing that was par for the course.
“30,000 men raising their hands to the air, sobbing over the guilt of not trying hard enough and resolving to do “better” while never occurring to them that sacraments require both parties to keep promises.”
Well, FWIW, Evangelicals reject the sacramental nature of marriage, so perhaps that explains why they see it as such a lopsided thing.
“A few years later, I was being frivorced, just like them.”
I wonder how many of those nice churchians who kept trying to shame me into joining PK wound up the same way. I guess they just didn’t try hard enough to please their wives! No worries though, I’m sure most of them remarried nice, divorced women with children.
Dalrock, everyone, I don’t think we need to get too hung up about cuckservative pastors going after men and not feminism. The reason why I say that is that NONE of these criticisms, none of the shame they are giving, is personal. They have never named one person, not one man by name. No examples, nothing. Its all just subjective men NOT stepping up. Big deal, they aren’t saying anything. If a Christian man who doesn’t marry BECAUSE of threatpoint and the feminist imperative hears this, he could just shrug his shoulders and say “….well they are not talking about me, I’m not hurting anyone. I’m not living in sin. I’m living a good Christian life.” And well, that will be that. Its all just rhetoric. That is all it is, meaningless rhetoric.
Marriage strike? Lots of single mothers, on welfare and by choice?
Unfortunately, men will only ”man up” when women ”woman up”.
Here’s how. It’s not education (read: crude Stalinist-era brainwashing). It’s not a government program. Its conservative women making the following choices:
-Demand a repeal of no-fault divorce.
-Demand a repeal of abortion on demand.
-Demand oral contraceptives be restricted to married women only (Single? Use condoms!)
-Demand mandatory paternity testing for all newborn infants.
These steps would give husbands far more rights and far more say in the running of their families. Further, since the father-child bond is a social bond (man-made) bond, it is weaker than the biological (mammalian mother-child) bond, thus requiring protection by law.
Try pitching this at conservative or ”red-pilled” women (read: those who pretend to agree with you).
You will get a massive rationaliisation, just like Tomi Laren or any self-declared conservative You Tube chick.
Men will only change when women do.
@spike
Yes that will help but remember, law reflects the culture, it’s not usually a leading indicator. So the change first must begin at home:
1. Churches reject feminism, repent of idolatry and teach the truth about the role and place of the sexes.
2. Father’s raise daughters to be homemakers, not career women, and present virgin daughters at marriage.
3. Father’s make it clear to dear daughter she will be shunned and disowned if she leaves husband and they’ll personally and financially back him in the right for custody.
4. Divorcees, single mothers, and fridged wives are shamed and shunned.
5. Very large families are encouraged and helped.
6. Failing #2, shotgun marriage.
As to law, it will also be necessary to:
1. outlaw single motherhood.
2. Destroy CPS.
3. Either destroy the mortgage industry or form a new homestead act so housing is affordable for large families.
4. End employment discrimination against men and encourage women to leave workforce so a single earner can support a family again.
Gary,
When I see #6, I see “man up and marry my slut daughter, or I’ll shoot you” being directed at a guy. Not a pretty picture.
And what do you do in the case of a daughter who is deflowered by another woman? It does happen you know.
Josh,
Shotgun marriage is to the first guy to deflowers her. This is how it used to be done in the US and the OT mandates this. Yes it is also directed at men, but restoring marriage means restoring virginity. You can’t have free love AND marriage. So too will adultery need to be decriminalized.
As to another woman deflowering her, that’s a rare case. Likely the best course is to marry them both off to a guy up to the challenge of keeping them both in line. That won’t be a popular answer, but it’s not sinful.
I used to think the Promise Keepers, and feminized Christianity in general, was a reaction to accusations that Christians are misogynists.
In 1980, Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority was regarded as a key factor in helping the Republicans win back both the presidency and the Senate. Whereupon the media spread scare stories about how the emerging “Christian fundamentalist voting bloc” was misogynistic and anti-Semitic. The “proof” was Christian conservative opposition to abortion and the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), and on Christian conservatives always referring to America’s “Christian heritage.”
Jews were livid over the latter. As a result, in the 1980s Christian and conservative groups began using the phrase “Judeao-Christian” rather than Christian. Likewise, Christians and conservatives tried increasingly to prove to women, blacks, and eventually gays, that they weren’t “haters.”
That’s how I recall America’s political evolution of the past 40 years. I became politically active in the late 1970s, while in high school — I joined William F. Buckley’s Young Americans for Freedom — so I’ve been paying attention.
Much of Christian and conservative “philosophy” over the past 40 years seems influenced by a fear of being labeled a hater.
@RPL:
Divide & Conquer branding. Make a potential threat seem more important than it was (Reagan stomped Carter, regardless of Falwell & company). Play against the “niceness” of Christians.
Yup, well-refined SJW tactics. And you were a part of mostly controlled opposition organization. (Mostly because the SJW’s convinced their enemies to self-regulate themselves.)
Oh, but, yeah, Christians want to be “liked”. The first mistake, always. If you’re not hated, you’re probably doing your faith a bit wrong.
Definition of disgust (warning: off topic)
Went to lunch today and listened to my female work colleagues talk. The topic: Abortion.
“Oh, it’s okay if it’s the first Trimester…”
“I can’t believe its illegal in the country I came from…”
“Doctors don’t like performing Third Trimester / Partial Birth Abortions. You shouldn’t get one, because not many doctors know how to perform it. There’s too much emotion about it. Plus, the clinic can be shot up by a lunatic. You know, “I’m pro-life, so I kill doctors and nurses…”
None stopped to ask, “What kind of monster kills their own children”?
My workplace has educated professional, conservative women.
Don’t bet that they’re your allies in this fight.
They aren’t and never will be.
Star Trek‘s William Shatner offends feminists: http://takimag.com/article/confronting_the_misandropologists_jim_goad#axzz4gkg5KKEg
World-renowned space-traveler and recording artist William Shatner upset wide swaths of the progressive sci-fi nerd community last week when he dared to allege that women sometimes hate men.
In New Zealand: 49% of all children are born to single mothers (this stat is a couple of years old, it’s probably worse now).
In America: 93.4% of all marriages will end in divorce within 10 years (this stat from the CDC: National Survey of Family Growth as of September 1, 2016).
I find nothing hopeful in either of these statistics.
@Gary,
Well at least you admit #6 is directed at a man.
Now see, here I thought you had agreed that given all of the neglect that had been given to reigning in women, the new (or resumed) rules should be directed at women.
Either way, those rules aren’t likely to be instituted short of a societal collapse that hits enough countries that the UN/EU doesn’t try to install a puppet government, or an invasion by Muslims (but I repeat myself).
@gary,
Also, rather telling that your answer to lesbian deflouring is to that some man out there needs to man up and marry those sluts.
@Gary Eden
Also education should only be for teaching the word of God and the evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus and for all that it is necessary for being a homemaker for girls. Except if interest and talent can be had in a technical field in they so choose. A vaccination approach is best in regards to worldly culture a controlled guided exposure along with helping them to deal with the impending cultural assault and equipping them to deal with the challenges to faith enabling them to think for themselves. Its best done with homeschooling.
Education and schooling after all is how many girls get infected with egalitarianisms like feminism and various other progressivisms in the 1st place.
That’s why sending girls to school raises my hackles.
It should be no suprirse the movement collapsed. Because the premise was false, the things they taught to men would not work. Because the things they taught to men did not work, eventuallly men lost interest in the movement. Choreplay is choreplay no matter how it’s dressed up, and it doesn’t work as we all know, either first hand or second hand or third hand.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes–this is precisely why it didn’t work. They all came home, got on their knees in front of their wives, (some of them even crying) prayed with them, promised to take the kids to more ball games, do more chores, and their wives lost all respect for them.
They thought they had found the key–the holy grail of getting their wives to respect them (which is what men actually want). Work harder! (Like Boxer) and it failed.
Continuing. This is why you see so much writing and commenting in the manosphere about women’s solipsism. I would probably argue just a little that this is the exact right word, but it speaks to one of the great myths of the current age. That is–supposedly women are so much more emotionally sophisticated than men.
But the evidence shows something much more different. It was men (in huge numbers) who assessed their own marriages and concluded that whatever was wrong with them was their own fault. Therefore, I will band together with other men, openly discuss where I have failed and my brothers will keep me accountable.
This is the highest level of introspection one can achieve, really. It is the macro version of Christs commandment to first look to remove the mote from your own eye. Men internalize this message and make changes. (Listening to their pastors and wives telling them the supposed secrets to success involve being “exhausted” at the end of the day.)
Where was the commensurate women’s movement of the day?
But the evidence shows something much more different. It was men (in huge numbers) who assessed their own marriages and concluded that whatever was wrong with them was their own fault.
Which was a core part of the problem, actually. Marital problems are pretty much almost never the fault of one spouse only. By adopting this frame, the men played into the idea that most women seem to have that all pf the problems in their marriages are due to their husbands faults, and it all flows downhill from there. If anything, this frame simply affirms what women were already thinking, which is why it actually does nothing at all to save the marriages in question — it simply affirms that women were right in blaming their husbands and therefore right to leave them.
They all came home, got on their knees in front of their wives, (some of them even crying)
You’re killing me man.
Looking Glass says, “If you’re not hated, you’re probably doing your faith a bit wrong.” True. But the Jews are not exactly loved, either. Funny that! Doesn’t the Bible say that the real Jews are going to come around to Christ in the end?
Lost Patrol says:
May 10, 2017 at 5:55 pm
“He talks to his peer group about these issues. The “take rate” is very low, with most of them still being buried deep in a feminine primary social (and church) order, but it is not zero.”
I have a tiny data set, but when I talk to young, *single* men about this, they are all ears, especially if you lead with game and how you can use it to get sex with attractive women. Since I’m Christian I immediately follow up with “it’s a toolkit, use it for good or evil”, implying the Christian view of fornication. Gentlemen, this is exactly why the Red Pill is going to go viral. In our deepest souls and every molecule of our DNA, we want to be masculine and dominant in our homes and in our world. That’s how God (my belief) and evolution made us to be, that is what we want to be, that is what we will be.
@Lost Patrol: what percentage of the Red-Pill-exposed men were married? As Rollo and many others in the manosphere have pointed out, married blue pill men are so invested in the Blue Pill status quo that it’s much harder for them to take the Red Pill. Even so, today most are in miserable, unhappy marriages where the wife is in open or passive rebellion, and if you can help them understand the Red Pill is the key to either a happier marriage or a happier life post-marriage, progress should be possible.
Wow! I’m so glad I never bothered going to church or joining one on a regular basis. So men are second class citizens in most houses of worship all across the country? Why am I not surprised?
@infowarrior agreed
@josh you’re misconstruing this as man up and mary sluts.. What I’m recommending is exactly what OT commands. I an not talking about matting a loose woman off the charassel but rather the woman you deflowered when it happens. And for good reason, she will pair bond to him. If she doesn’t marry the one who got her virginity it will send her to the carousel.
Both sexes have to be responsible for their actions. You don’t get to have your free love cake and a stable marriage institution. It’s one or the other, choose.
The matter of lesbians is a special case I’m not at all sure and isn’t the problem generally.
This fear, changing their actions and theology for fear of being called sexist, is exactly what is going on. It’s also very telling…
This is because they fear and love the approval of the world more than God. And that is damning, literally. Every pastor preaching with a fear of women is in that boat.
Now you should see why the whole thing is so rotten.
@Gary Eden
Suggested implementation detail for wealthy fathers wrt #3 (i.e., disown daughters that frivorce husbands): make it clear to her that she will inherit nothing when you die, all of your estate will go to the children and their father. If the wealthy father’s wife objects, take more Red Pills and fix that problem.
Step up, men. That weekend getaway for your marriage she wants to go to isn’t that bad. It won’t be at all disrespectful to men, in any way. Why, check out the video!
@: “The answer is to pretend that feminists aren’t really in the final mopping up stages in the culture war, and assert instead that what we are experiencing is a sudden and mysterious change in men.”
___________
Amusing that people are so puzzled why men in a hypergamous feminist society aren’t behaving as though they are living in a monogamous patriarchal one.
Where was the commensurate women’s movement of the day?
Imagine an alternate universe where 30k women raised their hands to the heavens, begged forgiveness from their husbands for their rebellion, and rededicated themselves to being better wives.
Yeah, I’m laughing, too.
Instead, their “movement” consists of jezebels like Beth Moore.
There is always this terrible temptation when things do not work as planned for men to blame themselves, perhaps because men are achievers: men do; women are. How often have I heard someone say to me something to the effect that if I had only made clear or sufficiently clear to some female my intentions and that had I done so then she would have instantly grasped that she could and should fly to my arms and the fact that that has not happened is proof that I as a lover had failed and miserably so. A small bit of common sense and a grasp of female indeed human behaviour should have told them that not only can that not be the case but that such actions would almost certainly have the very opposite effect to that intended. Some men propagate such nonsense to persuade themselves that the reason they remain married and achieved wedlock in the first place is because of their superior skills or dominance as if women are devoid of both desire and will – or cunning. Or perhaps I had never been sufficiently interested in the first place in which case of course I am a cad and a bounder using and abusing women whom I have tricked into my bed. I naturally will deny such Rapey behaviour but no one will believe me, my accuser equally jealous and critical.
@ Scott says:
May 11, 2017 at 5:47 am
“But the evidence shows something much more different. It was men (in huge numbers) who assessed their own marriages and concluded that whatever was wrong with them was their own fault. Therefore, I will band together with other men, openly discuss where I have failed and my brothers will keep me accountable.
This is the highest level of introspection one can achieve, really. It is the macro version of Christs commandment to first look to remove the mote from your own eye. Men internalize this message and make changes.”
So, what you’re saying is that the husbands led, and their wives didn’t follow.
Even if every pastor in the country preached the truth, every wife in the pews would still retain the power to force their husbands into the feminist alternative to marriage (child support and alimony).
A now divorced couple who my wife and I had been friends with our entire marriage, in fact, they were a bridesmaid and a groomsman for us 13 years ago, were devoutly religious their entire marriage. Last year, she frivorced an excellent father and disrupted their four children. Now he is paying to support her and her live in boyfriend who was shagging her behind his back.
I think of their two sons, both teenagers, and their view. Are they going to want to “man up” and be husbands/fathers and now ex-husbands/billfolds, or will they prefer to be the guy shagging the girl? I also think of their two daughters, both in grade school, and how they will see boyfriends as relationships and husbands and resource streams.
This is going to take a change in laws to correct, and I don’t see that happening. Meanwhile, it will always “take two” (to quote a feminist talking point when they seek resources) to maintain biblical marriage, but it only takes one to make the alternative.
So, what you’re saying is that the husbands led, and their wives didn’t follow.
Sort of but this thread gave me an idea for a post exploring the topic.
It is reasonable to conclude that (about leading and following) but there is more going on (or there should be for Christians).
@: “So, what you’re saying is that the husbands led, and their wives didn’t follow.”
_________
Therein lies the problem with “man up” and “step up.” Following has to be voluntary on the part of the wife, but the wife can at any time call upon the state to step in and make following mandatory on the part of the husband.
“or will they prefer to be the guy shagging the girl?”
Who knows but it’s pretty likely they will hate the actual man shagging their mother, particularly if they had a decent father. I have heard candid testimony from several different boys in this situation. In all cases, they absolutely hated the “new dad” who is f-ing (literally) their mother and regularly fantasized about doing violent harm to him.
For that matter, a husband’s natural instinct would be to want to crush the new dad’s head with a sledge hammer right in front of the wife. I’m not saying this is the Christian reaction but it’s the normal reaction.
I guess Christian men are not as violent as they used to be.
@Bruce: “Who knows but it’s pretty likely they will hate the actual man shagging their mother, particularly if they had a decent father.”
_____________
They certainly hate the boyfriend, resent the mother, and revere the father. However, revering someone and wanting to be them are two different matters. Likewise, hating someone is not the same as not wanting what they have.
In essence, the mother has taught them that if they want respect, the should be unrespectable.
“In America: 93.4% of all marriages will end in divorce within 10 years (this stat from the CDC: National Survey of Family Growth as of September 1, 2016).”
I went to their website. While their divorce stats were dire, I didn’t see anything that said 93.4% of all marriages end in divorce after 10 years.
What I did see was:
32% of first marriages end in divorce after 10 years
48% of first marriages end in divorce after 20 years
46% of second marriages end in divorce after 10 years
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/d.htm
OT………….
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/11/most-men-just-want-woman-whos-nice.html
Who knew!??
I actually read more of Venker’s articles. Decent stuff coming from Fox.
“Shotgun marriage is to the first guy to deflowers her.”
And how will you know who that is? Her word?
Face it, in the past women were VERY good at hiding the fact that they were riding the carousel and you often didn’t find out until she was married and her groom angrily told you she wasn’t a virgin. They were also VERY good at cheating on their husbands, even cucking them. By some estimates, 30% of children were not hubby’s children, and this was during the good old days,
@Oscar
The wives led, and the husbands tried to win them over without a word.
“Instead, their “movement” consists of jezebels like Beth Moore.”
I had a chat with a female relative about ol’ Beth. Didn’t go well. She insisted that Beth was Spirit filled, blah, blah, blah, BTW, this female relative divorced young and didn’t stick the landing in the quest for a replacement, as she found the few interested takers to be unsuitable (short, bald, fat, etc.). She now has cats,
“A now divorced couple who my wife and I had been friends with our entire marriage, in fact, they were a bridesmaid and a groomsman for us 13 years ago, were devoutly religious their entire marriage. Last year, she frivorced an excellent father and disrupted their four children. Now he is paying to support her and her live in boyfriend who was shagging her behind his back.”
I’ve seen this up close and personal too many times. I once explained to my late mother that this is why so many non-custodial fathers kidnap their children (she thought there was a real kidnapping epidemic)
Since I’ve already bought the Penny Dreadful series on DVD, I’ve continued watching.
It not only has gay lovers, it has feminist themes.
The Frankenstein Monster is about to unleash his rage on the Bride Monster, because she doesn’t love him. But she’s stronger. She throws him to the floor. While the Monster stares up in disbelief, the Bride gives a long feminist speech about marriage as slavery, and the sufferings of women (wearing corsets and high heels for men, etc.), and that she will no longer kneel before any man, or take orders from men.
A feminist “twist” on the Frankenstein legend.
[“So, what you’re saying is that the husbands led, and their wives didn’t follow.”]
“The wives led, and the husbands tried to win them over without a word.”
Words won’t change the fact that women are married to the Government… a husband’s words won’t change 60 years of federal divorce laws, making men guilty until proven innocent and running no fault divorce scams as standard legal practice: VAWA, false Domestic Violence – child abuse – and/or sexual assault charges = incarceration, restraining orders, criminal record, child protective services, loss of custody, child support, property forfiet, reputation ruined, [just to name a few]…
Refusing to marry [or participate at all] is only logical action a man can take in response these systems of misandry.
Test
These cuckservatives and pastorbators are so pathetic – they think women are joining the military because men are not stepping up. In reality, whenever men are not stepping up, women switch sides, as has been seen throughout history.
This brings us to the projection exhibited by these cucks. Remember that any vastly off-base accusation is usually projection by the accuser. When one is deeply ashamed of themselves, this eventually is transmitted in the form of projection, in the hopes of them convincing themselves that others are doing what they are doing,
adsgamer said :
Are you advocating marriage? I cannot do that.
Interesting. It is commendable that adsgamer has become this red pill, when at first he came here shaming men for not being good enough for his over-30 daughters, while also demanding that men marry them.
This is a very complete red-pill transformation.
Red Pill Latecomer @ 2:22 am:
“World-renowned space-traveler and recording artist William Shatner upset wide swaths of the progressive sci-fi nerd community last week when he dared to allege that women sometimes hate men.”
Hey, you just solved the Kirk vs. Picard dilemma! Figures it’d end up being a sexual fault line.
…
Snowy @ 7:04 am:
“Looking Glass says, “If you’re not hated, you’re probably doing your faith a bit wrong.” True. But the Jews are not exactly loved, either. Funny that! Doesn’t the Bible say that the real Jews are going to come around to Christ in the end?”
Only the male virgins per Revelation 14:4.
“Refusing to marry [or participate at all] is only logical action a man can take in response these systems of misandry.”
+1. At some point, there is no good reason to play the game anymore. Not even thundering pastors and their shaming language are slowing down the exodus from marriage. 70% of men under the age of 35 are single, and I suspect that percentage will grow.
“Hey, you just solved the Kirk vs. Picard dilemma! Figures it’d end up being a sexual fault line.”
Kirk, Picard and Archer were bachelors, at least they were while sitting in the Captain’s chair. Janeway had a beau on Earth who moved on after she became Lost in Space. And Sisko married twice, both times to bitchy women (Cassidy was even a criminal and served time)
But getting back to the original statement, Patrick Stewart is about as leftist as they come. I would fully expect him to agree with feminists that masculinity is toxic.
@Anon: Interesting. It is commendable that adsgamer has become this red pill, when at first he came here shaming men for not being good enough for his over-30 daughters, while also demanding that men marry them.
This is a very complete red-pill transformation.
_________
Not really. He’s still man shaming to an absurd degree. Recently, I used my best man’s wife as an example of a rebellious woman. He swooped in calling my best man a loser, saying I must be a blue pill beta if I have a friend like that, basically saying the wife’s frigid vagina was a measure of his value…. that’s about as blue pill and feminist of a doctrine as one can get.
I signed off, and the day, probably 16 hours later, asd is posting insults about me by name out in his posts.
Unlike asd, I know I can’t fully judge someone by a could posts on a website. But he appears to be a card carrying gamma indulging in alpha fantasies at the safety of his keyboard.
There were Christian womens’ movements that stressed submission and caring for their husbands, but those were in the ’70s. Marabel Morgan’s “The Total Woman” was released in 1973. Here’s Wikipedia’s summary:
‘The Total Woman sold more than ten million copies and was the bestselling nonfiction book of 1974. Grounded in evangelical Christianity, it taught that “A Total Woman caters to her man’s special quirks, whether it be in salads, sex or sports,” and is perhaps best remembered for instructing wives to greet their man at the front door wearing sexy outfits; suggestions included “a cowgirl or a showgirl.” “It’s only when a woman surrenders her life to her husband, reveres and worships him and is willing to serve him, that she becomes really beautiful to him,” Morgan wrote.’
“Nom…nom…nom” says the matriarchal maw…
“The Total Woman sold more than ten million copies”
I wonder how many young women bought one of those copies? My mother used to read stuff like that when she was in her 50’s.
Marabel Morgan’s “The Total Woman” was released in 1973.
The 1970s TV show, Fernwood 2Night, satirized the “Total Woman” with a character who’d started a group called the “Fascinating Females.” I found a clip on YouTube:
I was a big Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman (and spinoffs) fan in the 1970s.
A femtwat professor at CalPoly says squirrels are affected by anti-feminist media bias :
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/10/professor-argues-squirrels-are-subjected-to-racially-charged-media-bias/
@asdgamer,
“Dalrock, I’m still trying to figure out if you aim to have any influence on churchian leaders.”
Aaron Renn is working on this.
http://www.urbanophile.com/masculinist/
“They certainly hate the boyfriend, resent the mother, and revere the father. However, revering someone and wanting to be them are two different matters. ”
And wanting to be someone and knowing how to be someone are different. We become what we see modeled in our childhood. Those two one are growing up seeing boyfriends getting the girl, not a husband.
Frank K
“Face it, in the past women were VERY good at hiding the fact that they were riding the carousel and you often didn’t find out until she was married and her groom angrily told you she wasn’t a virgin.”
You’re imaging what things would be like from the husband’s or the father’s perspective? In either case, isn’t her deception sufficient grounds for a declaration of nullity? If sacramental marriage requires full consent of the will, then being defrauded means no consent = no marriage. If you’re the husband, you’d say “no thanks” to her. If you’re the father, you’d advise her to become a penitent nun. In either case, the law would back you in this hypothetical world we’re talking about.
“By some estimates, 30% of children were not hubby’s children, and this was during the good old days,”
I do not have a source handy but have recently read that genetic studies show that the number is less than 5% (I think it was more like 2% but can’t be sure). If this data is for recent populations then it must have been at least a little lower in the good old days.
@The Real Peterman says:
Those two one are growing up seeing boyfriends getting the girl, not a husband.
____________
Yup. The man they like or even respect more does not equate to the one they’d enjoy being more.
I have great respect for what John McCain did at the Hanoi Hilton and great disdain for what Hugh Hefner does at the Playboy Mansion. However, if I had to trade places with one of them for the weekend….
“I do not have a source handy but have recently read that genetic studies show that the number is less than 5% (I think it was more like 2% but can’t be sure). If this data is for recent populations then it must have been at least a little lower in the good old days.”
If i recall correctly, it was based off of blood bank information. This is pre DNA check days, of course. I also recall reading that when that number surfaced, it was quickly buried by the media at the time. FWIW, I wouldn’t trust the MSM today to report an accurate number.
That said, with the rise of baby mommas and single moms, cucking might be a lot less common today, as the women most likely to cuck skipped marriage and went straight to Chad’s bed, because that’s who she wants to sire her children, not some near sighted beta. Being that we are talking 40-50% born out of wedlock these days. 20-30% cucked a few generations ago doesn’t seem all that far fetched.
Anecdote: Where I work, on my team, there are two guys, both in their 60’s, who confided to me that they were cucked. I think this is a lot more common than most people are willing to believe, and for good reason, as spreading the truth would have been very disruptive to society. Of course now we are in an even more disastrous situation (single motherhood), which not only can’t be covered up, but is one that woman are championing and are proud of. When woman go on “Slut marches” you know that the gig will soon be up.
@The Real Peterman says:
Those two one are growing up seeing boyfriends getting the girl, not a husband.
AKA: Alpha Lays, Beta Pays.
The youngsters are becoming VERY aware of this painful fact.
@Dalrock
The wives led, and the husbands tried to win them over without a word.
This is a succinct and painfully accurate description of pretty much all the advice husbands will get from pastors on the subject how to deal with both their wives and their sins.
And in case you needed a visual aid . . . here’s a new bit from Heath Lambert, a preacher best known for a series of anti-porn books, written for a website called “Gospel Taboo.” Apparently his wife Lauren had recently written a piece encouraging wives to be more sexually available to their husbands. Sex is an important part of marriage, so this seems like a good idea, right? Pastor Heath doesn’t seem to think so, and he showed up to put a stop to such nonsense with an article titled, “Do Husbands Need More Sex?” Like a lot of pastors, advocating for husbands and giving them helpful advice makes him very uncomfortable:
Being a beta, Pastor Heath thinks a blue pill approach would help. Choreplay, being a good listener, and a bunch of other actions that your wife used to love receiving from men she would never have considered having sex with would be his prescription . . .
. . . But in the off-chance that you thought any of these approaches might possibly work, you’re out of luck. Why? Because this pastor is not going to be telling you how to go about doing any of them. He wants men to realize that if they want more sex from their wives . . . just goes to show that they don’t even want the right things.
You see, what men really need to be thinking about in their marriages is service, holiness and duty towards their spouse. Sex is just a nice byproduct of marriage that a wife might choose to give her husband. Or not. And so, until Pastor thinks that enough men are serving their wives in a way he deems Biblically proper, he is going to take a bold stand . . . by refusing to give them any advice concerning sex. At all.
And that’s it. Finis, Curtain call, end of sermon.
Just a question here (and I really do ask this in all seriousness): Is it all possible that most evangelical pastors in the modern church-industrial complex might secretly be demon-worshippers who wanted to obliterate both Christian truth and Christian marriage, and thus entered the church in an act of subterfuge to then teach a false message that they knew was guaranteed to disgust men? Because when I see something like this, along with any of the samples Dalrock listed in his article, I’m certainly tempted to believe it. Their “message” isn’t consistent with anything in the Bible, it’s not even consistent with a reality. It’s basically just a crap sandwich that they just want the men to swallow without thought — and if they question the wisdom of that, well then, that’s just a sign that they’re probably not even saved.
Speaking of crap sandwiches, the link to Heath Lambert’s word excrement is here: http://gospeltaboo.com/do-husbands-need-more-sex
To ensure women do not get oppressed by them, perhaps men should no longer marry at all?
”Apparently his wife Lauren had recently written a piece encouraging wives to be more sexually available to their husbands. Sex is an important part of marriage, so this seems like a good idea, right? Pastor Heath doesn’t seem to think so, and he showed up to put a stop to such nonsense”
He was probably afraid of a substantial decrease in donations and the collection plate, most likely after a few “important” women in his flock read him the riot act.
@ Dalrock says:
May 11, 2017 at 10:06 am
“The wives led, and the husbands tried to win them over without a word.”
Good point. Although, the husbands did lead by taking the first step in repentance. I doubt, however, that they ever got around to addressing their wives’ rebellion, and I KNOW that the church never supported them in addressing their wives’ rebellion.
@dalrock
I found the manosphere via your blog and was upset and angry at women for about a year. Then I realized that I needed to do some self-improvement and my life started improving a lot.
When I go out, I find that most women are skanks…STDs. Of course, the bar scene will attract the skankiest women, but even women who don’t go to bars regularly probably have had a couple of STDs and ten to fifteen partners. It takes 30 partners nowadays for a woman to consider herself to be a slut. How can I encourage men to marry skanks? How can you encourage men to marry skanks?
…forget about the pre-cucking and alpha-widows and the frivorce risk…even if a man does self-improvement and develops a strong frame and learns Game…marriage brings STDs…broken plumbing…medical expenses…fertility expenses
I married back when the Old Set of Books ™ was the law. Mrs. Gamer still lives by them, for the most part. She still tests whether I will make her abide by them, of course. It’s amusing. How many girls will abide by the Old Set of Books ™? And how many young men even believe in them any more? Even among your readers?
*skank…woman who has had 2+ STDs
oops…italics shouldn’t have been on at the beginning
It’s odd that these cuchservatives haven’t noticed what women have been fighting for the last 40 years;
Contraception
Abortion
No fault divorce
Parental primacy
Onerous post divorce support payments
Socialised welfare
Employment privelages
Slut walks
To sum it up, the freedom and institutionalisation of the primacy of the right for the expression of female sexy time. Nothing else. Female sexy rights.
Sexual harassment, discrimination and rape culture is nothing but sand in the eyes and plausible deniability.
The ancients were aware of the fluid nature of female sexual attraction and held them accountable to it. The moderns are either gullible, criminally stupid or in on the act.
It’s interesting that for females sexy rights trump all other considerations, just goes to show their true natures.
So ignore all effluent from the deballed, cowardly backshooters in our own ranks (very loosely defined as ‘men’)? I would have thought this was self-evident, but I guess it bears repeating.
To ensure women do not get oppressed by them, perhaps men should no longer marry at all?
This is a good thought. Very considerate of all women everywhere. Unfortunately, it is not possible to avoid oppressing women. To marry them is to oppress them, and to refuse to marry them is to oppress them in a different way.
“I am concerned that the vast majority of husbands need to think about sex less.”
The male sex-drive-kill pill, available in the church bookstore. Churchian married women will buy up all available supply.
@Trust: “This is going to take a change in laws to correct…”
Absolutely. The frivorce mill happens to Christian marriages too. It’s where I see the one-man-at-a-time, bottom-to-the-top notion of change falling down. Even with his “Christian game”, the married Christian man can get taken out at any moment. The nuclear option is always there for wifey, and the laws have it that she will always come out on top.
I still often see in the manosphere the notion than men are/were responsible for the situation we have today; and men are the only ones who can fix it. Funny how everything is always men’s fault. Sure, we could fix it in a heartbeat, but only with the lawful authority behind us to match our responsibility. Without that lawful authority, we really can take no meaningful action to change things, without getting into legal hot water.
So my personal conclusion regarding the call to action is that the best action in this situation is to remove yourself from the game altogether: MGTOW. It seems to be the only logical option. Like you say, I can’t see laws changing in favour of patriarchy anytime soon. And I can’t see how I can have any impact on laws enacted by TPTB, except perhaps by not playing the game.
Darwinian Arminian @ 12:53 pm:
“Just a question here (and I really do ask this in all seriousness): Is it all possible that most evangelical pastors in the modern church-industrial complex might secretly be demon-worshippers who wanted to obliterate both Christian truth and Christian marriage, and thus entered the church in an act of subterfuge to then teach a false message that they knew was guaranteed to disgust men?”
You mean Communists. Yes, the Cold War Soviets made a point of infiltrating and subverting the Western Church and now that we’ve proven their Godless Utopia to be a lie they don’t have much to live for but our destruction. But the tactic is nothing new. Appeasing women has always been the soft underbelly of the male psyche. The Devil built his entire kingdom by exploiting it, starting with Adam.
You might find Nahum 3 surprisingly relevant to modern America.
“Charging cavalry, flashing swords and glittering spears! Many casualties, piles of dead, bodies without number, people stumbling over the corpses—all because of the wanton lust of a prostitute, alluring, the mistress of sorceries, who enslaved nations by her prostitution and peoples by her witchcraft.” v.3-4
“Look at your troops—they are all women. The gates of your land are wide open to your enemies; fire has consumed the bars of your gates.” v. 13
“You have increased the number of your merchants till they are more numerous than the stars in the sky, but like locusts they strip the land and then fly away. Your guards are like locusts, your officials like swarms of locusts that settle in the walls on a cold day—but when the sun appears they fly away, and no one knows where.” v. 15-16
@ theasdgamer says:
May 11, 2017 at 3:16 pm
“The male sex-drive-kill pill, available in the church bookstore.”
They’re sold by the dozen at Krispy Kreme.
We may not have the full force of the state on our sides but we do have God and biology. There are many tools at our disposal to bring and keep women in line. And we need to get a whole lot more aggressive and less ‘nice’ about it too if we want to win.
As to daughters, resurrect the practices of the old days, she is never out of your presence without a trustworthy chaperon. Its not perfect, Deuteronomy 22:21 would help a lot, but social pressure is very powerful and should be brought to bear via church and family.
Regarding the article about the judge declaring one of the married lesbians to be the “husband” of the relationship:
I was wondering how the courts would decide which spouse to criminalize in the divorce in the case of same-sex marriages. In this case the judge ruled that the egg donor and biological mother was the “mother” and the non-donor was the “husband.” That makes (relative) sense but what do they do if there are no children?
Guys like Moore and Mohler with their comparatively almost perfect marriages are frustrating because they’ve likely never struggled in their marriages like a lot of avarage Joes have.
When is it time to leave the marriage? Only when she cheats? What if she’s an increasingly militant feminist over the course of 20 years and she just makes you miserable? Do you leave then? There are four kids involved. . . .
@ Tom C
(“Regarding the article about the judge declaring one of the married lesbians to be the “husband” of the relationship:
I was wondering how the courts would decide which spouse to criminalize in the divorce in the case of same-sex marriages. In this case the judge ruled that the egg donor and biological mother was the “mother” and the non-donor was the “husband.” That makes (relative) sense but what do they do if there are no children?”)
..
..
There are a lot of questions this case will cause. Not just the one you asked.
My complaint is one of Tyranny .. ie the unequal application of law .. It’s already bad in the family courts and it’s about to get even worse.
Pingback: Ideals are never fully attainable | American Dad
(Yes, ladies, women are mentioned in multiple places in Proverbs, y’all just luv that 31 girl and don’t want to see the others, like “Better a tent on the roof than a fancy house with a contentious woman”. )
Nine months after my (rather) heated argument with my pastor (-in training) about the Proverbs verses where the less-than-ideal mentions about women were found, my wife and I were asked to explore attending other small groups in our Church. My wife, not knowing a thing about my argument with pastor, thought we were unceremoniously dumped from the small group this pastor is leading. This pastor was okay with women becoming pastors and threw out examples of female leaders in the Bible (OT and NT).
Just last Sunday, the senior pastor’s sermon was about Deborah in Judges, embellishing the egos of women indirectly under the premise of calling all to serve and evangelise.
Needless to say, I’ve stopped giving to this Church (my wife still does though).
@Thudkaster76 says:
Guys like Moore and Mohler with their comparatively almost perfect marriages are frustrating because they’ve likely never struggled in their marriages like a lot of avarage Joes have.
________________
I’ve often said that some of the worst marriage advice comes from men with good wives. They attribute their good marriages to their own respectability, rather than their wives respectfulness. They think that if only the man would be a RealMan(TM) like them, that their wives would then magically be the perfect wives.
So what is a man to do in my situation? I feel like we’re ruining our kids. I just read Rational Male and I’m trying to get unplugged from the Matrix the best I can, but I don’t want to hurt my kids or dishonor my vows. We’ve been seen separate counselors for two years, but she refuses to go with to Biblical marriage counseling. I’m sick of living this way and I just want to run away. We haven’t slept together in months, and I’m really tempted to have an affair.
Is it unbiblical to move out? She threatened to divorce me if I did. She’s a children’s pastor at a mainstream evangelical church which complicates things.
It was one possiblity. That’s why I was letting him know so he could address it.
Pingback: Step up, so they don’t have to (part 2). | Dalrock
gary Eden says, “We may not have the full force of the state on our sides but we do have God and biology. There are many tools at our disposal to bring and keep women in line. And we need to get a whole lot more aggressive and less ‘nice’ about it too if we want to win.”
I don’t see where men have the State on their side in any matter of marriage and family, or in any matter of relationships between men and women. If they do, in any matter, I’d like to see it pointed out. Of course there are those in the manosphere who claim that this fact doesn’t matter, because they are impervious to misandric laws due to their “Game”, whether “Christian” or otherwise. And of course, they are the only men in the room, and some come across as if they are the only men in the world. I take it that so-called “Game” is the “many tools at our disposal to bring and keep women in line.” Because there are certainly no state-sponsored legal tools that I know of. In fact, the reverse is true. Women have all the state-sponsored legal tools to bring into and keep men in line. Though I wish it upon no man, I’m sure these impervious men would change their tune when the rubber hits the road. However, I would like to see them acknowledge their vulnerability, at least occasionally.
And I really don’t know what you mean when you say “but we do have God and biology.”
Forget the religious angle here.
Women are primed to select the smartest, strongest man with the most moxie.
This is what makes humans so successful. If women keep picking wimps as sires, it’s not good in the long term.
Feminism ferrets out the wimps, it’s always been a feature of humanity (see Tacitus’ Germania for example, the women would slay their own men who are fleeing the battle field), and in small societies it works really well to remove the feeble males from the gene pool by social selection. (and also avoids wimpy females in the mix, who bring their own problems if allowed to thrive unchallenged.)
In large, modern societies that are strongly interconnected and conform to widely held social norms, this otherwise healthy mechanism turns out to be poisonous and anyone who deviates is in big trouble for the long term.
I don’t think it can be fixed, I think the way we were is obsolete, and with the new inventions coming up (AI, robots, artificial wombs, better DNA testing and design) the old natural method of perpetuating the human race physically and socially simple no longer are necessary or possible.
I cannot see any way forward that is sustainable and self-perpetuating for the future or that would have a mass appeal which preserves the (far more pleasant) way we used to be an. (Sorry, it is depressing…)
Pingback: Raising an army of LARPers. | Dalrock
I attended a Promise Keepers weekend in the mid 90s with a dozen men from the church I was in at the time. Two full days at some college stadium in Colorado.
I remember the exhortations and training falling into three categories: uncompromising integrity in your dealings with all people, leadership in your home (family devotions, controlling the money, etc.) as man of the house, and making a priority of forging friendships with other Christians across racial divides.
How insightful or effective it all was is another discussion, but it’s not accurate to cast the Promise Keepers movement–as it started out at least–as some sort of churchian mental castration party. The leadership of my church who urged us to go were mostly old-guard men who seemed pretty discouraged by the poor sociology ensuing from modernizing evangelical church culture.
Pingback: Their husbands forced them to do it. | Dalrock
Pingback: Do Christian pastors think that premarital sex is morally wrong? | WINTERY KNIGHT
Pingback: A radical Father’s Day proposal. | Dalrock
Pingback: Man up and honor your father. | Dalrock
The ‘men need to step up’ argument is appealing because it contains a sliver of truth, in that men won’t fight for a feminist country. Spandrell has two posts, ‘Feminist Nationalism doesn’t work’ and ‘What’s killing the West’ on his bloody shovel wordpress page that make a convincing argument.
This reminded me of Zora Neale Hurston’s story of Man’s Strength and Woman’s Three Keys, one each to the Bedroom, the Kitchen, and the Generations. In the West, women won’t have sex with their husbands on demand (if they married at all), can’t cook, and reproduce below replacement rate. What reason do men have to use their strength to defend women? What incentive is there to step up, exactly? To harness what Dalrock termed The Patriarchal Dividend?
Pingback: It must be exhausting. | Dalrock
Pingback: The modern Christian fear of life, the universe, and everything. – Adam Piggott
Pingback: Some Christian conservatives bow down for feminists
Pingback: Hysteria grips Man-Up Headquarters. | Dalrock
Pingback: Secrets about Father’s Day - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: What happened to our men that our women are forced to have such big dicks? | Dalrock
Pingback: Russell Moore: We lost the culture war. Now prepare to welcome the refugees! | Dalrock