Glenn Stanton closes his article Manhood is not natural* with an odd question:
The question is, how can we recover manhood today? We must find the answer. For it is not only the fate of men that is at stake, but the fate of our women, children, and society as well.
The question is odd because Stanton has just explained how good men are made. According to Stanton and his philosophical father Gilder, good men are made by the magical civilizing power of women’s sexuality. According to this thesis, women naturally just know what is good, and use the power between their legs to create civilization by steering men. In a separate youtube video, Stanton explained that he was a sort of Peter Pan manboy until his wife took charge and made him into a man:
My situation, I grew up as a skateboarder in the panhandle of Florida. Surfer. I was a good kid, didn’t get involved in drugs, didn’t do bad things. But that was my life. School, I didn’t spend a whole lot of time in that. So I continued in that, after I got married and Jackie said, “you know what Glenn, here’s how it’s going to be” and what did I do? Okay, I guess I’m going to have to go to college. I was scared to death of college. Didn’t think I could survive there. Didn’t think I could compete there. But this woman was making me do something, this either or, so I went and did it and I became a better person.
Again, I would have never imagined that I get to do the things that I get to do today. Written a number of books, things like that. But I am who I am because Jackie said not you can do it, you will do it. And every man here knows that that’s true. So the bargaining chip for the man is, it’s going to work out better for me if I be what she wants me to be.
It’s quieter at home, she’s more likely to make the kind of food I like, I’m going to get physical access to her more often…
Yet Stanton also is arguing that the reason women are choosing single motherhood (in any number of ways) is because the men they encounter are Peter Pan manboys, just like he was before his mommy-wife married him and took charge:
The majority of women want marriage and babies, and usually quite dearly. They don’t need to be talked into them and never really have. Ask women today their biggest obstacle to achieving this goal. It’s not a shortage of males, but of responsible adult males. Men. If they cannot find marriageable men, they often go with other choices. It’s no coincidence that the two fastest growing family formation trends are unmarried cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing among twenty- and thirty-something women.
Stanton has been making this case for years, including in his 2011 book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity:
If women can’t find good men to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do man or getting babies from him without marriage. Unfortunately, this describes exactly the new shape of family growth in Western nations by exploding margins…
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.
Which is it? Do women naturally marry Peter Pan manboys and turn them into good men, like Stanton’s wife did? Or faced with men like Stanton to marry, do women instead naturally opt for a life of promiscuity?
This is the dilemma. Stanton wants to blame men for the fall of civilization while giving women credit for civilizing men. How do you put women in charge while claiming that men are responsible for every bad outcome? One seemingly promising answer would be to blame fathers for not making Peter Pan manboys like they used to, and Stanton indeed makes this case:
Manhood Is Taught
The opposite is true of manhood. As George Gilder explains pointedly in Men and Marriage, “Unlike a woman, a man has no civilized role or agenda inscribed in his body.” The boy has no onboard GPS directing him toward his future. His transition into manhood can only come into being with significant, intentional work by other men. As a behavior, manhood must be learned, proven, and earned. As an identity, manhood must be bestowed by a boy’s father and the community’s larger fraternity of men. His mother can only affirm it. She cannot bequeath it.
But then Stanton directly contradicts this by arguing that fathers are (and should be) just the pawns of mothers, who do the mother’s bidding.
The woman is not only the stabilizing force of male sexuality; she is the authorizing factor in fatherhood. If a particular man desires to be involved in the life of his child, it is the child’s mother, and she alone, who determines whether and how he may do this.
If this is the case, blaming fathers is just a round about way of blaming mothers! And it doesn’t help to take it back another generation, or 50 generations.
The only way to get around this circular logic would be to posit that somehow, women’s vaginas have either lost their way and are no longer beacons that can be trusted to point to goodness, or they still point to goodness, but they have lost their power. I won’t speculate on which of these possibilities would be more horrifying to Stanton and the women he is pandering to, but it is clear that neither suits his goal of denying women’s responsibility for their own sins while crediting women as the source of civilization.
*H/T MikeJJ
Is Stanton solipsistic? Assuming “all men are just like me, so the need a mommywife to raise them”, perhaps?
The dilemma would be fun to put to him and the hens that follow him, because it is more of an emotional dilemma, not so much a logical one. Most likely response would be along the lines of “That’s not what i / he meant!” followed by a lot of squid ink.
In anticipation of some of the usual objections: Glenn Stanton of “Focus on the Family” fame is a figure of significance in Protestant churches, his writings are often cited with approval by pastors across the US. He’s a leader, and therefore his writing and reasoning (such as it is) can be and should be examined. Stanton has made statements that can be tested.
Testing every statement is fair, reasonable and necessary. Because garbage like Staton’s is being taught to boys and men every week. Stanton is part of the problem.
Pingback: Stanton’s dilemma | @the_arv
@Anon Reader
Even worse, Stanton’s job at Focus on the Family is Director of Family Formation Studies. His whole professional life is dedicated to understanding and teaching how families form, and he is painfully lost in this area.
I’m going to get physical access to her more often…
Wow. Not often, but “more often”? Sign me up.
This is the Catch-22. Do we actually think less of his wife for this sad state of affairs? I don’t.
Stanton: “The woman is not only the stabilizing force of male sexuality; she is the authorizing factor in fatherhood.”
God: “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Eph. 6:4 KJV
Which one is correct? Choose wisely.
Dalrock,
Thanks for having this blog, it helped illustrate to me why my church and my beliefs in scripture were so incongruent. I have been reading here for many years, though this is my first comment.
Thanks to this blog, and others like it, I came to realize that my church was far more churchian than Christian, and when my pastor retired, the true faith of the congregation became apparent. I pulled my family out of the church we had been members of for a decade and began looking for a new spiritual home. That was last summer.
Today we found our home, and I want to share my experiences. The epistle lesson today was ephesians 5:22-33. It caught my attention immediately that the pastor didn’t choose to start with verse 25. I thought to myself, there is no way he is touching that in his lesson, yet after the gospel, the pastor dove right in.
He started off with gay marriage being against God’s law, then went into men needing to lead, but avoided the weak men forcing women to lead as well as all the other tropes the CBMW profess and explained even though men are not perfect, they still must lead. He then spent the next fifteen minutes discussing female rebellion, their requirement to submit and to respect their husband’s, with specific examples. He admonished and attacked the present culture as being wicked to God’s laws and society’s marriage not being God’s marriage.
I cannot describe my feelings during the sermon. Definitely didn’t expect that from a married mid twenties pastor with a child. I wanted to share this with you all because without Dalrock and the many commenters here, I fear I would still be lost unable to explain or process why so much of my church experience was unaligned with scripture. So thank you.
[D: Welcome Clay]
“7If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?”
Heb 12:7-9 KJV
The writer of Hebrews speaks of earthly fathers having authority as a type of the Heavenly Father having authority, including the authority to chasten the disobedient. Does Stanton believe the our Heavenly Father must receive permission from earthly women to exercise dominion? The Bible teaches that God the Father, and He alone, is the authorizing force for fathers to train up their children. Stanton, by his teaching, spits at God and His authority, and instead literally worships a mortal woman on earth in God’s place. Stanton has brought a new gospel contrary to the revealed word of the apostles. Anathema upon him and all who ape his teachings.
Honestly, I mean how can what he is advocating be described as anything other than “figure-headship”? Technically the head, but only because wife allows, and only to the extent she authorizes, and only to the extent you do what she wants and get your reward like a good little boy … but you’re still the “head”, in terms of being responsible if anything goes wrong.
This is heads I win, tails you lose. It’s nonsensical on its face, quite apart from being entirely and utterly divorced from Christian teaching on marriage and family.
What a farce. Everyone would have been better off if he’d stuck with surfing, to be honest. That’s obviously more his speed.
How lost we are as a civilization when we give in to this absurdity. Vaginas, like penises, are symbolic organs of reproduction and garner attention by the infantile mind. Both men and women need to strive for relationships based on mutual trust and respect, but alas we hardly ever find that relationship the first time and sometimes even the second or third time. By that point babies are born and are often doomed to repeat the pattern.
If the wife is responsible for the husband making his choices, then at some point the husband will rebel against this “mommy” influence and transgress. Women are naturally born to maturation because of physiological changes that have them care for themselves and necessary offspring. It’s what I call the Female Principle in my blog , The Shrew. It’s an influential principle but by no means the most important.
In a separate youtube video, Stanton explained that he was a sort of Peter Pan manboy until his wife took charge and made him into a man:
Up until just a very few years ago, any man who made a statement like this one would have been quite justifiably mocked, jeered at, ridiculed, ostracized, nd basically had his “man card” revoked until such time as he recovered his genitalia and, long with them, some semblance of masculine self-respect.
That Stanton’s attitude as displayed here is considered mainstream in so much of Christianity today shows how deeply the rot has set in. At a minimum, a campaign of ridicule and mockery of Stanton, as well as of any “church” or “Christian” organization that airs his viewpoints is an essential first step.
Stanton, by his teaching, spits at God and His authority, and instead literally worships a mortal woman on earth in God’s place. Stanton has brought a new gospel contrary to the revealed word of the apostles. Anathema upon him and all who ape his teachings.
One would so very much like to believe that this is all just naive delusion, that Stanton and ilk just don’t really know what they’re talking about. Unfortunately, for that to be the case, Stanton would have to be ignorant of Scripture. Much as I would like to think that this is the case, based on bountiful circumstancial evidence, reality just doesn’t lend itself to this possibility. A man of Stanton’s position doesn’t attain it by being ignorant of Scripture’s message. The only conclusion to be drawn is that Stanton either 1) knows full well what Scripture says, but rejects it, consciously or otherwise, or 2) doesn’t believe that Scripture is the inerrant Word of God, especially when it gets in thr way of modernism. Either of these is wholly plausible.
Stanton: “The majority of women want marriage and babies, and usually quite dearly. They don’t need to be talked into them and never really have.”
Every single abortion that happens in the West, happens only with the mother’s written authorization. “Please kill my baby. I don’t want it. Signed, ((the mother))”
manhood must be bestowed by a boy’s father
Maybe Glenn Stanton grew up without a father, I don’t know, but if he did have one around he has called him out for failure to raise Glenn to manhood. The daughter-in-law had to do it.
The article is so over the top with man bad/woman good that it would have bothered me even in the old days when I was still conditioned to accept such notions.
These are the ideas of The Director of Family Formation Studies? We can’t be far from that return to goddess fertility worship that Novaseeker was talking about.
The Shrew says:
Both men and women need to strive for relationships based on mutual trust and respect,
Equalitarian feminist nonsense. Women have no need for respect, they have a need to be desired as every romfic ever written makes clear. Men have a need for respect, but the contentious nature of women compounded by feminist YouGoGrrl propaganda makes it increasingly difficult for the average man to find a woman even remotely capable of respect.
The opposite of respect is contempt. Contempt is one of the 4 marriage killers.
but alas we hardly ever find that relationship the first time and sometimes even the second or third time.
Your rationalization hamster is showing itself.
By that point babies are born and are often doomed to repeat the pattern.
If the wife is responsible for the husband making his choices, then at some point the husband will rebel against this “mommy” influence and transgress.
Most wives can’t take responsibility for their own choices. That doesn’t stop them from demanding authority over their husbands, though.
Women are naturally born to maturation because of physiological changes that have them care for themselves and necessary offspring.
You confuse mental maturation with physical. Teenagers can care for themselves and children…
It’s what I call the Female Principle in my blog , The Shrew. It’s an influential principle but by no means the most important.
“Principle” and “Female” are two words that do not go together.
Unlike the Female Imperative…
Maybe Glenn Stanton grew up without a father,
More likely a milquetoast castrato whose wife ruled the roost. For all practical purposes, though, it amounts to the same thing in terms of its affect on boys.
Dear Freeriker,
From my reading, I would conclude that Stanton knows what scripture says, but rejects it, most likely subconsciously. Nevertheless, he is still fully culpable for propagating destructive heresy. It is possible that he rejects Pauline teaching as most modernist do while still purporting to be a Christian, but I have seen no acknowledgement of this anywhere in his works.
The passages to which I alluded are not in any shape, form or fashion obscure, nor are they debated as canonical by the sola scriptura believers. Stanton simply rejects their teaching out of hand as it conflicts with his parroting of Gilder’s anti-patriarchal propaganda.
Did she pick his major for him? Dress him before he went to class? Give him lunch money? Did he have to put gas in the gas before he came home? He did this all by himself? Wow! He obviously gets a gold star! He has published books! He now will get more access to her???????
Looks like he married a “mommy” yet he has the gall to tell me about “manhood”
okrahead says:
January 14, 2018 at 3:41 pm
Wholly concur. It would be fascinating to see Stanton cornered and forced to either admit to the error of his ways in the face of Scripture’s clear message, or to admit that he rejects its message and therefore needs to stop calling himself a Christian and form new cult that centers on estrogen worship.
He’s treating his wife as his mother. That’s all this is.
None of this is how God ordered marriage or the family. It is dysfunctional.
seventiesjason says:
January 14, 2018 at 3:43 pm
And of course she proofreads, edits, and gives her stamp of approval on everything he publishes.
He’s treating his wife as his mother. That’s all this is.
None of this is how God ordered marriage or the family. It is dysfunctional.
Although it’s probably about as likely to happen as Lady GaGa taking vows as a nun, I would imagine that the day Stanton swallows a red pill, realizes that his wife holds his balls, demands them back, and starts acting like the head of his marriage is the day that his wife will serve him with divorce papers – along with allegations of “abuse,” of course.
It’s pretty amazing how Scripture pretty much puts to rest this false reality a lot of these churchians are trying to create. I would hope at some point feminism is called a heresy.
Dear Earl,
Feminism is a heresy. Although I’m sure you actually meant a council of bishops.
feeriker,
And of course she proofreads, edits, and gives her stamp of approval on everything he publishes.
Even though if she were to ever write an article of her own, it would be a single, 800-word paragraph.
“This is the dilemma. Stanton wants to blame men for the fall of civilization while giving women credit for civilizing men. How do you put women in charge while claiming that men are responsible for every bad outcome?”
This makes sense if you believe men are responsible, but women are in charge.
But no one is going to be so honest about that belief. What we see is circumlocution intended to distract and reframe with each subsection and argument.
‘This makes sense if you believe men are responsible, but women are in charge.’
It also then would make sense how a woman is in charge but never responsible…and a man isn’t in charge but is always responsible. That rationalizes that women are always good and men are always evil.
If women can’t find good men to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do man or getting babies from him without marriage.
When given a choice, most women choose tingles they do
@The Shrew,
I agree, and second everything Anonymous Reader wrote to you above. Your comment is contrary to basic, Christian teaching. I recommend Christian women skip your blog; there are better things to read.
Can’t possibly be female promiscuity could it?
There’s been much talk on Dalrock about the coming sexbots. I suppose this was inevitable:
tranny sexbots: https://nypost.com/2018/01/12/transgender-sex-robots-are-coming-to-a-bedroom-near-you/
I just realized that my life can’t be explained. Apparently I’m some sort of phenomenon. I’ve actually been responsible, all by myself! I’ve tried to make wise choices and apply myself in life and I’ve succeeded quite well. How can this be explained when I’ve never been married? Somehow, I was able to find the motivation to pull my cart through life with without having a manipulative-mommy-vagina-god to control me. Even without a wife’s magical trinket being dangled before me I still took care of my business in life and can easily financially afford to retire in my 40’s. I maintain my home, cars, pay my bills, taxes, wipe my own ass and everything! What the hell is wrong with me?
Even though if she were to ever write an article of her own, it would be a single, 800-word paragraph.
LOL! No doubt about it!
Your comment is contrary to basic, Christian teaching. I recommend Christian women skip your blog; there are better things to read.
She doesn’t call herself “The Shrew” for nothing, and is clearly proud of what that moniker implies. One doesn’t even have to visit her blog to know that its contents are pure poison meant to corrupt weak women.
You had too much toxic masculinity coursing through your veins.
Reading Stanton’s perspective make me want to throw up. Can only imagine what God feels about it.
Even without a wife’s magical trinket being dangled before me I still took care of my business in life and can easily financially afford to retire in my 40’s. I maintain my home, cars, pay my bills, taxes, wipe my own ass and everything! What the hell is wrong with me?
Since you haven’t had a 150+-pound ball and chain around your ankle for most of your adult life and have been able to invest and save your money wisely for yourself, that puts you in little Glenny Stanton’s crosshairs. In fact, your statement that you’ll probably be able to retire before you’re 50 will lead him to predict that you’ll become a middle-aged Peter Pan man-boy who will spend his last three decades living life for himself when you should be working yourself into an early grave for an entitled and ungrateful vagina.
I must point out to Messrs Stanton and Gilder, that NO civilization, no institution has ever propagated itself beyond 5 generations when women are in charge.
Consider this: Anthropologists have toured the world. They have visited every corner of it. They have analysed, time and again, every culture. They have also done so historically.
Their conclusions: The Amazons were a complete myth. The Spartans, unbeatable on the battlefield, complacently gave more and more power to their women. The birthrate dropped and they were gone. Polynesian tribes required men to hunt, for if they did not, the tribe with animal protein would supplant the vegetarians, simply out-competing them with extra health. Every empire, from the Romans onward, had men in charge of it. Even the British Empire, at its zenith under Queen Victoria, had men doing the dirty work in it. Çhristian Europe’s great architecture and engineering had men running it.
Stanton’s claim that women civilize men doesn’t withstand the historical test. Women’s rights ruins civilizations because the matriarchal family leads to the ghetto, the slum and the favela.
Whenever women are ”in charge”, as they demand to be, the civilization, be it a tribe or a society, turns into one of those countries that Donald Trump labelled honestly in recent days.
I wanted to leave a comment at Stanton’s site but I didn’t see anywhere that allowed comments. I don’t think he has thought this through very clearly. And that is unfortunate since he is supposed to be some mentor on family dysfunction.
Stanton’s story is not uncommon. Many men have their potential waiting dormant until the prospect of family formation awakens it and they seek out a means to provide for more than themselves. Part of the reason we have Peter Pan men now is that women are putting off marriage or are unmarriagible and so young men have no reason to become more. That strikes me as perfectly normal.
What else is normal is a man looking back at his life and seeing how important his wife has been and how much he was able to accomplish with her.
Where Stanton goes off the rails is taking these features of life, blending them with unhealthy women whorship, and turning his personal love of wife and his life story into a false instruction guide for civilization. He should be able to see the alternatives all around him- men whose ambitions raged without the prospect of women and also men whose wives pulled them down and lots of other things that should enable him to draw better conclusions – not even speaking yet of a better understanding of scripture or human nature.
Pingback: Stanton’s dilemma | Reaction Times
I found the Shrew blog. It’s not where she links to. Pretty well unreadable, which is not too surprising once you see the About page. Imagine “Unitarian doctrine”, as though that were a thing, and you get the idea. Yet another testimony to the truth of prohibiting women from teaching in the assembly.
She is kind of cute, though, sincere smile, girlish haircut, little bit of gray and all.
As a non Christian, I have a question about Stanton and pastors like him. I may have asked this before (can’t remember) but where do pastors like him come from? Pastors attend seminaries (I think) to gain their qualifications so either the seminaries are preaching a leftist doctrine or the pastors themselves are taking these liberties.
IBB
I wanted to leave a comment at Stanton’s site but I didn’t see anywhere that allowed comments.
Duh.
Kevin
Stanton’s story is not uncommon. Many men have their potential waiting dormant until the prospect of family formation awakens it and they seek out a means to provide for more than themselves.
Clearly you didn’t read Stanton’s story. Also your “women bring out the best in men” is facile at best, outright pedestalization at worst.
IBB
I wanted to leave a comment at Stanton’s site but I didn’t see anywhere that allowed comments.
Duh.
Even if he did allow comments, the kind we here would leave would never get past moderstion.
I might have been able to “correct him” in a way that he might have let through. I’ve done that many times before on other blogs where I differed in thought process from the blog creator. The thing is, to talk to them intelligently and give them the benefit of the doubt, not be a troll.
What we got from both sexes is what happens when God and morality are kicked out the door.
A young man can certainly become more without marriage…St. Paul points this out when he talks about how he wished everyone was like him.
I might have been able to “correct him” in a way that he might have let through. I’ve done that many times before on other blogs where I differed in thought process from the blog creator.
Doubtful. He’s quite dug in. His entire self-conception and self-worth is built around his successful worship of his wife. You’d be taking away his god(dess) — no man yields to that without one hell of a fight.
@Dota,
“Pastors attend seminaries (I think) to gain their qualifications so either the seminaries are preaching a leftist doctrine or the pastors themselves are taking these liberties.”
Most seminaries in North America and Europe have some or all professors teaching left-leaning, feel good stuff for over 100 years.
The problem is because the Seminary Model is wrong. The model for churches in the New Testament was for young leaders to learn by doing, and by being mentored by older leaders within each church. The emphasis was on practical, hands on learning. You can also see this by how Jesus trained his 12 disciples.
Stanton, by his teaching, spits at God and His authority, and instead literally worships a mortal woman on earth in God’s place. Stanton has brought a new gospel contrary to the revealed word of the apostles. Anathema upon him and all who ape his teachings.
That is why this is a goddess cult. Pastorbators run goddess cults.
feeriker,
that puts you in little Glenny Stanton’s crosshairs.
Yes. Their greed about forcibly transferring resources from men to women would put even the most hardened Communist to shame.
Cuckservatives are extremely enthusiastic about state-backed wealth transfer. Their only condition is that the payer be male and recipient be female. If this sole condition is met, they are very enthusiastic Communists.
His entire self-conception and self-worth is built around his successful worship of his wife. You’d be taking away his god(dess) — no man yields to that without one hell of a fight.
So why isn’t his wife divorcing him? His behavior is obviously repulsive to her, and he encourages other women to seek their cash and prizes. So why can’t this woman do the same?
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
So do you follow God’s will or your wife’s?
Off-topic, but I suspect VERY interesting to Dalrock, is an essay (with links to data) showing how certain groups of higher-income U.S. women (presumably nearly all white) are having their fecundity increase relative to other women, presumably because they can increasingly afford household help. It also mentions briefly at the end that the nationwide push to massively increase minimum wages (I believe most especially in liberal bastion cities and states) is a recent move, that to the degree it is successful, would substantially undo this trend.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/01/careers-families-high-skilled-women-age-high-inequality.html
Gunner Q says:
January 14, 2018 at 3:19 pm
“Stanton: “The majority of women want marriage and babies, and usually quite dearly. They don’t need to be talked into them and never really have.””
“Every single abortion that happens in the West, happens only with the mother’s written authorization. “Please kill my baby. I don’t want it. Signed, ((the mother))””
==================================================================
Clearly Stanton has never read Sylvia Ann Hewlett’s book “Creating A Life”, where she notes that that the bulk of ultra-high-achieving women have NO children, that those that do, tend to have only one (birthed later in life and thus less genetically healthy, a putting her priorities over the kid’s health), and in general have poor marital histories, if any.
“Even without a wife’s magical trinket being dangled before me”
Yeah that one tucked somewhere behind her overhanging gut 8 times out of 10 for modern Anglo husbands. Mystical, civilization shaping stuff
“Looks like he married a “mommy” yet he has the gall to tell me about “manhood”
I don’t know what’s weirder: a man who’s married a facsimile of his own mother, or the fathers who take their daughters to those purity balls where the daughters proclaim that (I kid you not) “my daddy is my boyfriend.” In both cases, it’s just some creepy Oedipal complexes going on. Or maybe it’s just cases of overly attached to family, or as Major Payne would colorfully put it, not being able to put his mother’s titty out of his mouth.
I am sure Focus on The Family (re Female) gets most of it’s cash from women. Stanton’s wife is pulling the strings behind the scenes no doubt.
The woman is not only the stabilizing force of male sexuality; she is the authorizing factor in fatherhood. If a particular man desires to be involved in the life of his child, it is the child’s mother, and she alone, who determines whether and how he may do this.
This is the Gospel according to Feminism.
Somehow, this creature, who once plunged the whole of humanity into the abyss of God’s curse, and cost the Son of God His life in his efforts to dig us out, has now been endowed with such deep wisdom to teach that which she knows nothing about.
Imagine a grandpa trying to explain the trials of pregnancy to his newly pregnant granddaughter.
“You will feel a pressure in your lower belly; you may also feel cold….or hot…or happy..or sad…”
There is no woman, dead or alive, who is qualified to teach masculinity. It’s like a blind person trying to describe the beauty of a flower, or a deaf person trying to extol the wonders of Beethoven.
So do you follow God’s will or your wife’s?
The churchian cuck will claim that they’re one and the same.
So why isn’t his wife divorcing him? His behavior is obviously repulsive to her, and he encourages other women to seek their cash and prizes. So why can’t this woman do the same?
Her husband is her sock puppet, one who gives her visibility and influence even as she controls him from behind the scenes. If she were to divorce him, she’d lose all that power.
No doubt she finds him sexually repulsive, but the power that comes from him being her bitch makes it worth suffering through.
First comment by AR is correct. This type if thing is met with approval in those circles and works it’s way into what young men are taught. It’s cited as trustworthy research and remains unexamined.
I didn’t think it was so recent when I first found it. They really learn nothing. Things will get worse and they’ll just double down.
When I think of how I persevered through the culture war and how my relatives played a part, this expression comes to mind: “I perservered IN SPITE OF them, not BECAUSE OF them.”
This means credit should not in any way go to these liberal virtue signalling baby boomers. In fact, I would have been better off without their influence continuously trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
This is outrageous and insulting. Men DID civilize the world. Men have been the primary drivers of every invention known to man, including the bra, as bra burning feminists are quick to point out. The big glaring elephant in the room is that the person who would drive men’s maturity and give them purpose has almost totally been removed from the picture: His father.
“How do you put women in charge while claiming that men are responsible for every bad outcome?”
This part is easy. Just listen to any woman argue for five minutes.
From his bio: guess the wife didn’t want the last name.
“First thing you must know, Glenn is privileged to have been the husband of Jacqueline Kay Barnes…”
Mike,
That could have been her name prior to marriage. I have seen that in many places where it is no longer the case, so that doesn’t prove the point.
This man’s delusions of the power of women is the exact reason Western Society is in this mess. By telling those who build society, who protect it, who provide for it, that they are nothing if not expendable and not really needed at all, gives these men the impression that they really shouldn’t sacrifice for such a society. If they’re not really needed, after all, society won’t mind at all if they decide to enjoy themselves. Women have got this all sorted out.
I’m sure Stanton would agree. Women can step up and do all the work, raise all the children and fight all the wars. Men are not needed.
Call their bluff.
@: ” Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity”
______________
I chuckle at that title and punchline.
First, the term “secure daughters.” I’ve never heard a woman say she feels insecure in a situation when she is actually insecure. A lot of our problems today is women feel too secure in situations that should terrify them. They should be afraid to sleep with felons, afraid to get impregnated by irresponsible men, and afraid of divorcing a good husband, and afraid of the consequences of adultery. See Dalrock’s amusement park post for better insight.
Second, “confident sons.” Alpha bastards are confident. Narcissists are confident. PUA’s are confident. Men who commit adultery are confident. Respectable husbands are constantly tore down and punished (therefore destroying their confidence, by legal force if necessary), and unless we deal with that, raising men to be confident won’t help much… not unless we want more confident douchebags on our hands.
Finally, WTH does he mean by “authentic”? Sounds a lot like female announcements that they are being “true to themselves” to me. Hypergamy is authentic. Promiscuity is authentic. Survival of the fittest is authentic. Nagging and perpetual discontentment is authentic. Biblical men and women follow God against their natural state, not in favor of it. It’s not authentic behavior, it is learned behavior that our nature will constantly try to steer us away from.
God help us.
“Glenn is privileged to have been the husband of Jacqueline Kay Barnes…”
To have been? Why the past tense? Makes it sound as if she kicked his ass to the curb or died on him.
@feministhater
“Call their bluff.”
This guy gets it. The worst thing you can do to any liberal is give them everything they say they want.
From Stanton’s article:
Womanhood is a natural phenomenon. A female’s biological make-up usually ensures that she will grow into a healthy woman. Leave her to herself, and it’s likely to happen.
False.
Since coming to the manosphere, I have never understood this argument. It’s patently false, demonstrably false.
When you leave a woman to herself, when you don’t constrain her and channel her proclivities, she becomes selfish, self-centered, self-absorbed, rude, promiscuous, slovenly, lazy, inconsiderate, uncaring, bitchy, demanding, short-sighted, overemotional, prone to overreaction, and allows emotions to rule her every thought and decision. And if you continue to let it go, she becomes an entitled demanding carousel rider.
According to Stanton and his philosophical father Gilder, good men are made by the magical civilizing power of women’s sexuality. According to this thesis, women naturally just know what is good, and use the power between their legs to create civilization by steering men.
I didn’t realize this until Dalrock and others started writing about this in the manosphere.
George Gilder is an important thinker and theoretician in modern conservatism (i.e. Goldwater/Reagan/Buckley/National Review etc.) His writings on family and social matters have formed much of the philosophical “first principles” and “first things” of modern day conservative “family values”. If anything, posts like these show us just how entrenched and firmly held beliefs like those Gilder writes about are within conservatism.
And those “first principles” have become modern day American Christian precepts. You can’t be a Christian man in America without someone thrusting at you your “duty” to be a husband and father, and that everything you want is bad while everything your girlfriend/wife wants is good. If she’s being mean to you, it’s because you did something wrong or are not giving her what she wants/needs. Your sex drive is evil and perverted. Her sex drive is good and pure. What you want is illegitimate and must be subordinated to her wants. What she wants is automatically good and right merely because she wants it. Women are just more moral, more spiritual, better at interpersonal relationships, and just all around better human beings than men are.
It’s literally everywhere in modern day Christian America.
Stnaton’s self description is not of a real ‘Peter Pan’, but of an alpha douchebag; and that his wife converted him to an full alpha (one of the few ways a woman can turn a man toward civilization.
A ‘Peter Pan’ knows that not all women make mothers. and so Peter is always testing Wendy as a mother of the Lost Boys (and ultimately, of Peter’s children), while Wendy just wants sex.
Okrahead, it’s not a new gospel, it’s the oldest gospel, that of Original Sin. Men have been worshipping the creation instead of the Creator since Adam. It’s only through the New Adam, Jesus Christ, that both men and women have been able to break out of these old patterns. Thanks to Dalrock for illuminating that truth to so many.
Dota @ January 14, 2018 at 6:31 pm:
“As a non Christian, I have a question about Stanton and pastors like him. I may have asked this before (can’t remember) but where do pastors like him come from? Pastors attend seminaries (I think) to gain their qualifications so either the seminaries are preaching a leftist doctrine or the pastors themselves are taking these liberties.”
It isn’t just the seminaries. It’s clergy self-selecting for cowardice. Most Prot pastors found their ‘calling’ as early as high school and went from school to college to seminary to preaching from the pulpit. Few to no life experiences, monkey-branching through ivory towers bombarded by leftist thought which always sounds very good to people who don’t work in the private sector, following the predictable steps to an overpaid life of helping everybody feel good about themselves. Small wonder if they end up “Christian leaders” with not even a vestigial backbone.
Women sniff these pastors out in seminary. I’ve personally seen a shark tank of Christian women fighting each other to date the seminary guys because they’re the crown princes of the Prot world, destined to reach high positions as soon as the old guys wander off. Consequently, pastors have no awareness of or sympathy for the Average Frustrated Chump’s marital troubles.
For Protestants, seminaries must be destroyed not reformed. Getting rid of them would not only destroy that safe, straight life path that cowards seek out; it would force churches to foster their own talent instead of recruiting outsiders. That would force entryists to corrupt every single church in America instead of a dozen or so bureaucracies.
Feminism is all about not needing men or thinking they are expendable like an animal or machine and then wondering where all the good men are. It’s a mental illness.
“Women sniff these pastors out in seminary. I’ve personally seen a shark tank of Christian women fighting each other to date the seminary guys because they’re the crown princes of the Prot world, destined to reach high positions as soon as the old guys wander off. Consequently, pastors have no awareness of or sympathy for the Average Frustrated Chump’s marital troubles.”
Wish I could refute this. And if his daddy was a pastor….
Off Topic: “Why Women Prefer Male Bosses”
“Studies show that when women have a preference, they would choose to have a male boss instead of a female boss. Participants in one study described their female bosses as ’emotional’, ‘catty’, or ‘bitchy’. Where does this aversion to female bosses come from? And why do some women seem to undercut each other at work?”
Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/549818/women-prefer-male-bosses/
@ Gunner Q says:
January 15, 2018 at 11:45 am
“Most Prot pastors found their ‘calling’ as early as high school and went from school to college to seminary to preaching from the pulpit. Few to no life experiences, monkey-branching through ivory towers bombarded by leftist thought which always sounds very good to people who don’t work in the private sector, following the predictable steps to an overpaid life of helping everybody feel good about themselves.”
Two of the best pastors I’ve ever met became Christians as adults, worked in construction as general contractors before becoming pastors, and never attended seminary. They both apprenticed under older pastors for years, and when the older pastor deemed them ready, they were sent out to plant a new church.
Similarly, the best Army chaplain I ever met began his military career as an enlisted Marine infantryman.
There’s a big difference between a man who spent his young adulthood in a harsh world of men, being sharpened by other men, and a man who spent it as a perfumed academic prince.
@TheDeti:
Yes, demonstrated in Genesis. The result of “the fall” is that every descendent of Adam and Eve is inherently sinful. You’d think a so-called pastor would understand that, but instead he preaches blatant heresy. And yet so-called Christians still listen to him.
Note to all men who attend church: your pastor/priest/whatever is not your authority. Only God is your authority. Your pastor’s role is “guide”. He may be a good guide; he may be a blind guide. It is your responsibility to know which he is.
@Splashman
“Note to all men who attend church: your pastor/priest/whatever is not your authority. Only God is your authority. Your pastor’s role is ‘guide’.”
I think Hebrews 13 would refute that. But one of my favorite perverse pasttimes is to take the things pastors say define a husband’s authority and apply them to pastors. Like “If the pastor doesn’t humble himself to your will to make you happy, he’s out of the will of God.”
Strange it never seems to work like that.
“Women sniff these pastors out in seminary. I’ve personally seen a shark tank of Christian women fighting each other to date the seminary guys because they’re the crown princes of the Prot world, destined to reach high positions as soon as the old guys wander off. Consequently, pastors have no awareness of or sympathy for the Average Frustrated Chump’s marital troubles.”
Yep, men and women in Prot world get all their teaching from seminary grads and whatever the guitar worship leader says between sounds. Most get free high status passes that they are blind to and project that ever other guy is lazy and childish.
“The majority of women want marriage and babies, and usually quite dearly.”
I can’t find any, I’ve seen maybe 1-3 in my life. They are not even riding the carousel, they have just been conditioned that they should never put effort into the process and the churchian system creates the status bands for men cutting off after Church staff.
Daddy big government has reduced background dread for women with welfare and alimony and the church piles on to reduce dread by telling them every week to stop thinking about being single and don’t try to improve.
Background dread (aka reality) is what forms marriages and keeps marriages together and different societies have tried to immorally hide it to varying degrees.
Yes AnonS, it seems obvious that once women have their basic needs taken care of, they lose interest in Betas and select Alphas. That’s true even if those Betas could provide a marginally higher quality of life.
@Squid,
Which part? vs. 17, or vv. 7-9? Context, context, context.
God does not contradict himself via scripture. If we are told to submit to our [pastor’s] authority, and also told not to blindly follow that authority, then “authority” does not mean what you think it means.
Under OT covenant, people could not communicate directly with God. The High Priest was the only conduit of God’s Word. When Jesus died, God tore the thick curtain in the Temple which separated “The Holy Place” (where all priests were allowed) from “The Holiest Place” (where only the High Priest was allowed, as he communicated with God), thus symbolizing: a) job of human High Priest had been abolished; Jesus (The Word / Scripture) was now the only conduit to God, and b) people (the new priesthood) could now communicate directly with God via relationship with Jesus.
“Leaders” (pope/pastors/priests/elders) only have the authority we give them. They are not God to us. Given they are human thus sinful, it is best to a) give them as little authority as necessary to achieve growth, and b) constantly re-evaluate their fitness to lead, based on God’s criteria (i.e., 1 Tim 3-4 and Titus 1). Following an unqualified leader is both foolish and sin, and I’m willing to bet that 95%+ of all current leaders are unqualified in God’s eyes.
@Splashman
You stated that we have no authorities except God. That’s inaccurate. The same arguments you just made can be used by a woman to say she doesn’t have to obey her husband. After all, he’s just her guide.
It doesn’t say pray for those that guide you. It says pray for those that have the rule over you. Rule indicates authority. It is specific to role and context, but your statement is incorrect. I’ll let you splice the hairs on who these people are, specifically, but I think it’s pretty obvious in the context.
The only way to get around this circular logic would be to posit that somehow, women’s vaginas have either lost their way and are no longer beacons that can be trusted to point to goodness, or they still point to goodness, but they have lost their power.
Unrestrained hypergamy, feminism, widespread teen porn.
Put another way, “my body, my choice”.
Or another, the pill and Roe v Wade.
All are disruptive to the created order.
Point of failure: the transformation of boring old chivalry of protecting a woman’s honour to the far more salacious fantasy that Adam’s sin excuses Eve’s. Satan wants us to want the daughters of Eve to sin.
Solution: stop the watching, the wanting and the whining. Not necessarily a return to Patriarchy, but the systematic destruction of feminism and its rotten fruits, and the inoculation of boys and girls against further infection. Start now.
uxorious
adjective ux·o·ri·ous \ ˌək-ˈsȯr-ē-əs , ˌəg-ˈzȯr- \
Definition of uxorious
: excessively fond of or submissive to a wife
— uxoriously adverb
— uxoriousness noun
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uxorious
” As a near perfect human, Adam is ruled by reason. He immediately understands Eve’s sin in eating the apple, but he willfully ignores his reason and eats because of his love and desire for her. Adam’s uxorious attitude toward Eve, which perverts the hierarchy of Earth and Paradise, leads directly to his fall.”
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/p/paradise-lost/character-analysis/adam
Stanton: “It’s quieter at home, she’s more likely to make the kind of food I like, I’m going to get physical access to her more often…”
@seventiesjason
Looks like he married a “mommy” yet he has the gall to tell me about “manhood”
It’s the original sin of the American family. Carl Jung noticed it a century ago.
http://web.archive.org/web/20121018203703/http://www.welmer.org/2009/08/13/carl-jung-founding-father-of-game/
Since the wife is the mommy, the daughter is the sweetheart. This is why feminism is more virulent in America.
In a sense, Stanton is right that manhood is not natural, but womanhood is not natural either, if we define “natural” as “we need to be educated about our roles to be good members of society”.
Note how this makes “natural” dependent on societal norms. We all know from experience what that means if you’re living in a feminist society.
In contrast, as Christians we should ask ourselves, what is God’s purpose for men, and what is God’s purpose for women? We turn to Scripture to find answers. What we find is a message that has been discarded by many churches in favor of feminism: women should follow, men should lead, women should respect, men should sacrificially love women, and both man and women yield their bodies for sex in monogamous marriage.
I don’t care for “natural”, I care for God’s purpose.
Of course, to be complete, for men there is even a better perspective than marriage: stay single and serve the Lord.
Isn’t there some sense where the “woman civilizes the man” is true, or am I conflating two different ideas? In other words, the lament about the Peter Pan man-boys not desiring to achieve much in life, because there’s no reward for them in marriage, or the women are not choosing them, so therefore they don’t try too hard to better themselves, and this is understandable. In way then, this is saying that being able to get a nice female is a reason why young men would want to improve themselves or to become providers and have all the resources they need, instead of living at home with their parents and playing video games. Perhaps this “civilizing” is not done in the terms and conditions which Gilder says it is, but something like it is going on. Gilder’s terms for what he says is the woman’s role in civilizing men is horrendous, for sure.
@james
Exactly. And that’s why it’s so dangerous. Stanton is close to the truth, but twisted. Like the serpent.
But I will add that it’s not an active “makes” and that’s where the twist is. In the authority. A man will willingly increase his burden to give to a female he loves, it is his desire to do so. He wants to give freely. As our lord does to us. If she responds in gratitude and submission, men tend to give more freely. But if she feels entitled, or usurps him, it will have negative effect……. As our Lord does to us.
This reminds me of Dalrocks post on the Gift turned into an obligation.
[blockquote]Isn’t there some sense where the “woman civilizes the man” is true, or am I conflating two different ideas? …being able to get a nice female is a reason why young men would want to improve themselves or to become providers and have all the resources they need, instead of living at home with their parents and playing video games. Perhaps this “civilizing” is not done in the terms and conditions which Gilder says it is, but something like it is going on. Gilder’s terms for what he says is the woman’s role in civilizing men is horrendous, for sure.[/blockquote]
Don’t get the cart before the horse.
Women will always just try to peel off the top of the male hierarchy. The arrangement of the male hierarchy is created by men. In a feral state the hierarchy only cares about power and you end up with top men having harems and lower men having no options but check out or violent revolution. In a righteous hierarchy men with virtue are promoted and limited to one wife each and women begrudgingly go along; it is at this point that incentives are aligned with proper action.
Men restraining feral female behavior is what creates proper incentives for other men; which is what every major civilization in history did.
Right, it’s close to the truth, or the terms Gilder speaks in sound like true things. And it is also the cart before the horse. One of the reasons I’m dealing with this is that I have a wife and step son. My wife thinks the kid will meet a nice girl and then want to fly right and get his life together so he can have her, but he already has girlfriends or girls who are friends. She often tells the story of her uncle, who she said changed and got more serious about his life when he met his future wife in college.
(But we’re talking about the 1960s and there are other elements to the story, such as that they were both away from home, here in the US, both from the same social class in a country where that really matters and pairing up is regulated by that and both from wealthy families that if they didn’t know one another, knew of one another – so there are a lot of other factors that come into play. I don’t think the stepkid is going to be civilized by a woman, even if that were possible. But these are the pretty little lies and misinformation that my wife wants to believe about her son.)
AnonS,
You need to use greater than and less than symbols rather than brackets to accomplish blockquote. Just a note to hopefully help.
James,
It is unlikely that many such civilizing women exist today. Many do want lots of things, but fail to give the faithfulness that was an underlying part of the old system.
The old system was maintained by social pressures, especially on women. The consequence of being a slut, adulterous wife, divorced was shame. That’s all gone now thanks to decades of feminism, permissiveness of female rebellion. What’s going to motivate a woman to take care of a husband now? Why would she bother to wait for one? A personal conviction and surrender to Christ and his commandments. The church certainly isn’t teaching women accountability. The only hope you can have for women, as a collective, to behave responsibly now is to believe women are naturally good. Only fools believe that.
Hi James
I just responded to your original question with a new post. Regarding this:
I linked to a post titled More ominous than a strike at the bottom of the new post that addresses this part specifically.
They want a husband so badly they will spend years getting screwed by other men at university, getting into debt studying for degrees, waste their most fertile years in cubicles working pointless make work paper shuffling jobs and then, when they’re on their last legs, cry about how there are no good men left willing to wife them up. They expect that men will take the last drops of there rotting and dying fruit, pay off all her debts, work himself to death to raise a down syndrome baby and listen to all her stories of regret ‘rapes’ and past indiscretions with other men who enjoyed her youth and innocence, a taste of which he will never, ever get.
Woman are not serious about marriage, their actions quite obviously show this.
Stanton is either delusional or a liar. Women do not civilise men. Men are civilised by incentivising them. The authority of a man in his own home, with his own wife and his own children, guaranteed that whatever work he would be doing, whatever sacrifices he would be making, that this would go towards his own legacy. That he would be able to build his own little world to enjoy.
All that is gone and there is piss all left that calls a man to make those sacrifices anymore. Only punishment and shaming now.
Pingback: Women: the cause of, and solution to, all of society's problems • Bnonn Tennant (the B is silent)
I suppose this thread has run its course, but I had to go back through the links more than once so I can be ready when somebody I know trots out this latest Stanton article. It’s bound to happen at some point.
In the unlikely event this was not a blinding flash of the obvious – these Glenn Stanton remarks show us what “Woman in Command” looks like in a marriage:
Jackie said, “you know what Glenn, here’s how it’s going to be”…
But this woman was making me do something, this either or…
Jackie said not you can do it, you will do it.
And this is what supplicating beta-maleness looks like when a man has to try and negotiate for peace and/or sexual favors:
the bargaining chip for the man is, it’s going to work out better for me if I be what she wants me to be.
It’s quieter at home, she’s more likely to make the kind of food I like, I’m going to get physical access to her more often…
Married men, or men thinking to get married take heed.
I like the confident “I’m GOING to get a lot more physical access”! LOLZ. Yeah, I’d count on it!
I like the confident “I’m GOING to get physical access to her more often”! LOLZ. Yeah, I’d count on it!
Lost Patrol: I wrote a fairly extensive refutation to build on Dalrock’s, which you may also find helpful. Seems like we should have some material on hand since Stanton is so representative of “complementarian” thinking: https://bnonn.com/women-cause-solution-societys-problems/
Pingback: Kids these days | Dalrock